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


Skip to content
FacebookYouTubeTwitterFlickrLinkedIn

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: slorship072717.pdf (146 KB)

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

An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for the payment, or a legal duty on the part of the United States that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of the State or local public agency (LPA). A Federal agency incurs an obligation when it records an obligation under a grant agreement to pay the State (or LPA) for the Federal share of a project’s eligible cost.  This commitment is generally made as both the Federal and State governments agree to specific project expenditures based upon a defined scope of work. Under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), obligations are recorded against HSIP funds that were distributed via a formula provided in the law; these funds are commonly referred to as an apportionment. From the Federal perspective, the obligation to apportionment ratio is a way to represent the degree to which a State is using HSIP funds, as shown in Table 1 below. Using apportionment figures for the calculations addresses two issues: 1) funding available is subject to transfer activities and 2) apportionments more accurately represent the extent to which States are using HSIP as a funding source.

HSIP 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, as the information in Table 1 does not include safety improvements that are planned, but not yet obligated, and does not reflect safety spending through other core programs such as the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program or the National Highway Performance Program, or funded by non-Federal funds.

HSIP Cumulative Obligations vs. Cumulative Apportionments Through Fiscal Year 2016

Table 1 illustrates the ratio of the HSIP cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionments for each State through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 for the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act combined. The obligation rates include the Railway-Highway Grade Crossings Program and the High Risk Rural Roads Special Rule funding under MAP-21 and the FAST Act. MAP-21 (and the subsequent extension of MAP-21) was in effect from October 2013 through September 2015. The FAST Act went into effect on October 1, 2015.

Table 1: MAP-21 and FAST Act Cumulative HSIP Obligation Rates by State

State Fiscal Year
2013 2014 2015 2016
Alabama 33.4% 32.6% 41.5% 51.3%
Alaska 99.0% 93.7% 98.0% 98.5%
Arizona 0.0% 54.5% 56.4% 65.3%
Arkansas 0.0% 28.7% 27.9% 51.1%
California 93.3% 79.6% 86.3% 108.3%
Colorado 0.0% 51.7% 65.3% 63.2%
Connecticut 13.2% 30.9% 51.4% 61.0%
Delaware 64.8% 86.7% 92.9% 91.7%
District of Columbia 0.0% 6.0% 54.0% 94.1%
Florida 44.1% 63.3% 79.9% 79.3%
Georgia 75.2% 69.4% 65.5% 78.8%
Hawaii 0.0% 1.9% 1.3% 17.5%
Idaho 0.0% 5.9% 29.8% 44.7%
Illinois 37.0% 50.6% 60.7% 74.6%
Indiana 4.5% 6.7% 17.1% 28.4%
Iowa 31.5% 52.9% 67.5% 69.2%
Kansas 36.3% 30.7% 56.3% 52.9%
Kentucky 1.9% 15.8% 43.1% 48.5%
Louisiana 87.7% 94.1% 73.0% 90.9%
Maine 63.4% 68.2% 91.1% 90.6%
Maryland 8.5% 22.5% 33.1% 42.5%
Massachusetts 88.0% 91.2% 97.0% 95.5%
Michigan 81.3% 86.3% 85.8% 81.8%
Minnesota 10.7% 40.5% 45.8% 52.7%
Mississippi 100.0% 98.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Missouri 23.5% 45.7% 59.2% 65.6%
Montana 22.0% 48.4% 59.6% 78.8%
Nebraska 75.6% 61.6% 79.8% 77.9%
Nevada 98.8% 98.1% 98.8% 97.7%
New Hampshire 45.2% 93.6% 89.9% 93.0%
New Jersey 6.4% 24.5% 44.8% 52.9%
New Mexico 10.3% 27.4% 44.9% 49.7%
New York 4.0% 41.3% 58.9% 56.7%
North Carolina 28.3% 54.8% 73.2% 80.3%
North Dakota 71.9% 70.1% 72.5% 75.1%
Ohio 99.9% 97.1% 99.3% 99.3%
Oklahoma 81.5% 82.4% 88.5% 91.1%
Oregon 48.6% 44.0% 57.3% 78.7%
Pennsylvania 33.0% 62.4% 64.9% 78.7%
Rhode Island 36.4% 53.2% 53.6% 50.7%
South Carolina 65.6% 85.9% 97.0% 87.6%
South Dakota 0.0% 7.4% 16.3% 59.7%
Tennessee 14.6% 59.8% 72.0% 83.3%
Texas 43.5% 63.2% 89.8% 91.2%
Utah 32.6% 61.6% 93.4% 88.9%
Vermont 0.0% 38.7% 53.6% 72.1%
Virginia 85.2% 91.3% 77.4% 85.7%
Washington 71.2% 60.9% 62.2% 79.1%
West Virginia 3.2% 23.4% 34.9% 44.1%
Wisconsin 0.9% 2.8% 4.8% 19.4%
Wyoming 79.2% 84.2% 79.9% 76.4%
Total 45.3% 58.1% 68.6% 76.6%

Funding Transferred to Other Core Apportioned Programs Through Fiscal Year 2016

A "transfer" involves the shifting of the budget (contract) authority in one fund account to another. The HSIP is subject to the transfer provision under section 126 of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). Under this provision, States are permitted to transfer up to 50 percent of their HSIP funds apportioned for the fiscal year to any other eligible core apportioned program. As of September 30, 2016, 21 States transferred HSIP MAP-21 or FAST Act funds to other core apportioned programs, and one State transferred funds from other core apportioned programs into HSIP funds. Table 2 below shows the transfer amounts and rates through FY 2016.

Table 2: MAP-21 and FAST Act HSIP Funding Transferred to Other Core Apportioned Programs

State Total HSIP Apportionment
(2013-2016)
Total HSIP Funds Transferred
(2013-2016)
Transfer Rate
ALABAMA $173,144,607.00 $(66,673,412.00) -38.51%
ARKANSAS $114,204,185.00 $(37,840,152.00) -33.13%
CALIFORNIA $974,306,878.00 $215,000,000.00 22.07%
CONNECTICUT $107,591,758.00 $(38,503,766.06) -35.79%
FLORIDA $444,215,116.00 $(14,214,529.00) -3.20%
IDAHO $62,758,263.00 $(15,896,417.00) -25.33%
INDIANA $190,294,617.00 $(95,147,578.00) -50.00%
KANSAS $68,584,276.00 $(7,420,302.00) -10.82%
KENTUCKY $152,509,872.00 $(65,067,355.02) -42.66%
MARYLAND $129,862,155.00 $(44,400,000.00) -34.19%
MINNESOTA $132,848,026.00 $(16,937,255.00) -12.75%
NEW JERSEY $202,834,876.00 $(78,779,099.00) -38.84%
NEW MEXICO $85,026,382.00 $(32,782,152.00) -38.56%
NEW YORK $354,571,333.00 $(75,092,058.00) -21.18%
NORTH CAROLINA $227,107,049.00 $(46,700,000.00) -20.56%
OREGON $111,301,955.00 $(14,060,548.00) -12.63%
RHODE ISLAND $47,171,057.00 $(12,118,775.00) -25.69%
SOUTH DAKOTA $57,894,026.00 $(7,581,085.50) -13.09%
TENNESSEE $187,633,981.00 $(23,676,996.00) -12.62%
VERMONT $44,372,903.00 $(11,220,488.00) -25.29%
VIRGINIA $227,993,869.00 $(20,000,000.00) -8.77%
WISCONSIN $161,597,462.00 $(80,798,724.00) -50.00%

 

Page last modified on July 27, 2017
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