Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
This bill amends Title 23 (Highway Safety Improvement Program) to explicitly add bicyclist and pedestrian connections and vulnerable road user strategies as eligible projects. It allows certain active-transportation HSIP projects to receive up to 100% federal funding, expands flexible financing and crediting rules, and lists qualifying safety plans for crediting non‑Federal shares.
Budgeting: liberals accept 100% federal share; conservatives oppose it.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment focused on expanding eligibility and Federal cost participation for bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and on integrating such projects into existing highway safety and flexible financing authorities.
This bill amends Title 23 (Highway Safety Improvement Program) to explicitly add bicyclist and pedestrian connections and vulnerable road user strategies as eligible projects.
It allows certain active-transportation HSIP projects to receive up to 100% federal funding, expands flexible financing and crediting rules, and lists qualifying safety plans for crediting non‑Federal shares.
Technically narrow and administratively framed, increasing chances if folded into a larger transportation reauthorization; stand‑alone advancement less certain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment focused on expanding eligibility and Federal cost participation for bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and on integrating such projects into existing highway safety and flexible financing authorities. The statutory edits are specific and well‑integrated into existing law but omit explicit problem findings, fiscal estimates, timelines, and new accountability or measurement provisions.
Budgeting: liberals accept 100% federal share; conservatives oppose it.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Budgeting: liberals accept 100% federal share; conservatives oppose it.
Likely supportive because the bill directs more federal resources toward pedestrian and bicyclist safety and removes local match barriers.
It enables proven safety countermeasures and recognizes plans like Vision Zero and Complete Streets.
Generally favorable but pragmatic.
The bill targets safety for vulnerable users and reduces matching barriers, but raises fiscal and implementation questions about costs, agency discretion, and tradeoffs with other highway priorities.
Skeptical.
While supporting safety, this persona worries about federal overreach, expanding federal funding into local non-motorized projects, and increased federal spending and discretion.
Prefers state/local control and fiscal restraint.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and administratively framed, increasing chances if folded into a larger transportation reauthorization; stand‑alone advancement less certain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Budgeting: liberals accept 100% federal share; conservatives oppose it.
Technically narrow and administratively framed, increasing chances if folded into a larger transportation reauthorization; stand‑alone adva…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment focused on expanding eligibility and Federal cost participation for bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and on integrating suc…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.