Home > HSIP > General HSIP Information

Obligation Rates for the Highway Safety Improvement Program

Best for printing: slorhsip20131001.pdf (121 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 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act).

National "Gross" HSIP Obligation Rate from 2006-2013

This graph illustrates ratios of the "gross" Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionments nationwide (under SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 combined) from 2006 through 2013 which includes obligations from the two set aside programs - the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP) and the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP).  The HRRRP set-aside was not continued in fiscal year 2013 under MAP-21.

Beginning with FY 2014, this obligation website will reflect separate rates for SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21.

Line Graph: Cumulative National Rate

Footnote:  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/

HSIP Cumulative Obligation vs. Cumulative Apportionments Fiscal Years 2006-2013

This table illustrates ratios of the "gross" Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionment for each state (under SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 combined) from 2006 through 2013.  This table includes obligations from the two set aside programs - the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP) and the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP).  The HRRRP set-aside was not continued in fiscal year 2013 under MAP-21.  The rates are cumulative in that they include obligations and apportionments for fiscal years 2006 through 2013.  For example, Alabama’s 61.3% obligation rate in 2013 reflects the total of HSIP funds obligated through fiscal years 2006-2013 versus the total amount of HSIP funds apportioned from 2006 through 2013.

State SAFETEA-LU
Fiscal Year
2006
SAFETEA-LU
Fiscal Year
2007
SAFETEA-LU
Fiscal Year
2008
SAFETEA-LU
Fiscal Year
2009
SAFETEA-LU
Plus Ext.
Fiscal Year
2010
SAFETEA-LU
Plus Ext.
Fiscal Year
2011
SAFETEA-LU
Plus Ext.
Fiscal Year
2012
SAFETEA-LU
Plus Ext.
Plus MAP-21
Fiscal Year
2013
Alabama 6.5% 24.3% 41.5% 53.6% 54.1% 57.6% 60.6% 61.3%
Alaska 31.3% 35.3% 96.0% 94.1% 96.1% 83.4% 93.3% 97.5%
Arizona 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 26.0% 49.2% 55.7% 59.4% 57.4%
Arkansas 0.0% 17.6% 29.8% 71.9% 75.2% 69.9% 77.3% 69.1%
California 36.8% 41.4% 58.8% 75.0% 77.9% 82.9% 88.7% 93.3%
Colorado 1.8% 28.1% 44.6% 50.1% 48.0% 51.0% 51.1% 53.1%
Connecticut 0.0% 23.0% 44.8% 55.4% 61.6% 70.3% 71.5% 66.9%
Delaware 0.0% 1.9% 50.9% 62.9% 70.5% 82.2% 86.5% 87.5%
District of Columbia 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 27.1% 36.9% 29.5% 58.2% 56.9%
Florida 35.0% 57.6% 57.3% 78.4% 77.9% 81.8% 85.5% 88.7%
Georgia 70.3% 83.8% 83.1% 75.9% 69.4% 70.0% 74.6% 80.1%
Hawaii 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 23.0% 50.5% 42.7% 54.9% 51.6%
Idaho 63.6% 43.5% 44.6% 44.3% 47.3% 49.9% 54.3% 50.2%
Illinois 6.8% 42.2% 66.2% 83.5% 82.0% 87.3% 82.1% 83.4%
Indiana 0.0% 37.4% 56.5% 58.8% 61.3% 67.0% 68.7% 59.8%
Iowa 21.1% 28.8% 54.4% 73.3% 74.8% 78.0% 89.7% 85.0%
Kansas 72.2% 72.5% 70.4% 72.3% 73.0% 74.7% 75.0% 85.6%
Kentucky 31.8% 46.2% 49.5% 72.5% 69.8% 80.6% 77.6% 71.3%
Louisiana 35.0% 55.0% 77.7% 90.1% 97.6% 95.0% 95.6% 96.5%
Maine 0.6% 34.4% 55.8% 80.4% 83.1% 84.8% 84.9% 83.4%
Maryland 12.2% 15.2% 36.9% 48.4% 66.0% 80.1% 83.8% 75.0%
Massachusetts 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 45.1% 66.8% 81.2% 89.4% 93.7%
Michigan 29.8% 41.4% 74.8% 79.0% 79.9% 84.4% 85.6% 88.3%
Minnesota 43.0% 40.4% 55.5% 60.6% 64.6% 63.5% 63.1% 65.1%
Mississippi 29.0% 92.5% 99.4% 98.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8%
Missouri 21.6% 68.7% 89.4% 90.1% 91.4% 86.0% 89.8% 84.0%
Montana 59.3% 61.2% 75.2% 83.2% 80.8% 81.9% 84.3% 83.8%
Nebraska 20.6% 34.1% 29.5% 37.4% 35.9% 40.3% 60.6% 76.4%
Nevada 68.6% 50.0% 68.5% 62.8% 70.6% 78.5% 81.8% 85.6%
New Hampshire 0.0% 2.6% 17.5% 36.4% 51.8% 61.1% 72.6% 75.3%
New Jersey 23.7% 43.5% 80.2% 83.3% 77.5% 73.6% 71.9% 60.4%
New Mexico 0.0% 7.6% 54.6% 69.7% 74.8% 80.1% 75.8% 69.6%
New York 0.0% 20.7% 35.3% 36.7% 67.6% 70.7% 73.5% 71.4%
North Carolina 0.0% 13.4% 37.7% 55.7% 58.9% 68.4% 81.5% 78.9%
North Dakota 0.0% 20.7% 40.9% 56.1% 81.5% 82.5% 84.6% 88.4%
Ohio 51.6% 57.2% 65.3% 83.6% 96.2% 99.1% 99.7% 99.7%
Oklahoma 64.4% 45.2% 84.6% 92.4% 93.5% 94.9% 92.0% 93.5%
Oregon 41.4% 67.8% 62.1% 54.4% 58.3% 54.9% 60.1% 65.2%
Pennsylvania 12.1% 39.2% 54.5% 68.9% 71.2% 80.1% 88.0% 81.5%
Rhode Island 8.2% 75.0% 75.1% 74.0% 71.1% 63.3% 68.5% 80.8%
South Carolina 11.8% 27.0% 53.2% 61.9% 77.2% 84.9% 88.7% 88.8%
South Dakota 0.0% 0.0% 12.6% 29.8% 29.4% 37.0% 36.9% 35.2%
Tennessee 13.1% 15.1% 45.0% 78.4% 74.2% 75.6% 76.5% 82.7%
Texas 0.0% 28.2% 57.7% 71.9% 77.1% 82.9% 86.6% 83.8%
Utah 37.8% 63.2% 85.5% 84.6% 83.7% 81.4% 88.6% 84.2%
Vermont 0.0% 2.9% 29.7% 58.0% 80.2% 74.3% 85.1% 73.7%
Virginia 4.0% 60.9% 49.3% 43.2% 46.6% 66.8% 77.5% 78.4%
Washington 0.0% 22.8% 26.0% 38.9% 47.1% 73.0% 81.8% 84.5%
West Virginia 0.0% 67.4% 74.5% 72.3% 70.5% 71.2% 66.7% 61.3%
Wisconsin 41.7% 46.5% 57.0% 63.2% 60.3% 57.4% 57.1% 52.2%
Wyoming 32.3% 57.9% 89.7% 93.5% 90.9% 89.4% 91.9% 93.1%
Total 22.0% 39.6% 56.4% 67.9% 72.2% 76.3% 79.9% 79.8%

Funding Transferred to Other Core Programs Fiscal Years 2006-2013

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, 2013, 26 states took advantage of this provision and transferred just over $887 million in HSIP funding to other programs. This was approximately 11.3% of the transferring states apportionments from 2006 through 2013 and amounts to approximately 6.5% of the total HSIP apportionments for all states from 2006 through 2013.

State Total HSIP
Apportionments*
Total HSIP Funds
Transferred*
Transfer Rate
2006 - 2013 2006 - 2013
ALABAMA $302,737,235 $83,642,854 27.63%
ALASKA $133,329,032 $3,000,000 2.25%
ARIZONA $291,085,188 $58,517,005 20.10%
ARKANSAS $211,758,216 $18,562,645 8.77%
CALIFORNIA $1,177,696,199 $19,705 <0.01%
COLORADO $198,609,681 $47,329,997 23.83%
CONNECTICUT $119,423,556 $19,778,087 16.56%
GEORGIA $513,757,311 $59,000,000 11.48%
HAWAII $59,818,954 $7,970,000 13.32%
IDAHO $106,430,492 $18,927,100 17.78%
INDIANA $318,492,651 $60,923,379 19.13%
MICHIGAN $411,980,910 $26,335,040 6.39%
MINNESOTA $275,114,829 $42,980,634 15.62%
NEBRASKA $129,897,916 $15,255,975 11.74%
NEVADA $114,227,499 $11,833,000 10.36%
NEW HAMPSHIRE $60,913,564 $7,000,000 11.49%
NEW JERSEY $259,629,791 $32,299,007 12.44%
NEW MEXICO $135,270,738 $10,000,000 7.39%
NORTH CAROLINA $365,704,319 $49,800,000 13.62%
OREGON $172,816,542 $45,717,714 26.45%
SOUTH CAROLINA $286,666,686 $16,200,000 5.65%
SOUTH DAKOTA $115,013,822 $45,361,281 39.44%
TEXAS $1,198,954,566 $59,224,370 4.94%
VIRGINIA $338,280,521 $45,750,867 13.52%
WASHINGTON $210,812,101 $10,759,468 5.10%
WISCONSIN $312,651,595 $91,021,428 29.11%
Total $7,821,073,914 $887,209,555 11.34%

*SAFETEA-LU + MAP-21 Combined

Return to top

Program Contact

Erin Kenley

202-366-8556

What's New

Web-based HSIP Courses
Five new web-based courses related to the HSIP are available from the National Highway Institute

Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Analysis: A Primer for Safety and Environmental Professionals:
    • Brochure
    • Report

NEW Saving Lives Together: The Highway Safety and EMS Connection

NEW Strategic Highway Safety Plans: A Champion's Guidebook to Saving Lives, Second Edition

HSIP Self Assessment Tool

Highway Safety Improvement Program – Project Eligibility

Strategic Highway Safety Plan – Leadership that Saves Lives

Strategic Highway Safety Plan – Get Involved!

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

P2P – Integrating Local Planning Organizations into a State HSIP

SHSP Implementation Process Model Interactive CD

HSIP Manual

HSIP Assessment Toolbox

SHSP IPM – The Essential Eight – Fundamental Elements and Effective Steps for SHSP Implementation

SHSP IPM Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies

A Primer on Safety Performance Measures for the Transportation Planning Process

Data and Safety Analysis Tools Brochure