U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Safety

eSubscribe
eSubscribe Envelope

FHWA Home / Safety / HSIP / General HSIP Information / Obligation Rates for the Highway Safety Improvement Program

Obligation Rates for the Highway Safety Improvement Program

Best for printing: slorship20151113.pdf (145 KB)

To view PDF files, you can use the Acrobat® Reader®.

An obligation is a commitment – the Federal Government’s promise to pay the States for the Federal Share of a project’s eligible cost.  This commitment is generally made as both governments agree to specific expenditures.  The distribution of funds using a formula provided in law is called an apportionment.  From the federal perspective, the obligation to apportionment rate is a way to represent “spending” and the information below shows spending "rates".  The rates are calculated using cumulative apportionment figures rather than funding available which is subject to transfer activities.   Using apportionment funding amounts rather than available funding more accurately represents the extent to which states are using the HSIP as a resource.

Federal funding obligation rates are not necessarily a reflection of a state's commitment to safety.  There are many other ways to fund safety improvements.   This summary does not show why obligations rates are high or low or how safe highways may be in each state.  The information below does not show safety improvements that are being planned but not obligated yet, and do not reflect safety spending through other programs such as the Surface Transportation Program (STP) or the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP).

National "Gross" HSIP Obligation Rates Through Fiscal Year 2015

These graphs illustrate the ratios of the "gross" Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionments nationwide through 2015. The obligation rates include the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP) and the High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) set asides. (Under SAFETEA-LU there was a HRRR Program where all States had funds set-aside, and under MAP-21 there is a HRRR Special Rule where only States with an increasing fatality rate on rural roads had funds set-aside).

Line Graph: National SAFETEA-LU HSIP Cumulative Obligation Rate

Line Graph: National MAP-21 HSIP Cumulative Obligation Rate

Footnotes:

  1. The FHWA provides stewardship and oversight to States as they administer their Highway Safety Improvement Programs.  For more information on current activities in support of safety program improvement please visit:  http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
  2. SAFETEA-LU expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2012, and the funds were available for obligation through the end of Fiscal Year 2015. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2016, SAFETEA-LU obligation rates will no longer be shown here.
  3. MAP-21 went into effect at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2013.

HSIP Cumulative Obligation vs. Cumulative Apportionments Through Fiscal Year 2015

These tables illustrate the ratio of the "gross" Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionment for each state through the end of Fiscal Year 2015.  The obligation rates include the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP) and the High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) set asides. (Under SAFETEA-LU there was a HRRR Program where all States had funds set-aside, and under MAP-21 there is a HRRR Special Rule where only States with an increasing fatality rate on rural roads had funds set-aside).

SAFETEA-LU Cumulative HSIP Obligation Rates By State

  Fiscal Year

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013
2014
2015
Alabama 6.5% 24.3% 41.5% 53.6% 54.1% 57.6% 60.6% 66.5% 68.9% 70.6%
Alaska 31.3% 35.3% 96.0% 94.1% 96.1% 83.4% 93.3% 97.0% 96.9% 97.1%
Arizona 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 26.0% 49.2% 55.7% 59.4% 67.5% 71.0% 73.5%
Arkansas 0.0% 17.6% 29.8% 71.9% 75.2% 69.9% 77.3% 81.7% 83.2% 85.6%
California 36.8% 41.4% 58.8% 75.0% 77.9% 82.9% 88.7% 93.3% 95.8% 98.5%
Colorado 1.8% 28.1% 44.6% 50.1% 48.0% 51.0% 51.1% 63.1% 69.9% 70.6%
Connecticut 0.0% 23.0% 44.8% 55.4% 61.6% 70.3% 71.5% 84.4% 87.2% 88.8%
Delaware 0.0% 1.9% 50.9% 62.9% 70.5% 82.2% 86.5% 91.9% 96.1% 99.9%
District of Columbia 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 27.1% 36.9% 29.5% 58.2% 68.4% 77.7% 91.0%
Florida 35.0% 57.6% 57.3% 78.4% 77.9% 81.8% 85.5% 96.9% 99.7% 99.8%
Georgia 70.3% 83.8% 83.1% 75.9% 69.4% 70.0% 74.6% 80.9% 78.5% 84.6%
Hawaii 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 23.0% 50.5% 42.7% 54.9% 62.2% 69.7% 69.0%
Idaho 63.6% 43.5% 44.6% 44.3% 47.3% 49.9% 54.3% 60.2% 75.5% 78.6%
Illinois 6.8% 42.2% 66.2% 83.5% 82.0% 87.3% 82.1% 93.1% 96.7% 98.5%
Indiana 0.0% 37.4% 56.5% 58.8% 61.3% 67.0% 68.7% 72.2% 83.0% 84.2%
Iowa 21.1% 28.8% 54.4% 73.3% 74.8% 78.0% 89.7% 95.1% 96.4% 99.9%
Kansas 72.2% 72.5% 70.4% 72.3% 73.0% 74.7% 75.0% 92.0% 97.2% 97.6%
Kentucky 31.8% 46.2% 49.5% 72.5% 69.8% 80.6% 77.6% 87.5% 97.3% 99.4%
Louisiana 35.0% 55.0% 77.7% 90.1% 97.6% 95.0% 95.6% 98.7% 98.7% 99.1%
Maine 0.6% 34.4% 55.8% 80.4% 83.1% 84.8% 84.9% 88.0% 90.6% 91.9%
Maryland 12.2% 15.2% 36.9% 48.4% 66.0% 80.1% 83.8% 91.3% 95.2% 97.2%
Massachusetts 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 45.1% 66.8% 81.2% 89.4% 95.3% 93.8% 95.6%
Michigan 29.8% 41.4% 74.8% 79.0% 79.9% 84.4% 85.6% 89.6% 89.6% 91.1%
Minnesota 43.0% 40.4% 55.5% 60.6% 64.6% 63.5% 63.1% 74.3% 76.3% 75.8%
Mississippi 29.0% 92.5% 99.4% 98.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 99.9%
Missouri 21.6% 68.7% 89.4% 90.1% 91.4% 86.0% 89.8% 96.0% 99.8% 99.8%
Montana 59.3% 61.2% 75.2% 83.2% 80.8% 81.9% 84.3% 99.1% 99.7% 100.0%
Nebraska 20.6% 34.1% 29.5% 37.4% 35.9% 40.3% 60.6% 76.5% 78.3% 80.5%
Nevada 68.6% 50.0% 68.5% 62.8% 70.6% 78.5% 81.8% 82.6% 84.9% 84.9%
New Hampshire 0.0% 2.6% 17.5% 36.4% 51.8% 61.1% 72.6% 81.2% 82.2% 83.4%
New Jersey 23.7% 43.5% 80.2% 83.3% 77.5% 73.6% 71.9% 75.7% 82.9% 82.8%
New Mexico 0.0% 7.6% 54.6% 69.7% 74.8% 80.1% 75.8% 81.8% 83.2% 87.8%
New York 0.0% 20.7% 35.3% 36.7% 67.6% 70.7% 73.5% 90.8% 93.5% 93.9%
North Carolina 0.0% 13.4% 37.7% 55.7% 58.9% 68.4% 81.5% 89.6% 91.7% 92.5%
North Dakota 0.0% 20.7% 40.9% 56.1% 81.5% 82.5% 84.6% 91.4% 96.8% 99.4%
Ohio 51.6% 57.2% 65.3% 83.6% 96.2% 99.1% 99.7% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0%
Oklahoma 64.4% 45.2% 84.6% 92.4% 93.5% 94.9% 92.0% 95.6% 97.3% 97.6%
Oregon 41.4% 67.8% 62.1% 54.4% 58.3% 54.9% 60.1% 68.9% 71.6% 73.4%
Pennsylvania 12.1% 39.2% 54.5% 68.9% 71.2% 80.1% 88.0% 96.0% 98.2% 100.0%
Rhode Island 8.2% 75.0% 75.1% 74.0% 71.1% 63.3% 68.5% 93.3% 95.2% 96.7%
South Carolina 11.8% 27.0% 53.2% 61.9% 77.2% 84.9% 88.7% 92.5% 92.9% 92.8%
South Dakota 0.0% 0.0% 12.6% 29.8% 29.4% 37.0% 36.9% 41.5% 52.9% 60.3%
Tennessee 13.1% 15.1% 45.0% 78.4% 74.2% 75.6% 76.5% 96.1% 97.9% 98.7%
Texas 0.0% 28.2% 57.7% 71.9% 77.1% 82.9% 86.6% 91.5% 93.6% 93.8%
Utah 37.8% 63.2% 85.5% 84.6% 83.7% 81.4% 88.6% 96.8% 97.7% 98.1%
Vermont 0.0% 2.9% 29.7% 58.0% 80.2% 74.3% 85.1% 91.6% 97.2% 99.0%
Virginia 4.0% 60.9% 49.3% 43.2% 46.6% 66.8% 77.5% 76.9% 77.9% 78.8%
Washington 0.0% 22.8% 26.0% 38.9% 47.1% 73.0% 81.8% 87.8% 86.1% 88.6%
West Virginia 0.0% 67.4% 74.5% 72.3% 70.5% 71.2% 66.7% 75.7% 94.6% 95.2%
Wisconsin 41.7% 46.5% 57.0% 63.2% 60.3% 57.4% 57.1% 61.2% 65.0% 71.8%
Wyoming 32.3% 57.9% 89.7% 93.5% 90.9% 89.4% 91.9% 97.2% 98.0% 99.0%
Total 22.0% 39.6% 56.4% 67.9% 72.2% 76.3% 79.9% 87.0% 89.8% 91.3%

MAP-21 Cumulative HSIP Obligation Rates By State

State Fiscal Year
2013 2014 2015
Alabama 33.4% 32.6% 41.5%
Alaska 99.0% 93.7% 98.0%
Arizona 0.0% 54.5% 56.4%
Arkansas 0.0% 28.7% 27.9%
California 93.3% 79.6% 86.3%
Colorado 0.0% 51.7% 65.3%
Connecticut 13.2% 30.9% 51.4%
Delaware 64.8% 86.7% 92.9%
District of Columbia 0.0% 6.0% 54.0%
Florida 44.1% 63.3% 79.9%
Georgia 75.2% 69.4% 65.5%
Hawaii 0.0% 1.9% 1.3%
Idaho 0.0% 5.9% 29.8%
Illinois 37.0% 50.6% 60.7%
Indiana 4.5% 6.7% 17.1%
Iowa 31.5% 52.9% 67.5%
Kansas 36.3% 30.7% 56.3%
Kentucky 1.9% 15.8% 43.1%
Louisiana 87.7% 94.1% 73.0%
Maine 63.4% 68.2% 91.1%
Maryland 8.5% 22.5% 33.1%
Massachusetts 88.0% 91.2% 97.0%
Michigan 81.3% 86.3% 85.8%
Minnesota 10.7% 40.5% 45.8%
Mississippi 100.0% 98.0% 100.0%
Missouri 23.5% 45.7% 59.2%
Montana 22.0% 48.4% 59.6%
Nebraska 75.6% 61.6% 79.8%
Nevada 98.8% 98.1% 98.8%
New Hampshire 45.2% 93.6% 89.9%
New Jersey 6.4% 24.5% 44.8%
New Mexico 10.3% 27.4% 44.9%
New York 4.0% 41.3% 58.9%
North Carolina 28.3% 54.8% 73.2%
North Dakota 71.9% 70.1% 72.5%
Ohio 99.9% 97.1% 99.3%
Oklahoma 81.5% 82.4% 88.5%
Oregon 48.6% 44.0% 57.3%
Pennsylvania 33.0% 62.4% 64.9%
Rhode Island 36.4% 53.2% 53.6%
South Carolina 65.6% 85.9% 97.0%
South Dakota 0.0% 7.4% 16.3%
Tennessee 14.6% 59.8% 72.0%
Texas 43.5% 63.2% 89.8%
Utah 32.6% 61.6% 93.4%
Vermont 0.0% 38.7% 53.6%
Virginia 85.2% 91.3% 77.4%
Washington 71.2% 60.9% 62.2%
West Virginia 3.2% 23.4% 34.9%
Wisconsin 0.9% 2.8% 4.8%
Wyoming 79.2% 84.2% 79.9%
Total 45.3% 58.1% 68.6%

Funding Transferred to Other Core Programs Through Fiscal Year 2015

The HSIP is subject to the transfer provision under 23 USC Section 126. Under this provision states are able to transfer up to 50% of their HSIP funds to any other core program. As of September 30, 2015, 26 States transferred HSIP SAFETEA-LU funds to other core programs. Also, as of September 30, 2015 16 States transferred HSIP MAP-21 funds to other core programs, and one State transferred funds from other core programs into HSIP MAP-21 funds.

SAFETEA-LU HSIP Funding Transferred to Other Core Programs

State Name Total HSIP Apportionments Total HSIP Funds Transferred Transfer Rate
(2006 – 2015) (2006 – 2015)
ALABAMA $254,496,758 $70,642,854 27.76%
ALASKA $102,581,072 $3,000,000 2.92%
ARIZONA $247,592,871 $58,517,005 23.63%
ARKANSAS $179,049,084 $18,562,645 10.37%
CALIFORNIA $973,715,708 $19,705 0.00%
COLORADO $167,094,174 $47,329,997 28.33%
CONNECTICUT $90,024,342 $9,385,550 10.43%
GEORGIA $435,296,337 $59,000,000 13.55%
HAWAII $49,643,291 $7,970,000 16.05%
IDAHO $88,785,234 $10,970,394 12.36%
INDIANA $260,180,305 $35,418,288 13.61%
MICHIGAN $349,426,513 $26,335,040 7.54%
MINNESOTA $235,305,797 $42,980,634 18.27%
NEBRASKA $111,886,711 $15,255,975 13.64%
NEVADA $93,000,740 $11,833,000 12.72%
NEW HAMPSHIRE $50,994,437 $7,000,000 13.73%
NEW JERSEY $202,476,455 $32,299,007 15.95%
NEW MEXICO $112,289,931 $10,006,085 8.91%
NORTH CAROLINA $301,976,623 $21,300,000 7.05%
OREGON $141,808,522 $31,657,166 22.32%
SOUTH CAROLINA $247,046,241 $16,200,000 6.56%
SOUTH DAKOTA $97,575,223 $37,780,196 38.72%
TEXAS $1,006,359,649 $59,224,370 5.89%
VIRGINIA $276,454,245 $45,750,867 16.55%
WASHINGTON $169,633,450 $10,759,468 6.34%
WISCONSIN $266,054,034 $54,316,157 20.42%

MAP-21 HSIP Funding Transferred to Other Core Programs

State Name Total HSIP Apportionments Total HSIP Funds Transferred Transfer Rate
(2006 – 2015) (2006 – 2015)
ALABAMA $131,214,506 $56,673,412 43.19%
ARKANSAS $86,886,318 $37,840,152 43.55%
CALIFORNIA $791,308,089 -$215,000,000 -27.17%
CONNECTICUT $81,310,649 $38,503,766 47.35%
IDAHO $47,640,442 $15,896,417 33.37%
INDIANA $145,931,784 $72,965,891 50.00%
KENTUCKY $115,389,261 $38,452,587 33.32%
MARYLAND $97,946,608 $28,500,000 29.10%
MINNESOTA $101,612,705 $16,937,255 16.67%
NEW JERSEY $153,951,328 $26,779,099 17.39%
NEW MEXICO $64,162,991 $32,782,152 51.09%
NORTH CAROLINA $172,189,526 $46,700,000 27.12%
OREGON $84,397,024 $14,060,548 16.66%
SOUTH DAKOTA $45,387,498 $7,581,086 16.70%
TENNESSEE $142,072,202 $23,676,996 16.67%
VERMONT $33,655,714 $5,610,244 16.67%
WISCONSIN $122,950,091 $61,475,039 50.00%

 

Page last modified on November 13, 2015.
Safe Roads for a Safer Future - Investment in roadway safety saves lives
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000