- HSIP Cumulative Obligations vs. Cumulative Apportionments
- HSIP Funding Transferred To/From Other Core Apportioned Programs
- RHCP Cumulative Obligations vs. Cumulative Apportionments
HSIP Special Rules Obligation Rates
- High-Risk Rural Roads Special Rule Obligation Rates
- Vulnerable Road User Safety Special Rule 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 2024
Table 1 illustrates the ratio of the HSIP cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionments for each State through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, which goes from October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2024. 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 through FY 2024 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.
| STATE | FISCAL YEAR | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAP-21 & FAST ACT | FAST ACT | FAST ACT & IIJA | ||||||||
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | |
| Alabama | 41.5% | 51.3% | 54.8% | 60.4% | 63.1% | 67.4% | 70.6% | 71.4% | 73.5% | 73.0% |
| Alaska | 98.0% | 98.5% | 98.8% | 91.9% | 82.9% | 91.7% | 86.6% | 91.2% | 85.4% | 81.3% |
| Arizona | 56.4% | 65.3% | 77.5% | 74.1% | 66.4% | 46.3% | 53.6% | 59.9% | 62.6% | 69.0% |
| Arkansas | 27.9% | 51.1% | 59.9% | 74.5% | 80.2% | 117.7% | 101.9% | 97.4% | 90.7% | 93.7% |
| California | 86.3% | 108.3% | 123.6% | 135.2% | 139.2% | 200.6% | 216.1% | 212.3% | 211.9% | 198.2% |
| Colorado | 65.3% | 63.2% | 75.4% | 73.1% | 71.3% | 52.3% | 59.2% | 67.8% | 84.8% | 87.4% |
| Connecticut | 51.4% | 61.0% | 67.0% | 77.7% | 77.6% | 92.8% | 89.7% | 89.4% | 83.9% | 82.2% |
| Delaware | 92.9% | 91.7% | 97.6% | 99.5% | 88.4% | 81.9% | 87.5% | 95.3% | 96.7% | 95.3% |
| District of Columbia | 54.0% | 94.1% | 98.9% | 99.0% | 99.9% | 95.9% | 93.6% | 94.2% | 96.5% | 96.6% |
| Florida | 79.9% | 79.3% | 86.7% | 87.5% | 74.9% | 71.3% | 82.8% | 83.1% | 89.7% | 90.6% |
| Georgia | 65.5% | 78.8% | 85.3% | 90.7% | 88.5% | 100.7% | 103.7% | 114.7% | 120.0% | 122.3% |
| Hawaii | 1.3% | 17.5% | 55.4% | 59.9% | 56.9% | 42.0% | 57.8% | 79.1% | 86.0% | 89.4% |
| Idaho | 29.8% | 44.7% | 56.4% | 71.0% | 69.2% | 79.7% | 82.3% | 96.7% | 97.2% | 97.5% |
| Illinois | 60.7% | 74.6% | 71.3% | 78.4% | 79.9% | 70.0% | 74.9% | 75.7% | 76.8% | 78.4% |
| Indiana | 17.1% | 28.4% | 31.5% | 37.9% | 37.8% | 48.7% | 53.1% | 61.0% | 67.1% | 75.1% |
| Iowa | 67.5% | 69.2% | 70.1% | 75.8% | 75.0% | 61.2% | 64.3% | 74.2% | 75.7% | 80.9% |
| Kansas | 56.3% | 52.9% | 65.8% | 71.5% | 76.0% | 73.3% | 83.2% | 86.0% | 84.6% | 91.1% |
| Kentucky | 43.1% | 48.5% | 59.1% | 69.4% | 64.7% | 84.3% | 86.3% | 88.4% | 89.9% | 94.0% |
| Louisiana | 73.0% | 90.9% | 85.5% | 89.8% | 96.0% | 87.5% | 81.8% | 85.9% | 94.7% | 95.3% |
| Maine | 91.1% | 90.6% | 91.7% | 89.2% | 91.6% | 81.9% | 76.9% | 85.1% | 85.9% | 85.4% |
| Maryland | 33.1% | 42.5% | 40.8% | 41.6% | 36.3% | 22.5% | 36.4% | 45.3% | 58.8% | 65.5% |
| Massachusetts | 97.0% | 95.5% | 100.1% | 98.6% | 95.8% | 91.3% | 85.4% | 87.8% | 91.3% | 99.3% |
| Michigan | 85.8% | 81.8% | 87.6% | 88.2% | 90.0% | 83.6% | 85.8% | 84.6% | 86.9% | 85.7% |
| Minnesota | 45.8% | 52.7% | 60.8% | 65.4% | 66.1% | 61.7% | 63.2% | 71.6% | 85.2% | 87.4% |
| Mississippi | 100.0% | 100.0% | 99.3% | 98.5% | 93.0% | 96.6% | 97.2% | 97.7% | 98.0% | 98.3% |
| Missouri | 59.2% | 65.6% | 86.8% | 98.5% | 98.0% | 94.0% | 94.0% | 95.3% | 96.7% | 97.5% |
| Montana | 59.6% | 78.8% | 81.0% | 82.6% | 74.2% | 65.5% | 74.0% | 95.3% | 97.0% | 93.4% |
| Nebraska | 79.8% | 77.9% | 81.0% | 79.8% | 83.4% | 67.0% | 76.6% | 66.0% | 74.9% | 84.8% |
| Nevada | 98.8% | 97.7% | 93.6% | 88.6% | 81.8% | 66.8% | 70.1% | 68.5% | 65.6% | 69.5% |
| New Hampshire | 89.9% | 93.0% | 89.0% | 87.3% | 86.8% | 78.7% | 77.5% | 79.6% | 82.2% | 84.5% |
| New Jersey | 44.8% | 52.9% | 51.7% | 54.6% | 54.6% | 43.9% | 50.9% | 64.1% | 74.3% | 85.9% |
| New Mexico | 44.9% | 49.7% | 59.3% | 70.7% | 71.6% | 77.8% | 80.6% | 84.4% | 82.5% | 83.3% |
| New York | 58.9% | 56.7% | 80.1% | 82.2% | 71.7% | 69.8% | 75.9% | 79.9% | 80.6% | 81.0% |
| North Carolina | 73.2% | 80.3% | 84.5% | 87.0% | 84.1% | 91.5% | 93.7% | 94.5% | 95.6% | 98.6% |
| North Dakota | 72.5% | 75.1% | 84.9% | 93.6% | 95.1% | 107.9% | 112.8% | 114.7% | 114.3% | 110.7% |
| Ohio | 99.3% | 99.3% | 87.7% | 89.4% | 87.5% | 90.1% | 97.1% | 97.7% | 102.1% | 101.7% |
| Oklahoma | 88.5% | 91.1% | 94.4% | 96.1% | 89.5% | 89.7% | 93.1% | 90.1% | 91.5% | 92.6% |
| Oregon | 57.3% | 78.7% | 80.5% | 73.4% | 69.0% | 64.6% | 69.5% | 76.7% | 80.2% | 81.1% |
| Pennsylvania | 64.9% | 78.7% | 77.8% | 79.3% | 78.1% | 69.3% | 73.9% | 75.3% | 76.6% | 78.0% |
| Rhode Island | 53.6% | 50.7% | 57.4% | 67.4% | 73.4% | 68.7% | 78.3% | 86.9% | 88.5% | 90.1% |
| South Carolina | 97.0% | 87.6% | 86.5% | 89.4% | 79.3% | 73.8% | 69.8% | 80.7% | 85.1% | 87.6% |
| South Dakota | 16.3% | 59.7% | 99.8% | 128.0% | 121.5% | 177.9% | 200.7% | 208.5% | 207.0% | 193.0% |
| Tennessee | 72.0% | 83.3% | 88.4% | 89.0% | 87.5% | 87.1% | 91.4% | 88.8% | 93.7% | 94.5% |
| Texas | 89.8% | 91.2% | 91.0% | 89.8% | 80.5% | 77.5% | 82.4% | 85.7% | 88.6% | 90.7% |
| Utah | 93.4% | 88.9% | 94.6% | 89.6% | 90.3% | 95.8% | 96.2% | 96.3% | 94.9% | 94.6% |
| Vermont | 53.6% | 72.1% | 81.2% | 82.6% | 78.0% | 84.3% | 81.9% | 88.4% | 93.2% | 94.7% |
| Virginia | 77.4% | 85.7% | 86.8% | 86.1% | 78.4% | 67.0% | 68.6% | 65.3% | 78.9% | 88.5% |
| Washington | 62.2% | 79.1% | 79.4% | 78.9% | 82.1% | 72.6% | 83.5% | 81.6% | 83.4% | 85.9% |
| West Virginia | 34.9% | 44.1% | 54.4% | 85.9% | 89.9% | 93.7% | 76.9% | 78.3% | 82.3% | 84.2% |
| Wisconsin | 4.8% | 19.4% | 32.8% | 36.7% | 36.5% | 33.5% | 44.1% | 51.2% | 56.5% | 61.5% |
| Wyoming | 79.9% | 76.4% | 85.7% | 91.7% | 97.7% | 83.4% | 83.0% | 81.9% | 84.5% | 86.6% |
| Total | 68.6% | 76.6% | 82.4% | 86.2% | 83.6% | 86.7% | 91.5% | 94.3% | 97.5% | 98.4% |
HSIP Funding Transferred To/From Other Core Apportioned Programs Through FY 2024
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, 2024, 33 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 2024 and includes both FAST Act and IIJA funds. Table 2 does not include transfer of funds to another agency.
| STATE | TOTAL HSIP FUNDS TRANSFERRED (2016-2024) |
TOTAL HSIP APPORTIONMENTS (2016-2024) |
TRANSFER RATE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | ($47,251,135) | $445,495,598 | -10.61% |
| Alaska | ($33,195,831) | $289,505,703 | -11.47% |
| Arizona | ($121,128,652) | $400,645,656 | -30.23% |
| Arkansas | $12,647,912 | $298,458,340 | 4.24% |
| California | $1,947,388,884 | $1,863,315,232 | 104.51% |
| Colorado | ($35,192,970) | $273,589,508 | -12.86% |
| Connecticut | ($42,179,115) | $275,048,771 | -15.34% |
| Florida | ($95,549,529) | $1,115,066,790 | -8.57% |
| Georgia | $201,317,367 | $669,979,987 | 30.05% |
| Hawaii | ($1,899,560) | $90,699,461 | -2.09% |
| Illinois | ($106,292,210) | $706,891,830 | -15.04% |
| Indiana | ($148,909,147) | $515,063,263 | -28.91% |
| Iowa | ($49,392,874) | $266,356,983 | -18.54% |
| Kansas | ($2,420,302) | $176,748,127 | -1.37% |
| Kentucky | ($26,614,768) | $390,773,792 | -6.81% |
| Maine | ($6,500,000) | $102,269,251 | -6.36% |
| Maryland | ($85,329,940) | $327,636,268 | -26.04% |
| Massachusetts | $6,987,000 | $316,180,893 | 2.21% |
| Michigan | ($58,444,638) | $536,225,602 | -10.90% |
| Minnesota | ($30,026,534) | $350,784,191 | -8.56% |
| Montana | ($940,730) | $238,869,274 | -0.39% |
| Nevada | ($63,931,665) | $196,257,008 | -32.58% |
| New Hampshire | ($9,950,351) | $90,197,600 | -11.03% |
| New Jersey | ($116,736,259) | $529,464,946 | -22.05% |
| New Mexico | ($17,179,476) | $199,346,417 | -8.62% |
| New York | ($154,969,065) | $893,534,381 | -17.34% |
| North Dakota | $24,038,597 | $122,369,630 | 19.64% |
| Ohio | $30,000,000 | $708,434,538 | 4.23% |
| Oklahoma | ($23,538,512) | $345,554,818 | -6.81% |
| Oregon | ($44,520,109) | $268,877,279 | -16.56% |
| Pennsylvania | ($126,773,158) | $909,938,151 | -13.93% |
| Rhode Island | ($14,526,780) | $122,477,544 | -11.86% |
| South Carolina | ($46,087,388) | $375,875,732 | -12.26% |
| South Dakota | $160,782,240 | $151,421,081 | 106.18% |
| Tennessee | $10,000,000 | $473,646,115 | 2.11% |
| Texas | ($137,806,460) | $2,090,207,814 | -6.59% |
| Utah | ($46,615) | $189,496,150 | -0.02% |
| Vermont | ($5,610,244) | $111,951,918 | -5.01% |
| Virginia | $2,021,431 | $563,634,465 | 0.36% |
| Washington | $2,718,684 | $354,541,818 | 0.77% |
| West Virginia | ($33,970,635) | $262,118,601 | -12.96% |
| Wisconsin | ($151,736,732) | $423,574,049 | -35.82% |
| Wyoming | ($16,600,000) | $153,120,307 | -10.84% |
RHCP Cumulative Obligations vs. Cumulative Apportionments Through FY 2024
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 2024. FY 2015 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 through FY 2024 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.
| STATE | FISCAL YEAR | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAP-21 & FAST ACT | FAST ACT | FAST ACT & IIJA | ||||||||
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | |
| Alabama | 4.7% | 34.7% | 53.1% | 47.1% | 34.6% | 14.9% | 28.9% | 27.6% | 35.1% | 42.0% |
| Alaska | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 98.3% | 100.0% | 87.6% | 66.9% | 85.6% | 78.6% | 96.7% |
| Arizona | 43.3% | 55.3% | 59.4% | 51.8% | 45.8% | 33.8% | 39.5% | 47.7% | 54.5% | 65.2% |
| Arkansas | 31.3% | 36.6% | 44.1% | 48.9% | 59.3% | 59.9% | 53.1% | 64.8% | 65.4% | 91.3% |
| California | 9.7% | 22.0% | 53.5% | 60.3% | 59.7% | 52.4% | 58.4% | 67.9% | 75.0% | 69.8% |
| Colorado | 21.6% | 24.2% | 37.8% | 47.1% | 70.8% | 53.9% | 89.4% | 95.2% | 98.1% | 98.3% |
| Connecticut | 9.6% | 31.9% | 47.6% | 54.1% | 61.2% | 91.4% | 97.4% | 97.6% | 97.9% | 89.9% |
| Delaware | 35.0% | 42.5% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 98.8% | 89.1% | 79.5% | 77.1% | 88.1% | 79.4% |
| District of Columbia | 62.4% | 60.5% | 100.0% | 92.1% | 99.0% | 94.8% | 79.8% | 97.8% | 91.1% | 84.1% |
| Florida | 92.2% | 83.4% | 95.5% | 94.1% | 89.8% | 85.7% | 94.7% | 94.3% | 95.0% | 90.2% |
| Georgia | 10.8% | 25.8% | 53.3% | 57.1% | 60.9% | 58.3% | 63.1% | 63.9% | 81.1% | 95.8% |
| Hawaii | 10.5% | 32.4% | 45.2% | 47.6% | 76.0% | 97.0% | 81.6% | 84.1% | 98.1% | 92.6% |
| Idaho | 2.7% | 21.5% | 41.1% | 46.6% | 52.7% | 35.9% | 39.4% | 88.1% | 89.5% | 90.7% |
| Illinois | 1.3% | 47.1% | 39.8% | 47.0% | 59.2% | 43.4% | 52.8% | 57.4% | 63.3% | 66.9% |
| Indiana | 10.1% | 36.6% | 37.8% | 61.3% | 68.6% | 67.4% | 60.2% | 95.8% | 98.0% | 97.6% |
| Iowa | 33.4% | 35.4% | 41.9% | 49.4% | 61.9% | 57.2% | 55.5% | 63.5% | 71.2% | 86.0% |
| Kansas | 75.1% | 57.5% | 79.0% | 93.5% | 82.0% | 73.8% | 76.2% | 74.9% | 66.3% | 73.3% |
| Kentucky | 8.1% | 35.4% | 36.0% | 46.1% | 82.2% | 57.9% | 59.7% | 58.1% | 63.3% | 97.6% |
| Louisiana | 62.8% | 64.7% | 58.7% | 58.3% | 59.2% | 42.2% | 51.8% | 57.5% | 66.8% | 67.4% |
| Maine | 27.2% | 25.0% | 32.9% | 22.7% | 39.4% | 32.0% | 43.9% | 60.4% | 63.6% | 65.4% |
| Maryland | 45.6% | 54.5% | 61.6% | 50.6% | 51.3% | 37.1% | 47.4% | 46.3% | 56.3% | 63.4% |
| Massachusetts | 94.4% | 83.0% | 94.9% | 91.1% | 93.1% | 68.8% | 54.2% | 65.4% | 76.9% | 75.9% |
| Michigan | 21.0% | 32.4% | 45.3% | 52.7% | 65.3% | 60.0% | 57.1% | 57.2% | 63.4% | 68.1% |
| Minnesota | 29.2% | 34.5% | 38.4% | 48.3% | 51.3% | 35.5% | 43.8% | 63.6% | 84.8% | 75.1% |
| Mississippi | 100.0% | 100.0% | 94.2% | 87.6% | 75.3% | 97.0% | 97.5% | 97.8% | 98.1% | 98.3% |
| Missouri | 93.8% | 92.3% | 86.8% | 85.8% | 81.1% | 71.6% | 66.0% | 73.6% | 84.2% | 89.3% |
| Montana | 77.7% | 78.0% | 91.4% | 96.9% | 89.3% | 85.8% | 82.3% | 87.9% | 98.1% | 97.3% |
| Nebraska | 1.0% | 34.5% | 61.2% | 59.8% | 79.3% | 55.9% | 60.9% | 64.3% | 77.3% | 80.0% |
| Nevada | 77.8% | 61.2% | 61.4% | 54.7% | 52.6% | 29.0% | 64.8% | 88.9% | 82.5% | 86.8% |
| New Hampshire | 43.3% | 46.3% | 42.1% | 47.5% | 50.2% | 31.9% | 41.6% | 57.2% | 58.7% | 60.2% |
| New Jersey | 96.7% | 92.1% | 98.2% | 95.1% | 95.9% | 79.3% | 94.0% | 97.8% | 98.1% | 98.2% |
| New Mexico | 41.0% | 64.7% | 68.0% | 62.9% | 62.5% | 37.4% | 45.9% | 50.6% | 56.6% | 64.7% |
| New York | 29.8% | 47.1% | 42.9% | 46.3% | 59.9% | 53.0% | 53.3% | 58.0% | 67.6% | 67.1% |
| North Carolina | 85.6% | 90.0% | 91.7% | 91.2% | 78.7% | 57.9% | 66.1% | 68.4% | 75.4% | 70.3% |
| North Dakota | 12.6% | 59.2% | 71.9% | 78.5% | 82.6% | 77.0% | 81.7% | 87.8% | 96.7% | 93.0% |
| Ohio | 97.9% | 99.2% | 100.0% | 96.2% | 100.0% | 97.0% | 97.4% | 97.8% | 98.1% | 98.3% |
| Oklahoma | 44.8% | 47.5% | 64.3% | 72.6% | 75.6% | 62.1% | 92.5% | 97.8% | 97.9% | 98.2% |
| Oregon | 36.9% | 45.8% | 51.3% | 53.7% | 60.0% | 53.5% | 50.1% | 76.2% | 79.0% | 76.0% |
| Pennsylvania | 1.3% | 24.0% | 37.0% | 47.7% | 60.5% | 45.8% | 52.7% | 57.3% | 68.4% | 69.4% |
| Rhode Island | 36.9% | 22.3% | 35.6% | 48.8% | 61.1% | 45.0% | 53.4% | 67.9% | 67.6% | 72.8% |
| South Carolina | 70.2% | 53.3% | 68.2% | 79.4% | 69.4% | 51.9% | 59.0% | 86.8% | 89.2% | 96.9% |
| South Dakota | 15.8% | 24.3% | 36.6% | 56.4% | 60.2% | 48.7% | 56.5% | 81.7% | 84.9% | 80.1% |
| Tennessee | 14.7% | 66.5% | 82.1% | 68.4% | 63.4% | 53.7% | 73.6% | 85.0% | 97.7% | 97.7% |
| Texas | 57.7% | 55.9% | 53.3% | 47.7% | 45.2% | 17.2% | 41.5% | 49.2% | 63.5% | 75.1% |
| Utah | 46.8% | 40.4% | 46.4% | 56.1% | 81.2% | 91.3% | 89.2% | 84.4% | 77.4% | 83.4% |
| Vermont | 0.0% | 92.5% | 98.0% | 85.3% | 72.5% | 86.4% | 92.2% | 83.7% | 77.1% | 70.0% |
| Virginia | 50.0% | 50.3% | 47.3% | 51.6% | 43.9% | 25.7% | 23.1% | 24.7% | 43.4% | 43.4% |
| Washington | 16.4% | 55.9% | 47.1% | 58.7% | 74.2% | 61.8% | 63.6% | 65.4% | 59.4% | 65.5% |
| West Virginia | 53.6% | 58.4% | 52.4% | 48.6% | 67.9% | 59.5% | 64.0% | 69.1% | 70.8% | 67.7% |
| Wisconsin | 21.2% | 21.0% | 25.3% | 32.4% | 39.5% | 28.4% | 36.9% | 41.2% | 48.8% | 60.9% |
| Wyoming | 60.9% | 54.5% | 57.3% | 65.5% | 73.1% | 50.9% | 58.3% | 68.4% | 70.8% | 76.0% |
| Total | 40.4% | 51.0% | 59.3% | 62.7% | 66.1% | 54.9% | 61.5% | 69.0% | 75.5% | 79.0% |
HSIP Special Rules Obligation Rates
The HSIP includes special rules which sets 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 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 2024
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 2024 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 2024 HRRR obligation requirements for those 24 States that are subject to the HRRR Special Rule in FY 2024.
| STATE | HRRR FUNDS REQUIRED TO BE OBLIGATED IN FY 2024 |
FY 2024 HRRR SPECIAL RULE OBLIGATION RATE |
|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | $2,748,654 | 100% |
| California | $17,563,128 | 100% |
| Connecticut | $1,502,890 | 100% |
| Georgia | $6,299,452 | 100% |
| Illinois | $6,048,546 | 100% |
| Iowa | $2,671,790 | 100% |
| Kansas | $3,150,110 | 100% |
| Maine | $900,000 | 100% |
| Michigan | $5,852,012 | 100% |
| Minnesota | $3,620,110 | 100% |
| Montana | $1,389,760 | 100% |
| New Mexico | $1,887,424 | 100% |
| North Carolina | $4,726,978 | 100% |
| Ohio | $5,515,502 | 100% |
| Oklahoma | $3,798,818 | 100% |
| Oregon | $2,440,120 | 100% |
| South Carolina | $4,017,538 | 100% |
| Tennessee | $4,236,520 | 100% |
| Texas | $14,572,152 | 100% |
| Utah | $1,331,318 | 100% |
| Vermont | $900,000 | 100% |
| Washington | $3,144,572 | 100% |
| West Virginia | $1,611,316 | 100% |
| Wisconsin | $3,736,142 | 100% |
| Total | $103,664,852 | 100% |
Vulnerable Road User Safety Special Rule Obligation Rates for FY 2024
VRU Safety special rule funds are set-aside from a State’s HSIP apportionment. If a State’s total annual fatalities of vulnerable road users in calendar year (CY) 2022 is greater than 15 percent of the total CY 2022 fatalities, that State is required to obligate not less than 15 percent of the FY 2024 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 2024 VRU Safety obligation requirements for those 31 States that are subject to the VRU Safety special rule in FY 2024.
| STATE | VRU SAFETY FUNDS REQUIRED TO BE OBLIGATED IN FY 2024 |
FY 2024 VRU SAFETY SPECIAL RULE OBLIGATION RATE |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska | $6,234,886 | 100% |
| Arizona | $8,696,611 | 100% |
| California | $41,136,798 | 100% |
| Colorado | $6,184,776 | 100% |
| Connecticut | $6,003,784 | 100% |
| Delaware | $1,940,545 | 100% |
| District of Columbia | $1,828,926 | 100% |
| Florida | $23,637,601 | 100% |
| Georgia | $15,208,130 | 100% |
| Hawaii | $1,955,510 | 100% |
| Illinois | $16,008,380 | 100% |
| Indiana | $11,047,523 | 100% |
| Louisiana | $8,587,534 | 100% |
| Maryland | $7,033,168 | 100% |
| Massachusetts | $6,964,170 | 100% |
| Michigan | $11,995,489 | 100% |
| Nevada | $4,288,668 | 100% |
| New Jersey | $11,561,329 | 100% |
| New Mexico | $4,515,981 | 100% |
| New York | $19,256,781 | 100% |
| North Carolina | $12,310,749 | 100% |
| Ohio | $15,417,353 | 100% |
| Oklahoma | $7,519,269 | 100% |
| Oregon | $5,961,267 | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | $19,678,352 | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | $4,245,396 | 100% |
| South Carolina | $8,110,327 | 100% |
| Texas | $47,098,734 | 100% |
| Utah | $4,207,266 | 100% |
| Virginia | $12,263,643 | 100% |
| Washington | $7,977,474 | 100% |
| Total | $354,631,024 | 100% |
Updated October 30, 2024