Overview
Title
To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the highway safety improvement program, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 2011 is a bill that wants to make roads safer by changing some rules to easily connect bike paths and sidewalks and keep people safer when they cross the street. It suggests ways to pay for certain safety projects entirely with federal money, especially if those projects make it much safer for people walking or riding bikes.
Summary AI
H.R. 2011 aims to improve highway safety in the United States by modifying the rules around the Highway Safety Improvement Program. It proposes amendments to make it easier to connect existing bicyclist or pedestrian infrastructure and reduce risks for vulnerable road users. The bill allows certain safety improvement projects to be fully funded by federal money if they meet specific criteria. It also includes provisions for flexible financing and acknowledges various safety plans, such as pedestrian safety plans and Vision Zero Action Plans, which local or regional authorities can use to prioritize high-risk areas.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed bill, known as the "Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act," seeks to amend title 23 of the United States Code concerning the highway safety improvement program. In particular, it focuses on projects aimed at enhancing the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by connecting existing infrastructure and reducing risks to vulnerable road users. Notably, the bill allows these specific projects to receive up to 100% federal funding, a departure from the typical state-federal cost-sharing model.
Significant Issues
One of the primary concerns highlighted in the bill is the provision allowing certain projects to be funded entirely by the federal government. This could incentivize states to favor these particular projects over others, potentially leading to an unbalanced allocation of resources. If such prioritization is not grounded in comprehensive safety data, it might result in inefficient use of federal funds.
Another issue is the reliance on "Proven Safety Countermeasures" for bicyclists or pedestrians. While these measures are credited toward the non-Federal share, there is concern that they could be overemphasized, potentially at the expense of exploring more innovative or suitable solutions. Additionally, the criteria for what constitutes these countermeasures are determined by the Federal Highway Administration, which could lead to inconsistencies in how states interpret and implement these measures.
The bill's flexible financing provisions, allowing states to calculate the non-Federal share on various bases, could complicate financial planning and accountability. This flexibility might pose challenges for budgeting and could lead to difficulties in oversight.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill could have positive implications for public safety, particularly for vulnerable road users like bicyclists and pedestrians. By facilitating infrastructure connectivity and risk reduction measures, the bill has the potential to enhance safety significantly. This could encourage more people to engage in active transportation, which has additional benefits such as reducing traffic congestion and promoting healthier lifestyles.
However, if the provision for 100% federal funding leads to the neglect of less noticeable yet critical safety projects, there could be broader implications for overall road safety. Public resources might be directed towards projects that meet the funding criteria rather than those that address the most urgent safety challenges.
Impact on Stakeholders
For state and local governments, the bill represents an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, the potential for full federal funding could relieve some financial pressures and allow increased investment in active transportation infrastructure. On the other hand, states may face difficulties in navigating the flexible financing mechanisms and ensuring that their strategic plans align with the criteria for increased federal support.
Transportation planners and agencies stand to benefit from the increased focus on active transportation safety, potentially leading to improved infrastructure and safety outcomes. However, the need to align with federal criteria for funding could limit the flexibility needed to address unique local issues.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to advance the safety of vulnerable road users, the specifics of its implementation could have varying implications depending on the context and manner in which states and localities engage with the proposed amendments. As such, stakeholders will need to carefully consider how best to integrate these changes into their transportation planning and safety strategies.
Issues
The provision in Section 2(b)(1) that allows for a Federal share of up to 100% for certain highway safety improvement projects (specifically those described in clauses (xxix) and (xxx) of subsection (a)(4)(B)) may lead to states prioritizing these projects over others, potentially leading to inefficient allocation of resources. This could be controversial due to questions about fairness and the justification for prioritizing certain projects without strong supporting safety data.
The language in Section 2(b)(2)(C)(i) that allows funds for projects including Proven Safety Countermeasures for bicyclists or pedestrians to be credited toward the non-Federal share may cause an over-reliance on these countermeasures even if they are not the most efficient solutions. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of safety investments and might lead to suboptimal outcomes.
The provision in Section 2(b)(2) for flexible financing, allowing the non-Federal share to be calculated on a project, multiple-project, or program basis, adds complexity to planning and accounting processes. This flexibility might make budget management more challenging and could complicate oversight and accountability.
The requirement in Section 2(b)(2)(C)(ii) that a state must include an emphasis area related to vulnerable road users in its strategic highway safety plan to qualify for increased Federal funding might create disparities among states. This could lead to unequal access to Federal funds based on how state plans are structured.
There is a lack of clarity regarding the determination of what constitutes a 'Proven Safety Countermeasure for bicyclists or pedestrians' as per Section 2(b)(2)(C)(i), which is determined by the Federal Highway Administration. This uncertainty could lead to inconsistent implementation and confusion among state and local agencies.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act states that it can be referred to as the "Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act."
2. Highway safety improvement program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends certain parts of title 23, United States Code, to expand the definition of highway safety improvement projects, allowing up to 100% federal funding for projects that connect existing bicyclist or pedestrian infrastructure and reduce safety risks for vulnerable road users. It also includes provisions for flexible financing and recognizes several types of safety plans that can contribute towards the non-Federal share of project costs.