SAFETEA-LU Obligation Rates for the Highway Safety Improvement Program

Best for printing: slorhsip101612.pdf (123 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 2006-2012

This graph illustrates ratios of the "gross" Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionments nationwide under SAFETEA-LU from 2006 through 2012 which includes obligations from the two set aside programs – the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP) and the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP).

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/

SAFETEA-LU HSIP Cumulative Obligation vs. Cumulative Apportionments Fiscal Years 2006-2012

This table illustrates ratios of the "gross" Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) cumulative obligations to the cumulative apportionment for each state under SAFETEA-LU from 2006 through 2012. This table also shows extension act funding (see foot note) apportioned in fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012. 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 rates are cumulative in that they include obligations and apportionments for fiscal years 2006 through 2012. For example, Alabama's 60.6% obligation rate in 2012 reflects the total of SAFETEA-LU plus extension act HSIP funds obligated through fiscal years 2006-2012 versus the total amount of SAFETEA-LU HSIP funds apportioned from 2006 through 2012.

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

SAFETEA-LU HSIP Funding Transferred to Other Core Programs Fiscal Years 2006-2012

When SAFETEA-LU elevated the HSIP to a core federal-aid program, it became 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, 2012, 24 states took advantage of this provision and transferred nearly $715 million in HSIP funding to other programs. This was approximately 13.2% of the transferring states apportionments from 2006 through the end of 2012 and amounts to approximately 6.4% of the total HSIP apportionments for all states from 2006 through the end of 2012.

State	Total HSIP Apportionments	Total HSIP Funds Transferred	Transfer Rate
State	2006 - 2012	2006 - 2012	Transfer Rate
ALABAMA	$ 254,537,270	$70,642,854	27.75%
ALASKA	$ 102,540,161	$3,000,000	2.93%
ARIZONA	$ 247,639,107	$58,517,005	23.63%
ARKANSAS	$ 179,064,634	$18,562,645	10.37%
COLORADO	$ 167,086,053	$47,329,997	28.33%
CONNECTICUT	$ 90,020,399	$5,731,103	6.37%
GEORGIA	$ 435,314,320	$59,000,000	13.55%
HAWAII	$ 49,653,450	$7,970,000	16.05%
IDAHO	$ 88,788,059	$10,970,394	12.36%
INDIANA	$ 260,169,881	$35,418,288	13.61%
MICHIGAN	$ 349,315,820	$26,335,040	7.54%
MINNESOTA	$ 235,222,278	$42,980,634	18.27%
NEBRASKA	$ 111,907,631	$15,255,975	13.63%
NEVADA	$ 93,008,894	$11,833,000	12.72%
NEW HAMPSHIRE	$ 50,976,241	$7,000,000	13.73%
NEW JERSEY	$ 202,478,006	$32,299,007	15.95%
NORTH CAROLINA	$ 301,974,722	$6,000,000	1.99%
OREGON	$ 141,817,614	$31,657,166	22.32%
SOUTH CAROLINA	$ 247,051,968	$16,200,000	6.56%
SOUTH DAKOTA	$ 97,587,256	$37,780,196	38.71%
TEXAS	$ 1,006,492,773	$59,224,370	5.88%
VIRGINIA	$ 276,472,908	$45,750,867	16.55%
WASHINGTON	$ 169,641,826	$10,759,468	6.34%
WISCONSIN	$ 265,985,389	$54,316,157	20.42%
Total	$ 5,424,746,660	$714,534,165	13.17%

Footnote: SAFETEA-LU expired in 2009. Congress passed several extension acts that continued the funding for surface transportation funding and Highway Trust Fund spending through September 30, 2012.

Return to top