USA Banner

Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation
FHWA Highway Safety Programs

Obligation Rates for the Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSIP Obligation Rates

HSIP Special Rules Obligation Rates

HSIP Obligation Rates

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. 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 below does not include safety improvements that are planned, but not yet obligated, does not include transfer of funds to another agency, 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 FY 2023

Table 1 illustrates the ratio of the HSIP cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionments for each State through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, which goes from October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023. FY 2015 through FY 2019 includes combined funds from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. FY 2020 through FY 2021 includes funds only from the FAST Act. FY 2022 and FY 2023 includes combined funds from the FAST Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). The obligation rates include the Railway-Highway Crossings Program (RHCP) and the High-Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) Special Rule funding under MAP-21, the FAST Act and IIJA. MAP-21 (and the subsequent extension of MAP-21) was in effect from October 2013 through September 2015. The FAST Act was in effect from October 1, 2015 through October 1, 2021. The IIJA passed on November 15, 2021 and took effect on October 1, 2021. 

Table 1: HSIP Cumulative Obligation Rates by State

STATE FISCAL YEAR
MAP-21 & FAST ACT FAST ACT FAST ACT & IIJA
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Alabama 41.5% 51.3% 54.8% 60.4% 63.1% 67.4% 70.6% 71.4% 73.5%
Alaska 98.0% 98.5% 98.8% 91.9% 82.9% 91.7% 86.6% 91.2% 85.4%
Arizona 56.4% 65.3% 77.5% 74.1% 66.4% 46.3% 53.6% 59.9% 62.6%
Arkansas 27.9% 51.1% 59.9% 74.5% 80.2% 117.7% 101.9% 97.4% 90.7%
California 86.3% 108.3% 123.6% 135.2% 139.2% 200.6% 216.1% 212.3% 211.9%
Colorado 65.3% 63.2% 75.4% 73.1% 71.3% 52.3% 59.2% 67.8% 84.8%
Connecticut 51.4% 61.0% 67.0% 77.7% 77.6% 92.8% 89.7% 89.4% 83.9%
Delaware 92.9% 91.7% 97.6% 99.5% 88.4% 81.9% 87.5% 95.3% 96.7%
District of Columbia 54.0% 94.1% 98.9% 99.0% 99.9% 95.9% 93.6% 94.2% 96.5%
Florida 79.9% 79.3% 86.7% 87.5% 74.9% 71.3% 82.8% 83.1% 89.7%
Georgia 65.5% 78.8% 85.3% 90.7% 88.5% 100.7% 103.7% 114.7% 120.0%
Hawaii 1.3% 17.5% 55.4% 59.9% 56.9% 42.0% 57.8% 79.1% 86.0%
Idaho 29.8% 44.7% 56.4% 71.0% 69.2% 79.7% 82.3% 96.7% 97.2%
Illinois 60.7% 74.6% 71.3% 78.4% 79.9% 70.0% 74.9% 75.7% 76.8%
Indiana 17.1% 28.4% 31.5% 37.9% 37.8% 48.7% 53.1% 61.0% 67.1%
Iowa 67.5% 69.2% 70.1% 75.8% 75.0% 61.2% 64.3% 74.2% 75.7%
Kansas 56.3% 52.9% 65.8% 71.5% 76.0% 73.3% 83.2% 86.0% 84.6%
Kentucky 43.1% 48.5% 59.1% 69.4% 64.7% 84.3% 86.3% 88.4% 89.9%
Louisiana 73.0% 90.9% 85.5% 89.8% 96.0% 87.5% 81.8% 85.9% 94.7%
Maine 91.1% 90.6% 91.7% 89.2% 91.6% 81.9% 76.9% 85.1% 85.9%
Maryland 33.1% 42.5% 40.8% 41.6% 36.3% 22.5% 36.4% 45.3% 58.8%
Massachusetts 97.0% 95.5% 100.1% 98.6% 95.8% 91.3% 85.4% 87.8% 91.3%
Michigan 85.8% 81.8% 87.6% 88.2% 90.0% 83.6% 85.8% 84.6% 86.9%
Minnesota 45.8% 52.7% 60.8% 65.4% 66.1% 61.7% 63.2% 71.6% 85.2%
Mississippi 100.0% 100.0% 99.3% 98.5% 93.0% 96.6% 97.2% 97.7% 98.0%
Missouri 59.2% 65.6% 86.8% 98.5% 98.0% 94.0% 94.0% 95.3% 96.7%
Montana 59.6% 78.8% 81.0% 82.6% 74.2% 65.5% 74.0% 95.3% 97.0%
Nebraska 79.8% 77.9% 81.0% 79.8% 83.4% 67.0% 76.6% 66.0% 74.9%
Nevada 98.8% 97.7% 93.6% 88.6% 81.8% 66.8% 70.1% 68.5% 65.6%
New Hampshire 89.9% 93.0% 89.0% 87.3% 86.8% 78.7% 77.5% 79.6% 82.2%
New Jersey 44.8% 52.9% 51.7% 54.6% 54.6% 43.9% 50.9% 64.1% 74.3%
New Mexico 44.9% 49.7% 59.3% 70.7% 71.6% 77.8% 80.6% 84.4% 82.5%
New York 58.9% 56.7% 80.1% 82.2% 71.7% 69.8% 75.9% 79.9% 80.6%
North Carolina 73.2% 80.3% 84.5% 87.0% 84.1% 91.5% 93.7% 94.5% 95.6%
North Dakota 72.5% 75.1% 84.9% 93.6% 95.1% 107.9% 112.8% 114.7% 114.3%
Ohio 99.3% 99.3% 87.7% 89.4% 87.5% 90.1% 97.1% 97.7% 102.1%
Oklahoma 88.5% 91.1% 94.4% 96.1% 89.5% 89.7% 93.1% 90.1% 91.5%
Oregon 57.3% 78.7% 80.5% 73.4% 69.0% 64.6% 69.5% 76.7% 80.2%
Pennsylvania 64.9% 78.7% 77.8% 79.3% 78.1% 69.3% 73.9% 75.3% 76.6%
Rhode Island 53.6% 50.7% 57.4% 67.4% 73.4% 68.7% 78.3% 86.9% 88.5%
South Carolina 97.0% 87.6% 86.5% 89.4% 79.3% 73.8% 69.8% 80.7% 85.1%
South Dakota 16.3% 59.7% 99.8% 128.0% 121.5% 177.9% 200.7% 208.5% 207.0%
Tennessee 72.0% 83.3% 88.4% 89.0% 87.5% 87.1% 91.4% 88.8% 93.7%
Texas 89.8% 91.2% 91.0% 89.8% 80.5% 77.5% 82.4% 85.7% 88.6%
Utah 93.4% 88.9% 94.6% 89.6% 90.3% 95.8% 96.2% 96.3% 94.9%
Vermont 53.6% 72.1% 81.2% 82.6% 78.0% 84.3% 81.9% 88.4% 93.2%
Virginia 77.4% 85.7% 86.8% 86.1% 78.4% 67.0% 68.6% 65.3% 78.9%
Washington 62.2% 79.1% 79.4% 78.9% 82.1% 72.6% 83.5% 81.6% 83.4%
West Virginia 34.9% 44.1% 54.4% 85.9% 89.9% 93.7% 76.9% 78.3% 82.3%
Wisconsin 4.8% 19.4% 32.8% 36.7% 36.5% 33.5% 44.1% 51.2% 56.5%
Wyoming 79.9% 76.4% 85.7% 91.7% 97.7% 83.4% 83.0% 81.9% 84.5%
Total 68.6% 76.6% 82.4% 86.2% 83.6% 86.7% 91.5% 94.3% 97.5%

HSIP Funding Transferred To/From Other Core Apportioned Programs Through FY 2023

A funding 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, 2023, 12 States transferred funds out of the HSIP into to other core apportioned programs and 11 States transferred funds from other core apportioned programs into the HSIP. Table 2 below shows the transfer amounts and rates from FY 2016 through FY 2023 and includes both FAST Act and IIJA funds. Table 2 does not include transfer of funds to another agency.

Table 2: HSIP Funding Transferred To/From Other Core Apportioned Programs

STATE TOTAL HSIP FUNDS
TRANSFERRED
(2016-2023)
TOTAL HSIP
APPORTIONMENTS
(2016-2023)
TRANSFER
RATE
Alabama ($47,251,135) $384,896,543 -12.28%
Alaska ($25,195,831) $255,006,002 -9.88%
Arizona ($108,065,878) $352,524,410 -30.65%
Arkansas $12,647,912 $260,670,037 4.85%
California $1,908,533,452 $1,653,254,746 115.44%
Colorado ($35,192,970) $239,367,083 -14.70%
Connecticut ($32,501,867) $243,330,723 -13.36%
Florida ($95,549,529) $984,272,067 -9.71%
Georgia $181,317,367 $592,127,786 30.62%
Hawaii ($5,294,073) $79,878,970 -6.63%
Illinois ($79,822,943) $624,360,671 -12.78%
Indiana ($171,750,631) $453,933,636 -37.84%
Iowa ($49,392,874) $232,375,370 -21.26%
Kansas ($2,420,302) $153,973,945 -1.57%
Kentucky ($26,614,768) $337,344,873 -7.89%
Maine ($6,500,000) $89,091,379 -7.30%
Maryland ($85,329,940) $288,719,405 -29.55%
Massachusetts ($18,500,000) $277,645,822 -6.66%
Michigan ($36,444,638) $475,702,573 -7.66%
Minnesota ($39,026,534) $306,099,297 -12.75%
Montana ($940,730) $207,432,842 -0.45%
Nevada ($60,025,397) $172,526,377 -34.79%
New Hampshire ($9,950,351) $77,750,368 -12.80%
New Jersey ($136,936,259) $465,492,258 -29.42%
New Mexico ($17,179,476) $176,245,412 -9.75%
New York ($154,969,065) $786,980,191 -19.69%
North Dakota $24,038,597 $105,258,297 22.84%
Ohio $30,000,000 $628,640,687 4.77%
Oklahoma ($23,538,512) $307,747,013 -7.65%
Oregon ($44,520,109) $238,331,722 -18.68%
Pennsylvania ($126,773,158) $801,051,269 -15.83%
Rhode Island ($14,526,780) $105,348,830 -13.79%
South Carolina ($46,087,388) $335,016,128 -13.76%
South Dakota $159,397,844 $130,231,328 122.40%
Tennessee $10,000,000 $411,944,707 2.43%
Texas ($137,806,460) $1,844,166,968 -7.47%
Utah ($46,615) $167,547,264 -0.03%
Vermont ($5,610,244) $97,237,483 -5.77%
Virginia $2,021,431 $495,775,639 0.41%
Washington $2,718,684 $313,544,364 0.87%
West Virginia ($33,970,635) $228,541,280 -14.86%
Wisconsin ($151,736,732) $369,679,590 -41.05%
Wyoming ($16,600,000) $132,662,519 -12.51%

RHCP Cumulative Obligations vs. Cumulative Apportionments Through FY 2023

Rail-Highway Crossings Program (RHCP) Section 130 funds are set-aside from the HSIP apportionment. The RHCP set-aside funds are apportioned to States by formula. Table 3 illustrates the ratio of the RHCP (Section 130) set-aside obligations to the apportionments for each State through the end of FY 2023. FY 2014 through FY 2019 includes combined funds from MAP-21 and the FAST Act. FY 2020 through FY 2021 includes funds only from the FAST Act. FY 2022 and FY 2023 includes combined funds from the FAST Act and IIJA.

As noted above, RHCP funding obligation rates are not a reflection of a State's commitment to safety. This summary does not show why obligations rates are high or low, or how safe rail-highway crossings may be in each State, as the information in Table 3 does not include safety improvements that are planned, but not yet obligated, and does not reflect safety spending through other core programs.

Table 3: RHCP Cumulative Obligation Rates by State

STATE FISCAL YEAR
MAP-21 & FAST ACT FAST ACT FAST ACT & IIJA
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Alabama 4.7% 34.7% 53.1% 47.1% 34.6% 14.9% 28.9% 27.6% 35.1%
Alaska 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.3% 100.0% 87.6% 66.9% 85.6% 78.6%
Arizona 43.3% 55.3% 59.4% 51.8% 45.8% 33.8% 39.5% 47.7% 54.5%
Arkansas 31.3% 36.6% 44.1% 48.9% 59.3% 59.9% 53.1% 64.8% 65.4%
California 9.7% 22.0% 53.5% 60.3% 59.7% 52.4% 58.4% 67.9% 75.0%
Colorado 21.6% 24.2% 37.8% 47.1% 70.8% 53.9% 89.4% 95.2% 98.1%
Connecticut 9.6% 31.9% 47.6% 54.1% 61.2% 91.4% 97.4% 97.6% 97.9%
Delaware 35.0% 42.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.8% 89.1% 79.5% 77.1% 88.1%
District of Columbia 62.4% 60.5% 100.0% 92.1% 99.0% 94.8% 79.8% 97.8% 91.1%
Florida 92.2% 83.4% 95.5% 94.1% 89.8% 85.7% 94.7% 94.3% 95.0%
Georgia 10.8% 25.8% 53.3% 57.1% 60.9% 58.3% 63.1% 63.9% 81.1%
Hawaii 10.5% 32.4% 45.2% 47.6% 76.0% 97.0% 81.6% 84.1% 98.1%
Idaho 2.7% 21.5% 41.1% 46.6% 52.7% 35.9% 39.4% 88.1% 89.5%
Illinois 1.3% 47.1% 39.8% 47.0% 59.2% 43.4% 52.8% 57.4% 63.3%
Indiana 10.1% 36.6% 37.8% 61.3% 68.6% 67.4% 60.2% 95.8% 98.0%
Iowa 33.4% 35.4% 41.9% 49.4% 61.9% 57.2% 55.5% 63.5% 71.2%
Kansas 75.1% 57.5% 79.0% 93.5% 82.0% 73.8% 76.2% 74.9% 66.3%
Kentucky 8.1% 35.4% 36.0% 46.1% 82.2% 57.9% 59.7% 58.1% 63.3%
Louisiana 62.8% 64.7% 58.7% 58.3% 59.2% 42.2% 51.8% 57.5% 66.8%
Maine 27.2% 25.0% 32.9% 22.7% 39.4% 32.0% 43.9% 60.4% 63.6%
Maryland 45.6% 54.5% 61.6% 50.6% 51.3% 37.1% 47.4% 46.3% 56.3%
Massachusetts 94.4% 83.0% 94.9% 91.1% 93.1% 68.8% 54.2% 65.4% 76.9%
Michigan 21.0% 32.4% 45.3% 52.7% 65.3% 60.0% 57.1% 57.2% 63.4%
Minnesota 29.2% 34.5% 38.4% 48.3% 51.3% 35.5% 43.8% 63.6% 84.8%
Mississippi 100.0% 100.0% 94.2% 87.6% 75.3% 97.0% 97.5% 97.8% 98.1%
Missouri 93.8% 92.3% 86.8% 85.8% 81.1% 71.6% 66.0% 73.6% 84.2%
Montana 77.7% 78.0% 91.4% 96.9% 89.3% 85.8% 82.3% 87.9% 98.1%
Nebraska 1.0% 34.5% 61.2% 59.8% 79.3% 55.9% 60.9% 64.3% 77.3%
Nevada 77.8% 61.2% 61.4% 54.7% 52.6% 29.0% 64.8% 88.9% 82.5%
New Hampshire 43.3% 46.3% 42.1% 47.5% 50.2% 31.9% 41.6% 57.2% 58.7%
New Jersey 96.7% 92.1% 98.2% 95.1% 95.9% 79.3% 94.0% 97.8% 98.1%
New Mexico 41.0% 64.7% 68.0% 62.9% 62.5% 37.4% 45.9% 50.6% 56.6%
New York 29.8% 47.1% 42.9% 46.3% 59.9% 53.0% 53.3% 58.0% 67.6%
North Carolina 85.6% 90.0% 91.7% 91.2% 78.7% 57.9% 66.1% 68.4% 75.4%
North Dakota 12.6% 59.2% 71.9% 78.5% 82.6% 77.0% 81.7% 87.8% 96.7%
Ohio 97.9% 99.2% 100.0% 96.2% 100.0% 97.0% 97.4% 97.8% 98.1%
Oklahoma 44.8% 47.5% 64.3% 72.6% 75.6% 62.1% 92.5% 97.8% 97.9%
Oregon 36.9% 45.8% 51.3% 53.7% 60.0% 53.5% 50.1% 76.2% 79.0%
Pennsylvania 1.3% 24.0% 37.0% 47.7% 60.5% 45.8% 52.7% 57.3% 68.4%
Rhode Island 36.9% 22.3% 35.6% 48.8% 61.1% 45.0% 53.4% 67.9% 67.6%
South Carolina 70.2% 53.3% 68.2% 79.4% 69.4% 51.9% 59.0% 86.8% 89.2%
South Dakota 15.8% 24.3% 36.6% 56.4% 60.2% 48.7% 56.5% 81.7% 84.9%
Tennessee 14.7% 66.5% 82.1% 68.4% 63.4% 53.7% 73.6% 85.0% 97.7%
Texas 57.7% 55.9% 53.3% 47.7% 45.2% 17.2% 41.5% 49.2% 63.5%
Utah 46.8% 40.4% 46.4% 56.1% 81.2% 91.3% 89.2% 84.4% 77.4%
Vermont 0.0% 92.5% 98.0% 85.3% 72.5% 86.4% 92.2% 83.7% 77.1%
Virginia 50.0% 50.3% 47.3% 51.6% 43.9% 25.7% 23.1% 24.7% 43.4%
Washington 16.4% 55.9% 47.1% 58.7% 74.2% 61.8% 63.6% 65.4% 59.4%
West Virginia 53.6% 58.4% 52.4% 48.6% 67.9% 59.5% 64.0% 69.1% 70.8%
Wisconsin 21.2% 21.0% 25.3% 32.4% 39.5% 28.4% 36.9% 41.2% 48.8%
Wyoming 60.9% 54.5% 57.3% 65.5% 73.1% 50.9% 58.3% 68.4% 70.8%
Total 40.4% 51.0% 59.3% 62.7% 66.1% 54.9% 61.5% 69.0% 75.5%

HSIP Special Rules Obligation Rates

The HSIP includes special rules which set aside funding for High-Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) [23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1)] and Vulnerable Road User Safety (VRU) [23 U.S.C. 148(g)(3)] if a State triggers certain conditions. If either of these special rules apply, States are required to obligate special rule set-aside funds and associated obligation limitation the next fiscal year. Obligation limitation associated with the special rules are only available for that subsequent fiscal year. For more information, visit the HSIP Special Rules website.

High-Risk Rural Roads Special Rule Obligation Rates for FY 2023

HRRR special rule funds are set-aside from a State’s HSIP apportionment. If a State’s fatality rate on rural roads increased over the most recent 2-year period for which data are available, that State is required to obligate in FY 2023 for projects on high-risk rural roads an amount equal to at least 200 percent of its FY 2009 high-risk rural roads set-aside. Table 4 illustrates the ratio of HRRR set-aside obligations to the FY 2023 HRRR obligation requirements for those States that are subject to the HRRR Special Rule in FY 2023.

Table 4: FY 2023 High-Risk Rural Roads Special Rule Obligation Rates

STATE HRRR FUNDS
REQUIRED TO
BE OBLIGATED
 IN FY 2023
FY 2023 HRRR
SPECIAL RULE
OBLIGATION
RATE
Arizona $4,093,716 100%
California $17,563,128 100%
Connecticut $1,502,890 100%
Idaho $1,294,798 100%
Kansas $3,150,110 100%
Maine $900,000 100%
Michigan $5,852,012 100%
Mississippi $3,279,148 100%
New Mexico $1,887,424 100%
North Carolina $4,726,978 100%
Oregon $2,440,120 100%
Rhode Island $900,000 100%
Tennessee $4,236,520 100%
Vermont $900,000 100%
Virginia $4,459,774 100%
Total $57,186,618 100%

Vulnerable Road User Safety Special Rule Obligation Rates for FY 2023

fatalities of vulnerable road users in calendar year (CY) 2021 is greater than 15 percent of the total CY 2021 fatalities, that State is required to obligate not less than 15 percent of the FY 2023 VRU Safety set-aside for highway safety improvement projects to address the safety of vulnerable road users. Table 5 illustrates the ratio of VRU Safety set-aside obligations to the FY 2023 VRU Safety obligation requirements for those States that are subject to the VRU Safety special rule in FY 2023.

Table 5: FY 2023 Vulnerable Road User Safety Special Rule Obligation Rates
STATE VRU SAFETY FUNDS REQUIRED TO BE OBLIGATED IN
FY 2023
FY 2023 VRU
SAFETY SPECIAL
RULE OBLIGATION
RATE
Alaska $6,108,899 100%
Arizona $8,523,852 100%
California $40,221,412 100%
Colorado $6,055,455 100%
Connecticut $5,873,781 100%
Delaware $1,898,849 100%
District of Columbia $1,789,421 100%
Florida $23,122,207 100%
Georgia $14,858,175 100%
Hawaii $1,913,520 100%
Illinois $15,636,886 100%
Louisiana $8,411,066 100%
Maryland $6,905,232 100%
Massachusetts $6,825,483 100%
Michigan $11,770,974 100%
Mississippi $5,665,445 100%
Nevada $4,197,679 100%
New Hampshire $1,864,186 100%
New Jersey $11,326,418 100%
New Mexico $4,421,429 100%
New York $18,845,018 100%
North Carolina $12,078,148 100%
Ohio $15,088,502 100%
Oklahoma $7,350,907 100%
Oregon $5,840,062 100%
Pennsylvania $19,299,908 100%
Puerto Rico $4,219,599 100%
Rhode Island $2,566,675 100%
South Carolina $7,953,170 100%
Tennessee $9,877,855 100%
Texas $46,118,374 100%
Utah $4,106,266 100%
Vermont $2,339,447 100%
Washington $7,822,861 100%
Total $350,897,161 100%