Indiana 

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

 

Prepared by: IN

 
ii 

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section [HSIP], shall not be 

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 

for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or 

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, 

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State 

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii 

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 3

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 7

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 35

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 35

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 39

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 54

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 54

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 69

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................72

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 74

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 79

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 84

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 98
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

As required under 23 U.S.C. § 148(h), the following is the annual report to the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for federal fiscal 

year (FFY) 2014. The content of this report combines information regarding the implementation 

status of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and associated sub-programs 

including the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). This combined HSIP report, does not 

include the annual rail-highway crossing safety report as required under 23 U.S.C. § 130(g). 

INDOT is exercising the option provided to the states by 23 U.S.C. § 148 guidance, of preparing 

and submitting to FHWA separate reports. 

 

The format of the annual HSIP report is in accordance with the FHWA online reporting tool. The 

focus of the report centers on development and implementation of the core federal aid safety 

program and associated safety spending in Indiana for FFY 2014, beginning October 1, 2013 

and ending on September 31, 2014. In addition to the core safety programs, this report 

discusses the ongoing evolution of the INDOT asset management program mechanism for 

setting spending priorities for all projects on roads under INDOT jurisdiction. 

 

In 2013, the estimated vehicle miles of travel increased 0.90% above 2012, while the number of 

fatalities and incapacitating (serious) injuries dropped by 6.27%. As a result, the 5-year rolling 

average rate of combined fatalities and serious injuries dropped to a rate of 0.97 per VMT in 

2013 compared to a rate of 1.01 in 2012. 

 

In FFY 2014, the expected obligation of federal safety program funds from all programs will be 

about $57.7 million dollars (by September 30, 2014). An improved level of obligation given 

changing program priorities under the INDOT asset management system was expected. 

 

All projects approved for funding in HSIP or HRRRP programs are required to address at least 

one of the emphasis areas defined in the Indiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

document. The selection and prioritization of all safety projects on roads under INDOT 

jurisdiction, including those funded with HSIP and HRRRP funds utilize asset management 

processes. The submission of the documents that describe INDOT’s countermeasure selection 

methodology originally took place in September of 2008 with the submission of the FFY 2008 

HSIP/HRRRP report. The document titled “Highway Safety Improvement Program Local Project 

Selection Guidance,” issued on December 1, 2010 and “Special Rules for Eligibility of Highway 

Safety Improvement Projects,” issued August 1, 2013, describes the selection methodology for 

local HSIP projects. 

 

For roads under INDOT jurisdiction, an established selection process for safety projects 

regardless of funding program, prioritizes locations of highest need in terms of reducing the 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

2 

severity and frequency of crashes, and to select the most appropriate and cost effective 

countermeasures available. The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) ensures that each 

candidate safety project has a cost effective choice of proposed solution(s), the eligibility for 

federal safety program funding is determined and the relative priority of the candidate project’s 

needs is established. All safety program projects address one or more of the emphasis areas 

enumerated in the Indiana SHSP. 

 

INDOT fiscal policy is to make one-third of its total FHWA apportionment from HSIP available to 

local public agencies for safety projects on local system roads. Individual Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPO), receive annual apportionments of obligation authority, while 

predetermined amounts of obligation authority are set-aside for the use of rural public highway 

agencies. The “Highway Safety Improvement Program Local Project Selection Guidance,” 

provides local agencies guidance on the structure and content of applications for HSIP and 

HRRRP project funding. INDOT maintains a web-based information source on the various state 

and local safety programs, which is accessible at, http://www.in.gov/indot/2357.htm. 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

with the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects,

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

In the State of Indiana, Local Public Agencies (LPAs) operate and maintain all local public 

roads. INDOT policy is to make one third of its total annual apportionment of HSIP funding 

available to local public agencies for safety projects on local system roads. An annual 

apportionment of obligation authority is assigned to each Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) serving Group 1 and Group 2 urban areas. A standardized population formula is used to 

determine the assigned funding made available to individual MPOs. For public agencies in rural 

(non MPO area) group 3 (incorporated cities and towns) and rural Group 4 (counties and unincorporated towns), a predetermined amount of HSIP funds are made available for funding 

eligible projects. The aforementioned population formula is also used to determine the total 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

amount of the HSIP allotted for projects located in rural areas. 

Rules have been established allowing LPAs to apply to INDOT for determination of project 

eligibility to utilized HSIP funds. These rules are contained in the INDOT guidance document 

titled, Highway Safety Improvement Program Local Project Selection Guidance. The latest 

INDOT version of this guidance document was approved by INDOT’s Highway Safety Advisory 

Committee on December 10, 2010, and is on file at the FHWA Indiana Division Office. This 

document is also posted on the INDOT web site at: 

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/LocalHSIPProjectSelectionGuidance.pdf

Guidance and outreach efforts are routinely made by INDOT and the Local Technical 

Assistance Program (LTAP), in regard to selection of HSIP and HRRRP projects. INDOT’s 

guidance to LPAs advocates the value of low cost systemic safety improvements to proactively 

address the risk of severe crashes on their entire roadway system, along with the treatment of 

locations with high risk of frequent severe crashes involving fatality or incapacitating (Class A) 

injury. Systemic projects are gaining increasing acceptance by LPAs. Notably, many 

applications have been submitted by LPAs to assist them in funding systemic projects to 

upgrade the retro-reflectivity of local regulatory and warning signs. 

In urban areas, the MPOs serving Group 1 and 2 urban areas are tasked to perform initial 

screening of proposed safety improvements and select candidate projects subject to INDOT 

determination of HSIP eligibility. To provide a similar level of planning support to rural public 

agencies, INDOT has collaborated with the Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program 

(LTAP). INDOT sponsors an ongoing program with LTAP called the Hazard Elimination Project 

for Local Roads and Streets (HELPERS) Program. The HELPERS Program coordinates with 

rural planning organizations (RPOs) as well as rural counties, cities and towns to assist them in 

identifying, analyzing and prioritizing their needs in regard to severe crash reduction. 

The HELPERS Program advises LPAs regarding management of safety risks and assists rural 

area LPAs in submitting project level funding proposals to INDOT for determination of HSIP 

project eligibility. The INDOT Office of traffic Safety makes a determination of eligibility for all 

applications to utilize HSIP or HRRRP funding.

 

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Local Agency Assistance Divison and Budget & Project Accounting Division

Other: Other-Capital Asset Management

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) leads INDOT’s coordinated efforts to identify locations 

with safety needs, plan improvements, prioritize and program traffic safety improvement projects 

on the Indiana State system of highways. OTS works with each of INDOT’s district offices, and 

the divisions of Design, Planning, Traffic Engineering, LPA & Grant Administration, Capital 

Asset Management Office and Budget Divisions. 

In the areas of finance, budget and project prioritization/programming, the Manager of the OTS 

acts as the chair to the INDOT Traffic Safety Asset Management Team to prioritize all proposed 

safety projects located on the INDOT system of highways. The six INDOT district traffic 

engineering offices act as voting members of the team and the INDOT Office of Capital Project 

Funds Management provides coordination with INDOTs other asset teams and upper 

management. The Traffic Safety Asset Management Team acts to deliberate the relative need 

and priority of proposed traffic safety projects on INDOT managed roadways. The overall 

budgeting of obligation authority for safety projects on both the state and local road systems is 

coordinated with the Division of Budget and Project Accounting. 

For approved safety projects on the state highway system, the relevant INDOT district office is 

responsible for project programming and entry of the project into the State Transportation 

Improvement Plan (STIP) and any relevant local Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). They 

also manage design and construction projects in coordination with INDOT Design and 

Construction Divisions, via a project manager assigned to the project to coordinate all project 

development tasks. 

Regarding internal coordination of local safety projects, the OTS performs review of all 

proposed projects for compliance with eligibility requirements as defined in Indiana’s Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan. Eligible projects are recommended to the INDOT Division of LPA & Grant 

Administration for funding approval and inclusion in the STIP and relevant TIP document. The 

LPA & Grants Division also develops an interagency agreement with the LPA to guide project 

development. The relevant INDOT district then assigns a project manager to coordinate 

development of the constriction project. 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

In addition, OTS consults with Design Division regarding new safety improvement design 

practices and the Office of Traffic Engineering Administration, regarding new Standards and 

Specifications. OTS also coordinates with the Research Division regarding the approval of 

safety related research efforts under the Joint Transportation Research Project (JTRP) and to 

plan implementation of successful research products.

 

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Local Technical Assistance Program

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period. 

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Project administration and funding approval resides with Division of Local Public 

Agencies and Grants Adminisration 

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

In response to the increased HSIP apportionments under MAP-21, INDOT has engaged in new 

strategies to increase the obligation of funds to construct worthy safety improvement projects. 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

The number of systemic improvement types has been expanded along with expanded selection 

of hot spot safety improvement projects. One third of the total percentage of HSIP funds is 

made available to local agencies, resulting in more opportunity to combat severe crash risk in 

both urban and rural areas. 

Regarding the process used by INDOT to conduct HSIP eligibility review for proposed local 

safety projects; urban LPAs must first submit to their local Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) for preliminary selection and funding prioritization. Rural group 3 and group 4 LPAs first 

submit their proposed projects to the LTAP HELPERS Program for compliance review, prior to 

INDOT determination of eligibility for HSIP or HRRRP funding. 

INDOT determines eligibility in accordance with the emphasis area defined in the Indiana SHSP 

and HSIP Local Project Selection Guidance documents. If a proposed local project is found to 

be eligible for HSIP or HRRRP funding, the Division of LPA and Grant Administration provides 

oversight of project agreements between INDOT and the LPA to govern project development. 

The LPA and Grant Administration Division also supports the programming of safety projects by 

administering inclusion of projects on Local and State Transportation Improvement Plans and 

authorizing funding year for, scheduling of plan development and construction contract letting. 

Once a project is placed in Active status on the INDOT scheduling system, the INDOT district 

office assigns a project manager to coordinate the design and environmental documentation 

with the project sponsor agency, designer, and various INDOT Divisions and offices in order to 

bring the project to a construction contract letting.

 

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Centerline and Other: Other-Traffic Signal 

Edgeline Rumble Stripes Visibility Improvement
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

8 

 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted ranking factors 

including safety need, roadway 

geometry and cost effectivness

50

 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-roadway conditions 

and sight distance

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors addressing 

safety need and cost effectivness

50

 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted Factors including 

safety need, roadway geometry 

and cost effectivness 

50

 

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors based on 

safety need and cost effectivness

50

 

Program: Crash Data
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors based on 

safety need and cost effectivness

50

 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Geometric Features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Retroreflectivity of Existing Signs

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 100

 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Geometric Features, 

marking and signs

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted scoring based on 

safety need and cost effectivness

50

 

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Geometrics features 

and land use

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors using safety 

need and cost effectivness

50

 

Program: Other-Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Stripes 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Paved Shoulder Width

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Weighted factors using safety 

need and cost effectivness

50

 

Program: Other-Traffic Signal Visibility Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Weighted factors using safety 

need and cost effectivness

50

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

32

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation 

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-No Change

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

INDOT is seeking to achieve a balance between obligations of HSIP funds towards 

implementation of systemic improvements and supporting safety improvements at individual 

locations with high incidence or risk of severe crash outcomes. Project identification methods 

include conducting system wide analysis to identify both individual locations with high potential 

for severe crashes or wide spread needs for systemic improvements. Also, projects may be 

programmed as a result of identification by other means such as public complaints filtered 

through one of the INDOT district offices.
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Candidate locations on roads under INDOT jurisdiction are subject to an initial engineering 

review process similar to a road safety assessment (RSA), in order to identify safety needs and 

appropriate countermeasures. The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) conducts these 

reviews with support of the INDOT district offices. 

The process used to program traffic safety projects on INDOT system roads requires selection 

and prioritization by state fiscal year. Traffic Safety Asset Management (TSAM) Team produces 

a proposed list of safety improvement projects for programming in each fiscal year. A uniform 

scoring process is utilized to provide proposed projects with weighted scores that utilize the 

history of crashes and their severity, traffic volume and road inventory data to a uniform set of 

criteria in order to assess the relative intensity of safety needs. The process also considers the 

cost effectiveness of the proposed solution and other factors to generate a weighted score that 

encompasses the relative need and effectiveness of a proposed safety improvement project. 

The TSAM team then reviews and deliberates the relative priority of each proposed project and 

assigns a priority grade for targeted fiscal year of construction. An Executive Finance 

Committee later considers the proposed projects and then ratifies the safety program for the 

target year of the TSAM Team. 

In regard to candidate projects on the local road system, OTS makes all eligibility 

determinations for HSIP and HRRRP funding. The necessary information to determine eligibility 

for HSIP/HRRRP funding typically consists of a Road Safety Audit (RSA) report. An exception is 

the submission of eligibility information for certain approved systemic project types that may be 

provided via an INDOT approved form. Projects located in metropolitan planning areas must 

first be selected by the relevant MPO prior to eligibility review by INDOT. Rural LPAs are asked 

to first work with the LTAP HELPERS Program that acts to advise the LPA and pre-screen 

applications for compliance with federal and state regulations. The HELPERS Program often 

provides valuable advice to the LPAs regarding best practices for traffic safety and facilitates the 

conduct of appropriate RSA procedures. 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 39283347 75 % 36294681.18 63 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 1901999 4 % 516448.42 1 %

HRRR Special Rule 48996 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer 

Section 164

– 10846546 21 % 20937644.5 36 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other 

Funds 

Federal-aid 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds

35

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

Enter the programmed and obligated funding for each applicable funding category.
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Totals 52080888 100% 57748774.1 100%

Obligated total includes planned transfers from Advance Construction to the 164-HE program 

planned to occure before October 1, 2014.

How much funding is programmed to local (non-state owned and maintained) safety projects? 

$15,251,332.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$20,208,686.00

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects? 

$207,208.00

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?

$207,208.00
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 

period?

$0.00

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting 

period? 

$6,972,168.00

37

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future. 

MAP-21 makes it clear that cost effectiveness is to be considered in project selection decisions, 

and it’s recognized that this may become a future requirement for most federal aid funding 

decisions. However, guidance under MAP-21 is currently unclear as to how the risk of future 

crashes can be accommodated under current cost effectiveness methodologies. The 

determination of project eligibility to utilize HSIP funds in a cost effective manner is typically 

based on past history of crashes. However, crash past history is not a perfect indicator of future 

crash risk under changing traffic demand. Also, useful predictive functions in the Highway 

Safety Manual, they are still limited to specific situations. As a result safety improvement 

projects that are seemingly promising candidates for HSIP funding are rejected due to an 

inability to meet cost effectiveness criteria. The lack of guidance regarding the application of 

risk factors relative to cost effectiveness has had the effect of stifling innovation in regard to 

trying new types of crash countermeasures. Improved guidance by FHWA would be welcome in 

regard to assessment of future traffic safety risk, in assessing changing land use and changing 

travel demand.

The High Risk Rural Roads Program is ineffective and should be abandoned. It’s far more likely 

that HSIP funds are used to make safety improvements on rural local roads. The requirement 

that ties safety improvement funds to roadway functional class is not an element that rural local 

agencies typically consider when prioritizing safety improvements, therefore proposed projects 

often do not qualify for this funding program. In addition, many local roads lack accurate volume 

data, making a comparison of crash rate averages a difficult task. Analysis of current severe 

crash trends has not indicated a difference that can be directly attributed to functional class. 

Improved response to severe crash risk on rural local roads could be achieved by dedicating a 

percentage of HSIP funding to safety improvements on rural roads found to have a higher than 

nominal crash history regardless of functional class. 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

At a minimum state DOT’s should be permitted to conduct the calculation of the current special 

rule requirement. State DOTs are more familiar with current status of roadway functional class 

and changing urban/rural boundaries. The current calculation conducted by NHTSA is 

dependent on data from the FARS system that has an inherent time lag and the functional class 

definitions and urban/rural boundaries don’t always match with current data.

In regard to rural road safety, INDOT plans to engage with LTAP and interested LPA agencies 

to look for improved data analysis and project selection methods to address risk on mid to high 

speed local roads. In addition we are hopeful that new guidance regarding the application of 

crash risk will result in new methodologies to address cost effectiveness analysis and allow for 

more flexibility regarding determination of project eligibility. 

 

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

INDOT has developed an Asset Management system to address the need for safety 

improvement actions and to prioritize potential safety improvement projects and actions that 

improves INDOTs ability to select and produce high value safety projects. Candidate safety 

projects undergo weighted scoring that emphasizes the need to address high severity crash 

locations with the construction of cost effective crash countermeasures. 

The primary program goal for the Traffic Safety Asset Class is the reduction in the frequency of 

severe (fatal and incapacitating injury) crashes. Current available analysis tools are designed to 

consider all injury crashes to be serious so fatal and injury crashes are used for prioritization of 

countermeasure proposals. For most crash studies conducted at specific locations (sites) 

property damage data is also used to reveal a complete picture of prevailing crash patterns. For 

sites on the INDOT system and in most local urban areas, traffic volume data is available to 

establish nominal and substantive crash rates. Unfortunately, most rural local roads lack recent 

volume data so a crash loss index was developed under a joint transportation research project 

with Purdue University. Socioeconomic data and road characteristics are used to develop a 

local expected road crash loss and crash loss density that is compared to existing crash history 

to determine relative safety need at a site or road segment. Prior to project programming a site 

investigation is performed for all crash studies using Road Safety Audit principles to determine if 

or how the road’s design and maintenance characteristics influence crashes and to establish an 

appropriate and effective set of countermeasures.
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement Category Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry 

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AAD

T 

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

14000 Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

3.93 

Miles 

1020191

.74

1500642

.79

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

290

09

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Increase 

pvmt 

friction

10078

5

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

0.01 

Miles 

746400 2001535

.17

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

356

50

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

visibility 

20139

1

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.52 

Miles 

2400561

.18

2901026

.33

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

390

83

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

visibility 

30111

2

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous 

1.56 

Miles 

3366213

.46

3366213

.46

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

194

82

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

visibility 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

40108

2

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.95 

Miles 

3909335

.46

4147840

.28

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

299

58

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Redesign 

Int 

approach

80102

5

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement 

markers

83.07 

Miles 

232288.

94

232288.

94

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Improve 

mrkg 

visibility 

81011

7

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement 

markers

54696 

Numb

ers 

290377.

14

290377.

14

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Improve 

mrkg 

visibility 

81015

8

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement 

markers

17973 

Numb

ers 

165779.

95

165779.

95

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Improve 

mrkg 

visibility 

90129

8

Interchange design 

Interchange design - 

other

0.32 

Miles 

3017366

.31

3363097

.72

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

369

83

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Interchan

ge Design

Separate 

traffic flow

10000

01

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

acceleration/deceleratio

n lane

0.398 

Miles 

2629161

.77

3581305

.4

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

124

20

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Redesign 

Int 

approach
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

10065

55

Interchange design 

Interchange design - 

other

0.281 

Miles 

199405.

63

221561.

81

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

362

50

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Redesign 

Int 

approach

10066

32

Advanced technology 

and ITS Congestion 

detection / traffic 

monitoring system

12 

Numb

ers 

347490.

33

347490.

33

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

100

00

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Install 

vehicle 

loops

11721

73

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

3773 

Numb

ers 

745274.

5 

745274.

5 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Improve 

visibility 

11721

91

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement 

markers

171 

Miles 

249774.

55

249774.

55

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Improve 

mrkg 

visibility 

11734

41

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement 

markers

19890 

Numb

ers 

203682.

16

203682.

16

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Improve 

mrkg 

visibility 

11734

62

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - 

modernization/replacem

3 

Numb

ers 

367152 367152 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

visibility 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

ent Other

11736

59

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.16 

Miles 

639380.

43

639380.

43

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

290

09

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install cable 

barrier 

11736

60

Roadside Barrier - cable 19.39 

Miles 

1341384

.74

1358051

.41

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

311

95

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install cable 

barrier 

11736

76

Roadside Barrier - cable 67 

Miles 

400158.

55

412158.

55

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

139

78

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install cable 

barrier 

12961

77

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation - 

other

235 

Miles 

756003.

57

756003.

57

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install 

rumble 

stripes 

12962

84

Roadside Barrier - cable 9.64 

Miles 

640374.

67

654769.

11

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

352

63

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install cable 

barrier 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

12962

87

Roadside Barrier - cable 40.29 

Miles 

2115164

.61

2144664

.61

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

317

00

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install cable 

barrier 

12962

92

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - 

modernization/replacem

ent

32 

Numb

ers 

362603.

5 

368070.

5 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Increase 

signal 

visibility 

12962

93

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation - 

other

10.42 

Miles 

323332.

93

323332.

93

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

471

8 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e 

Install cl 

rumble 

stripes 

12963

29

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation - 

other

11.3 

Miles 

323219.

91

323219.

91

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

518

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install 

rumble 

stripes 

12969

15

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation - 

other

124.5 

Miles 

442267 442267 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install 

rumble 

stripes 

12976

04

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

4.33 

Miles 

1641692

.19

1824102

.44

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

350

76

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Surface 

Treatment
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

12976

05

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

4.61 

Miles 

415414.

08

460889.

08

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

519

6 

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Surface 

Treatment

12976

10

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

5.61 

Miles 

1025847

.81

1138146

.42

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

904

7 

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Surface 

Treatment

12976

26

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

6.35 

Miles 

1471529

.75

1632616

.75

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector 

904

4 

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Surface 

Treatment

12976

27

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

6.22 

Miles 

1399469

.25

1405469

.25

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

139

38

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Surface 

Treatment

12982

12

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled 

1 

Numb

ers 

121418.

61

122667.

61

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

126

82

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Flasher to 

signal

13820

14

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - 

modernization/replacem

ent

1 

Numb

ers 

34360 315354.

45

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

655

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Flasher to 

signal
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

13825

38

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - 

modernization/replacem

ent

9 

Numb

ers 

1477747

.08

1480597

.08

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

323

70

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

Traffic 

Control

13827

77

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - 

modernization/replacem

ent

1 

Numb

ers 

103939.

25

103939.

25

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

149

16

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Increase 

signal 

visibility 

13828

72

Roadside Roadside -

other

0.37 

Miles 

117720.

24

117720.

24

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

160

75

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Construct 

ADA Ramps

13829

11

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.85 

Miles 

388241.

55

429224.

88

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

415

72

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install cable 

barrier 

13829

14

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement 

markers

43748 

Numb

ers 

271024.

29

271024.

29

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

850

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e 

Guidance 

with RPM's

14010

53

Miscellaneous 1 

Numb

33696 37440 HSIP 

(Sectio

Various 

road class

550

0 

35 Other 

Local 

Data Unified 

Planning 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

ers n 148) Agency Work

14011

00

Miscellaneous 1 

Numb

ers 

104347 115941.

11

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 

road class

550

0 

35 Other 

Local 

Agency

Data Unified 

Planning 

Work

14011

05

Miscellaneous 1 

Numb

ers 

90000 112500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 

road class

550

0 

35 Other 

Local 

Agency

Data Unified 

Planning 

Work

14011

16

Miscellaneous 1 

Numb

ers 

80000 88889 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 

road class

550

0 

35 Other 

Local 

Agency

Data Unified 

Planning 

Work

14011

25

Miscellaneous 1 

Numb

ers 

47012 52236 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 

road class

550

0 

35 Other 

Local 

Agency

Data Unified 

Planning 

Work

98025

70

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous 

2.41 

Miles 

879603.

3 

1339735

.88

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

198

60

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

HMA 

Overlay 

81029

4

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.25 

Miles 

1269086

.17

1457359

.85

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

800

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

81029

8

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

0.12 

Miles 

2000335

.8

2225928

.67

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Minor 

124

00

35 City of 

Municip

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

n 148) Arterial al 

Highway 

Agency

81029

9

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.2 

Miles 

995391.

69

1105990

.77

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector 

130

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

10060

47

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.5 

Miles 

253476.

9 

281641 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

10060

57

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

122 

Numb

ers 

40500 45000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improved 

signs

10060

63

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

243 

Numb

ers 

40250.5

8 

40250.5

8 

Penalty 

Transfe

r – 

Section 

164

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improved 

signs

10060

69

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

flashers - add overhead 

2 

Numb

26884.5

7 

29871.7

4 

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

550

0 

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Intersecti

ons

Install a 

flashing 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

(continuous) ers n 148) Street Highway 

Agency

beacon

10060

94

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.11 

Miles 

446491.

02

504671.

54

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

550

0 

40 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

10061

12

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

3209 

Numb

ers 

1064478

.74

1182754

.15

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Various 

road class

550

0 

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improve 

retroreflecti

vity

10064

76

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

flashers - add overhead 

(continuous)

3 

Numb

ers 

281032.

26

312258.

07

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Install a 

flashing 

beacon

11730

43

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

220 

Numb

ers 

399496.

84

443885.

38

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improve 

retroreflecti

vity

11730

78

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

102 

Numb

ers 

91454.4 101616 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improve 

retroreflecti

vity
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

11731

11

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.11 

Miles 

139403.

49

154892.

78

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

11731

15

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.1 

Miles 

482965.

82

536628.

7 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector 

550

0 

45 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

11731

16

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.1 

Miles 

288235.

12

320261.

26

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

550

0 

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

11731

65

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.1 

Miles 

173927.

52

193252.

81

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

550

0 

45 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

11731

69

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add emergency 

vehicle preemption

18 

Numb

ers 

352670.

84

391856.

5 

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Various 

road class

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal 

visibility 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

11732

27

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.75 

Miles 

179212.

5 

199125 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install 

guardrail

11732

88

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1894 

Numb

ers 

123369 137076.

67

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improve 

retroreflecti

vity

12972

91

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

2347 

Numb

ers 

51180.0

3 

56866 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improve 

retroreflecti

vity

12977

53

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.34 

Miles 

233884.

52

259871.

69

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 

road class

550

0 

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Install 

guardrail

12980

04

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

2153 

Numb

ers 

22250 124475 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Various 

road class

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Data Sign 

inventory

13822

00

Roadway Roadway -

other

1.23 

Miles 

225000 377673.

33

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Agency

13827

75

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Modify existing crosswalk

0.1 

Miles 

212432.

4 

252362 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Improve 

crossing

13827

93

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

2813 

Numb

ers 

697463.

3 

697463.

3 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improve 

retroreflecti

vity

13827

96

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

34 

Numb

ers 

254130 282367.

25

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improve 

retroreflecti

vity

13828

07

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled 

1 

Numb

ers 

104400 116000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

40 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Install 

traffic 

signal 

13828

70

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1172 

Numb

ers 

388819.

08

432021.

21

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improved 

signage

Improved 

signs

13829

38

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

407 

Numb

135000 150000 HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Local 

550 35 City of 

Municip

Improved Sign 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

(including post) - new or 

updated

ers n 148) Road or 

Street 

0 al 

Highway 

Agency

signage inventory

13830

62

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - 

modernization/replacem

ent

28 

Numb

ers 

441853.

35

513518.

25

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

550

0 

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal 

visibility 

13830

85

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and bicyclists

2.91 

Miles 

228733.

98

254148.

87

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

323

70

40 Other 

Local 

Agency

Bicyclists Install 

ped/bikewa

y 

13831

89

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

43 

Numb

ers 

700885.

53

778761.

7 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 

road class

550

0 

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

signal 

visibility 

10061

20

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified 

0.08 

Miles 

48996.4

9 

54360.0

9 

HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

649

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improve 

geometrics

12971

40

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

2.2 

Miles 

560657.

7 

628703 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

500

0 

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Widen 

shoulders
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

13827

79

Miscellaneous 1 

Numb

ers 

207208 207208 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 

road class

550

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data ARIES 

Update

11724

83

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.323 

Miles 

2085670

.95

2124107

.5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street 

350

0 

35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Construct a 

roundabout

Projects with the Improvement Category of Miscellaneous consist of non-infrastructure improvements to traffic safety data 

systems or traffic safety planning and education efforts undertaken by metropolitan planning organizations as part of their 

Unified Planning Work Programs.
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

Present data showing the general highway safety trends in the state for the past five years. 

Performance Measures* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 850 813 783 759 751

Number of serious injuries 3277 3190 3086 3098 3086

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.18 1.12 1.06 1.01 0.97

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.49 4.32 4.12 4.05 3.99

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

41 89 0.53 1.16

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

61 177 1.35 3.93

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

69 201 1.97 5.74

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

30 121 1.45 5.84

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

133 387 2.05 5.96

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

72 245 1.48 5.02

URBAN PRINCIPAL 49 200 0.51 2.05
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

10 44 0.74 3.3

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

126 818 1.18 7.65

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

86 631 1.02 7.48

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

44 272 0.86 5.31

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

45 252 0.35 1.95
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT) 

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 393 1425 1.02 3.69

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 211 798 1.04 3.94

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 145 1150 0.78 6.15

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 2 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 6 34 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

At present INDOT does not separate crash or VMT data to differentiate between Interstate Freeways and Other Freeways. Also data for Urban 

Major and Minor Collectors are not separated into the two classifications. 

Statewide Crash data at present does not sufficiently differentiate between incorporated municipalities designated cities and towns and 

unincorporated towns. For this reason all crashes in these areas are listed under Cities and Municipal areas. 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate. 

In 2013, the estimated vehicle miles of travel increased 0.90% above 2012, while the number of 

police reported fatalities and incapacitating (serious) injuries dropped by 6.27%. As a result, the 

5 year rolling average rate of combined fatalities and serious injuries dropped to a rate of 0.97 

per VMT in 2013 from a rate of 1.01 in 2012. 

Statewide 2013 crash data shows that Indiana did not exceed the four performance goals 

outlined in the SHSP, the 5 year rolling average of Fatalities, Severe (Incapacitating) Injuries, 

Fatality Rate and Severe Injury Rate. The spike in severe crashes on rural roads that was 

experienced in 2012 was not repeated in 2013. 

Crashes resulting from vehicle departure from the travel lanes (including roadway departure, 

head-on and opposite direction sideswipe) continue to be the most numerous harmful events. 

For 2013 the 5 year rolling average percentage of fatalities resulting from single vehicle lane 

departures make up 48.7% of all Indiana motor vehicle fatalities, compared to the 5 year 

average of 49.6% calculated in 2012. As a result, INDOT has developed several systemic 

improvement types aimed at reducing the incidence and consequences of lane departure 

crashes.

Fatalities as a result of intersection crashes make up the second worst type of harmful event. In 

2013 the 5 year average of intersection fatalities contributed 24.2% of total traffic fatalities, 

similar to the 24.6% average from 2012. INDOT is advancing systemic improvements to 

increase the visibility of both signalized and unsignalized intersections. INDOT is also placing 

increased emphasis on timely modernization of traffic signals, and increased use of innovative 

intersection types to reduce traffic conflicts; such as Roundabouts, J Turns and Michigan Left 

Turn designs. 

Indiana is also concerned with the incidence of fatalities involving vulnerable road users such as 

pedestrians, bicycle and motorcycle riders, and is working with our partners on education 

efforts. In 2013 the 5 year rolling average of pedestrian fatalities rose to 8.2%, from the 7.8% 

average in 2012. The 5 year average percentage of fatalities that involve bicyclists held steady 

at 1.7%. The number of motorcycle and moped crashes was lower in 2013 compared to 2012, 

but it should be noted that nationally motorcycle/moped crashes were unusually high. On the 

basis of 5 year rolling averages motorcycle and moped fatalities accounted for 17.0% in 2012 

and held relatively steady at 16.9 for 2013. 

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

Performance Measures

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.746 0.752 0.756 0.732 0.612

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

1.73 1.646 1.67 1.666 1.324

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

2.48 2.398 2.424 2.396 1.934

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

Fatality Rate using FARS (drivers & pedestrains over 65 per 1,000 population)

FARS Fatalites / FHWA # over 65 per capita = Fatality (F) Rate 

Serious Injury Rate using Indiana ARIES (drivers & pedestrains over 65 per 1,000 population)

ARIES Incapacitating (Serious Injuries) / FHWA # over 65 per capita = Serious Injury (SI) Rate 

Combined Fatal and Serious Injury Rate (drivers & pedestrians over 65 per 1,000 population)

(Fatalities + Serious Injuries) / FHWA # over 65 per capita = Combined F + SI Rate

CALCULATE RATE for 2009

(2009 F+SI/2009 Indiana population figure) + (2008 F+SI/2008 Indiana population figure) + (2007 

F+SI/2007 Indiana population figure) + (2006 F+SI/2006 Indiana population figure) + (2005 F+SI/2005 

Indiana population figure) / 5 

(2.29+2.31+2.50+2.44+2.86)/5 = 2.48, Rounded 2.5

CALCULATE RATE for 2011

(2011 F+SI/2011 Indiana population figure) + (2010 F+SI/2018 Indiana population figure) + (2009

F+SI/2009 Indiana population figure¿) + (2008 F+SI/2008 Indiana population figure) + (2007 F+SI/2007 

Indiana population figure) / 5 

(2.57+2.45+2.29+2.31+2.50)/5 = 2.42, Rounded 2.4
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program? 

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

Due to organizational changes at INDOT that place administration of all local project 

under the Division of LPA & Grant Administration, greater emphasis has been placed on 
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

MPOs to make good choices in selecting safety improvements for HSIP funding. As a 

result INDOT has requested each of the Indiana MPOs to submit a document describing 

the data driven process that will be used by the MPO to select candidate projects. The 

submitted procedures are reviewed for approval by the multi-agency Highway Safety 

Advisory Committee (HSAC). These individual MPO developed process documents will 

give the local agencies a clear set of criteria when applying for funding, at the same 

time allowing for local input into the project selection process, and improving the ability 

of INDOT or FHWA to conduct future process reviews.
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

SHSP Emphasis Areas

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 210.8 691.8 0.27 0.89 0 0 0

Intersections Intersection 174 1111 0.23 1.44 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 59.2 161.8 0.08 0.21 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 12.2 76.4 0.02 0.1 0 0 0

Motorcyclists Motorcycle & 

Moped

122 508.6 0.16 0.66 0 0 0

Work Zones Work Zone 14.8 57 0.02 0.07 0 0 0
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2013

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Intersection Intersection Crashes 174 1111 0.23 1.44 0 0 0

Median Barrier Run-off-road 211 692 0.27 0.89 0 0 0

Other-Traffic Signal 

Visibility Improvement

Intersection Crashes 174 1111 0.23 1.44 0 0 0

Other-Centerline and 

Edgeline Rumble 

Stripes

Run-off-road & 

Head On

351 1124 0.45 1.45 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety Vehicle/pedestrian 59 162 0.08 0.21 0 0 0

Local Safety Local Roads 319 1706 0.83 4.44 0 0 0

Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

All 751 3086 0.97 3.99 0 0 0

Rural State Highways Rural State 

Highways

309 844 1.06 1.95 0 0 0

Crash Data All 751 3086 0.97 3.99 0 0 0
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 211 692 0.27 0.89 0 0 0
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

83

In regard to the subprograms for Rural State Highways and Local Safety, the rates for fatalities and serious injuries are calculated using the 

INDOT estimate of Vehicle Miles of Travel (HMVMT) broken down to subcomponents for Rural State Highways and for Local Roads respectively. 

All other subprograms crash rates are calculated using INDOT estimated HMVMT for All Roads.
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

84

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Install/Improve Signing All 751 3086 0.97 3.99 0 0 0

Cable Median Barriers Run-off-road 211 692 0.27 0.89 0 0 0

Rumble Strips Run-off-road 

& Head On

351 1124 0.45 1.45 0 0 0

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

Intersection 

Crashes

174 1111 0.23 1.44 0 0 0

Upgrade Guard Rails Run-off-road 211 692 0.27 0.89 0 0 0

Traffic Control Device 

Rehabilitation

Intersection 

Crashes

174 1111 0.23 1.44 0 0 0
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

88
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

89

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

The combined efforts of Indiana’s engineering, education, law enforcement, and emergency 

medical communities are contributing to an overall decline in serious crash outcomes. A trend 

of fewer severe crashes and increasing percentage of property damage crashes has occurred 

since the beginning of the HSIP. The extent of contribution by HSIP projects to improved safety 

is difficult to quantify with current data sources and analysis capabilities, but it’s clear that safety 

programs are a factor influencing the downward trend in severe crash outcomes. Fatal and 

injury crash trends experienced a somewhat consistent rate between the start of SAFTEA-LU in 

2005 through 2007 then experienced a larger downward trend in 2008 and 2009 as VMT 

declined. Since 2010 through 2013, VMT has resumed its previous growth trends but a lower 

incidence of severe outcome crashes in most of the monitored emphasis areas continues in 

calendar year 2013.

When comparing 2013 to 2012, the estimated vehicle miles of travel increased by 0.91%. Over 

the same period, the total number of crashes reported increased by 4.63%; but incapacitating 

injuries dropped 10.14% and fatalities also decreased slightly by 0.26%.
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Function

al Class

Improveme

nt Category

Improvement Type BefFat

al

BefSerio

us 

Injury

BefOthe

r 

Injur

y

Bef

-

PD

O

BefTot

al

AftFat

al

AftSerio

us 

Injury

AftOthe

r 

Injur

y

AftPD

O

AftTot

al

Evaluati

on 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

0101055 US 31, 

Miami County 

Line to Fulton 

County Line

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Roadside Roadside grading 1 4 55 317 377 3 6 63 347 419 0

0300179 ST 

1006, 

Washington 

Street at 

Defenbaugh 

Street in 

Kokomo

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

existing left-turn lane

0 0 1 8 9 0 1 1 3 5 0.11

0400309 18th 

Street @ 

Kossuth Street

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 21 97 118 0 0 10 40 50 2.86

0300432 

Landin Road 

and North River 

Road

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 6 10 16 1 0 3 9 13 0.03
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

987189A US 31, 

At SR 4

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

0 5 3 19 27 0 2 4 25 31 0.55

977190A US 31, 

At New Rd, 2.0 

miles N of SR 4

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 5 3 19 27 0 2 4 25 31 0.38

0500670 SR 46 

@ E Pearl Street

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

0 0 0 6 6 1 0 2 6 9 9.54

0014090 SR 49, 

SW diagonal 

ramp at 

interchange 

with SR 49 (incl 

Safety 

Revisions)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 1 2 9 12 0 1 2 7 10 0.11

9620730 SR 57, 

At 

Boonville/New 

Harmony Rd

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane3 0 9 15 27 0 1 10 22 33 0.39

982073A SR 57, 

At 

Boonville/New 

Harmony Rd

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

3 0 9 15 27 0 1 10 22 33 1.1
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

Other

0200721 ST 

1002, 6th Street 

and Fisher 

Street 

intersection, 

3900 feet N of 

US 24

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

acceleration/deceleration 

lane

0 0 3 15 18 0 0 3 12 15 0.14

0500181 ST 

1029, SR 15 

(Main St) to 9th 

Street

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 0 2 4 19 25 0 0 3 8 11 1.24

9800730 US 

136, At 

Hendricks/Mar

ion County Line 

(Raceway Rd), 

2.2 miles W of 

SR 134

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 1 2 11 14 0 1 1 13 15 0.57

990073A US 

136, At 

Marion/Hendri

cks Co Line 

(Raceway Rd)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspe

cified 

0 1 2 11 14 0 1 1 13 15 0.17

0600543 US 

150, At W 

Washington 

Rural 

Minor 

Roadside Roadside grading 0 1 3 3 7 0 0 1 0 1 5.45
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

93

School Road, 

4.64 miles W of 

SR 135(parcel 

13)

Arterial

0401232 US 

231, At Stardust 

Road (925 S.), 

0.50 mile S of I70 (incl. 

channelization)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

miscellaneous/other/unspe

cified 

0 0 5 8 13 0 0 0 6 6 0.29

0300965 US 24, 

US 24 from SR 

13 to S jct of SR 

9

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Roadway Roadway - restripe to revise 

separation between 

opposing lanes and/or 

shoulder widths 

0 0 8 21 29 0 1 10 35 46 0.03

0401315 US 30, 

Pavement 

Marking - SR 5 

to I-69

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 5 7 67 246 325 3 1 48 179 231 2.43

9901910 US 35, 

At Rosser Dr, 

0.8 mile S of SR 

119

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0

0600466 US 

421, At 

Michigan Road

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 3 0
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

94

0401026 IR 

1004, CR 200E 

(Airport Road) 

at "S" curve, .25 

mi N of CR 300S

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Superelevation / cross slope 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 3 3 0.02

9901440 SR 

103, From 2.56 

km N of US 40 

to 3.04 km N of 

US 40

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

Roadside Roadside grading 0 1 2 5 8 0 0 1 5 6 0.33

0300010 SR 64, 

At SR 135

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

0 3 26 107 136 0 2 20 83 105 1.89

9902630 SR 64, 

At SR 135

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0 3 26 107 136 0 2 20 83 105 0.89

9901090 SR 8, 

At CR 500E

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

Roadside Barrier - other 0 0 3 13 16 0 1 0 13 14 0.03

0400648 ST 

1014, At 

Township Line 

Road

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 1 21 65 87 0 1 18 79 98 0.07

0500960 ST 

1018, 17th at 

Urban 

Minor 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

miscellaneous/other/unspe

0 0 7 23 30 0 0 5 13 18 1.06
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

95

Fee Lane Collector cified

0002700 US 20 

at Quince Road

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

0 0 7 14 21 0 0 4 8 12 7.64

8351230 US 20 

at Quince Road

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0 0 7 14 21 0 0 4 8 12 0.14

9902610 US 50, 

At Deer Creek 

Rd (CR 75E)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 2 2 0.01

0600216 US 52, 

CR 250 

W/McCormick 

Road - 

Commision # 

01-079-132

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspe

cified 

1 0 12 30 43 0 1 12 36 49 0

0600201 IR 

1001, 

Programmatic 

signing for 

Martin County

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

0 0 3 6 9 0 0 0 4 4 2.46

9136320 SR 

114, At N Cullen 

St, 3.5 miles E 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0 0 2 1 3 0 0 1 5 6 0.07
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

96

of I-65 Other

0500107 SR 25, 

Intersection 

with CR 375W

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

existing left-turn lane

0 0 1 6 7 0 0 2 7 9 0

0800324 SR 28, 

At SR 213 

(Parcel 4) 

remove house 

basement, 

garage, well 

and septic

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Roadway Roadway - other 0 0 4 4 8 0 0 6 8 14 0

0501052 IR 

1001 (N 

Railroad St/ 

Washington 

Ave & Adams 

Ave), 

Programmatic 

Sign 

Improvement 

in Town of 

Fowler

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

0 0 10 0 10 0 1 6 5 12 0
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

97

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2014 Indiana Highway Safety Improvement Program

98

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location 

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities. 

Older driver special rule applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data 

are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance dated 

February 13, 2013. 

Performance measure means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor 

changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives.

Programmed funds mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.

Roadway Functional Classification means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into 

classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety 

data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systemic safety improvement means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk 

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal 

year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.