PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10059 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10059 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10059 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10059 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Building Safer Streets Act would change federal street-design rules and guidance to address people walking, cycling, using transit, and driving. It would require explanations for prohibited traffic-control designs, expand review of transportation options, and limit state fatality targets for vulnerable road users. It would also reserve part of an existing grant program for smaller projects benefiting small communities and allow a larger federal contribution for some of those projects.
This Act may be cited as the Building Safer Streets Act.
the Secretary shall publish documentation explaining all specific prohibitions against devices or designs
the Administrator shall publish guidance on connected networks that accommodate all modes and users
the target for vulnerable road user fatalities shall not exceed the total number of vulnerable road user fatalities for the previous target period in that State.
not less than 10 percent shall be set aside for projects carried out by, or for the benefit of, a small community
the Secretary may increase the Federal share of the cost of the project up to 90 percent.
The bill assigns its Secretary duties to the Secretary of Transportation and its Administrator duties to the head of the Federal Highway Administration.
(1) Administrator The term Administrator means the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. (2) Secretary The term Secretary means the Secretary of Transportation.
The Transportation Secretary would have to explain every specific prohibition on devices or designs in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The explanations must address local flexibility, supporting research and the need for a prohibition, and compliance with federal law. This applies to the edition current at enactment and to later updates, with a one-year publication deadline after each later update. The bill gives no explicit deadline for explaining the edition current at enactment.
For the most recent published edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (as of the date of enactment of the Building Safer Streets Act), and not later than 1 year after the date of publication of each subsequent update of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Secretary shall publish documentation explaining all specific prohibitions against devices or designs, including— (I) any considerations to allow local flexibility; (II) research in support of the prohibitions, including the need to actively prohibit a design or practice; and (III) proof of compliance with Federal law (including regulations).
For future manual updates, the Secretary would have to ask the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to document decisions concerning its recommendations. The text requires the Secretary to request documentation; it does not expressly require the committee to provide it.
With respect to updates to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices after the most recent published edition described in clause (i), the Secretary shall request that the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices provide documentation of the decisions made during the update process with respect to recommendations provided to the Secretary by the National Committee.
The bill would delete paragraph (5) of section 11135 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and adjust the preceding paragraphs' punctuation. The supplied text does not reproduce the deleted paragraph, so its substantive effect cannot be explained from this bundle.
Section 11135 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (23 U.S.C. 109 note; Public Law 117–58) is amended— (1) in paragraph (3), by adding and at the end; (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ; and and inserting a period; and (3) by striking paragraph (5).
The Comptroller General would study how state and local traffic engineers, planners, and consultants use the manual's design flexibility and whether they feel constrained by it. The study would estimate added project costs and delays from obtaining or determining exceptions and identify where exceptions are most often sought. A report to Congress and public online release would be due within two years of enactment.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on the use of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (referred to in this subsection as the Manual) by State and local government traffic engineers, planners, and consultants
(A) to provide an estimate of the extent to which practitioners, based on a representative sample— (i) exercise engineering discretion as permitted by the Manual for street designs intended to increase safety and improve multimodal access; and (ii) feel constrained or otherwise discouraged from implementing alternative street designs that improve safety outcomes by the guidelines in the Manual; (B) to estimate the average increases in costs and time needed to complete a project caused by the need to request or otherwise determine an exception to the Manual, including requirements for engineering studies; and (C) to identify the types of facilities, projects, and contexts for which discretion to deviate from the Manual are most frequently sought.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall— (A) submit to Congress a report that describes the findings and conclusions of the study conducted under paragraph (1); and (B) make the report under subparagraph (A) publicly available online.
The bill would change two instructions in existing design law: “given due consideration” would become “accounted for, where not incompatible,” and “considered, where appropriate, in conjunction” would become “evaluated and, where appropriate, incorporated.” The surrounding statutory sentences are not supplied, limiting what can be concluded about their full application.
Section 217(g)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is amended— (1) in the first sentence, by striking given due consideration and inserting accounted for, where not incompatible,; and (2) in the second sentence, by striking considered, where appropriate, in conjunction and inserting evaluated and, where appropriate, incorporated.
Within two years of enactment, the Federal Highway Administration would have to clarify how highway and planning regulations require consideration of all transportation modes, meaning ways of traveling. The rules must specify accepted evaluation methods, including for pedestrians and cyclists; distinguish urban and suburban, rural, and natural settings; consider surrounding land use; and affirm the need for complete networks serving multiple transportation modes.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall update the regulations implementing sections 109, 134, and 135 of title 23, United States Code, to clarify the definition of consideration of all modes.
The updates under paragraph (1) shall— (A) outline accepted methods for formal evaluation on all modes of transportation, including pedestrians and cyclists, that will count as adequate consideration of all modes; (B) differentiate between urban and suburban, rural, and natural area design guidelines for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, consistent with the Bikeway Selection Guide published by the Federal Highway Administration and dated February 2019 (or a successor document); (C) take into consideration the land use context surrounding the road or highway; and (D) affirm the necessity of complete multimodal networks.
Within two years of enactment, the Federal Highway Administration would have to list categories of projects and features serving multiple transportation modes on Federal-aid highways that qualify for exceptions from specified federal highway design standards. The list must include categories recommended by the agency that improve safety for vulnerable road users and currently undergo the design-exception process. The agency would have to update the list at least every five years.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop a list of categorical design exceptions from standards developed under section 109(c) of title 23, United States Code, for categories of multimodal projects and features on Federal-aid highways.
The list developed under paragraph (1) shall include categories of multimodal projects and features that— (A) are recommended by the Federal Highway Administration, including Proven Safety Countermeasures; (B) improve safety for vulnerable road users; and (C) are currently subject to the design exception process. (3) Update Not less frequently than every 5 years, the Administrator shall update the list under paragraph (1).
Applications for urbanized-area projects in three specified grant programs would need a process for applicants to indicate that they considered infrastructure for multiple transportation modes but decided to omit facilities for nonmotorized travel, such as walking and cycling. The programs are the Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation program, competitive awards under the PROTECT resilience program, and the advanced transportation technologies and innovative mobility deployment program.
For each program described in paragraph (3), the Secretary shall include as part of the funding application for projects in urbanized areas a process for indicating that the applicant has considered multimodal infrastructure and concluded that the final design will not include facilities for nonmotorized forms of transportation.
(A) The Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation Grant Program established under section 25005(b) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (23 U.S.C. 502 note; Public Law 117–58). (B) Competitive awards under the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) program under section 176(d) of title 23, United States Code. (C) The advanced transportation technologies and innovative mobility deployment grant program under section 503(c)(4) of title 23, United States Code (commonly known as the ATTAIN program).
That application process would need clear criteria addressing available road-corridor space, facilities on nearby parallel routes or the possibility of providing compliant facilities, and potential walking or cycling demand, including future land use. The Federal Highway Administration could determine additional criteria.
The process referred to in paragraph (1) shall include clear criteria, including— (A) the availability of rights-of-way; (B) the presence or absence of facilities on nearby parallel routes, or the possibility of providing facilities that meet the standards established in regulations implementing sections 109, 134, and 135 of title 23, United States Code; (C) latent demand or potential for active transportation trips, including consideration of future land use; and (D) other criteria, as determined by the Administrator.
Within one year of enactment, the Federal Highway Administration would have to issue guidance on connected transportation networks serving all users, including transit and freight. It must address different local settings and conflicts where road space cannot accommodate separate facilities for everyone, including lower design speeds and better visibility for vulnerable users. The guidance must prioritize designs providing safe, comfortable, reliable, and healthy transportation options.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish guidance on connected networks that accommodate all modes and users, including— (A) design guidance for multimodal streets that include transit and freight networks; (B) context-sensitive design considerations that account for the distinct needs of urban, rural, and suburban roads; and (C) methods to address conflicts between modes when there is not sufficient right-of-way to accommodate separate facilities for all users in a single street, including reductions in design speed, designs to improve vulnerable road user visibility, and other features.
Guidance published under paragraph (1) shall prioritize designs that ensure that all users have access to safe, comfortable, reliable, and healthy transportation options.
Within one year of enactment, the federal highway and transit agencies would have to jointly issue bus-stop and roadway-design guidelines. These must address safety, convenience, pedestrian and disability access, destinations, density, transit operations, road and intersection design, local conditions, and coordination among public agencies. They must consider specified design resources and prioritize walking and cycling access to transit and proximity to key destinations.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator and the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration shall jointly issue guidelines relating to placement of bus stops and associated roadway design.
(A) include provisions for locating and designing bus stops in various operating environments that consider convenience, safety, pedestrian accessibility, accessibility for individuals with disabilities, proximity to key destinations, density, and transit operations; (B) include considerations of roadside factors, bus stop zone design types, roadway and intersection design, placement, and location; (C) provide for a variety of local contexts, including urban, suburban, and rural road conditions; (D) outline best practices for coordination between street departments, public transportation authorities, planning departments, and other relevant authorities on design issues;
(E) consider resources published during the preceding 10 years that provide guidelines for the location, design, user need, and context for transit facilities on streets, including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guide entitled Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets and published July 2014, and the guide of the National Association of City Transportation Officials entitled Transit Street Design Guide and published April 2016; and (F) prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access to transit and proximity to key destinations.
Beginning no later than two years after enactment, the Federal Transit Administration would have to ensure that recipients of funding under title 49, section 5309 receive the bus-stop guidelines. Separately, within one year, the Federal Highway Administration would have to report to Congress on adopted guidance for accommodating transit vehicles on roads and whether it adopted one of the named transit-design guides or another guide, explaining why if it did not.
Beginning not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration shall ensure that a recipient of funds under section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, shall be provided the guidelines issued under paragraph (1).
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that— (A) describes the guidelines adopted by the Administrator supporting on-road transit vehicle accommodation, including guidance on issues such as turning radii, lane widths, bus lanes, bus stop placement, and transit signal priorities; and (B) notes whether the Administrator has adopted the guide of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials entitled Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets and published July 2014, the guide of the National Association of City Transportation Officials entitled Transit Street Design Guide and published April 2016, or another transit facility guide, and if not, the reasons why not.
For the grant program governed by title 49, section 6702(d), the Secretary would be prohibited from counting higher motor-vehicle speed limits as a contributor to travel-time benefits when selecting projects and analyzing their benefits and costs. The bill specifies the road scope as “roads that are not freeways or on the Interstate System.” That wording is ambiguous about whether Interstate roads are included in or excluded from the restriction; the supplied sources do not resolve the ambiguity. This provision concerns how travel-time benefits are valued in project decisions; it does not itself change speed limits.
Section 6702(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended
In selecting projects to receive grants under the program and analyzing the benefits and costs of proposed projects, the Secretary shall not consider higher speed limits for motorized vehicles to be a contributor to value of travel time benefits for roads that are not freeways or on the Interstate System.
Within two years of enactment, the Federal Highway Administration would have to study design factors contributing to fatal crashes on a representative sample of federally aided highways, including crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists. It would report the results to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall— (1) carry out a study on the design factors that contributed to fatal crashes on a representative sample of Federal-aid highways, including crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists; and (2) submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that includes the results of the study under paragraph (1).
Within two years of enactment, each state would have to tell the Transportation Secretary whether it updated its highway-design manuals to reflect federal guidance on design criteria for lower-speed roads that are not freeways. This notification would be a condition of receiving title 23 funding. The provision requires reporting whether an update occurred, rather than expressly requiring the update itself.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, as a condition of the receipt of funds under title 23, United States Code, each State shall notify the Secretary whether the State has updated the highway design manuals of the State to reflect guidance of the Administrator relating to controlling criteria for design of lower speed non-freeway roadways.
When setting the specified highway-safety performance targets, a state could not set its target for vulnerable-road-user deaths above the actual number in its previous target period. This restricts the target a state may adopt; it does not establish that deaths would fall.
In establishing performance targets that reflect the measures identified in subsection (c)(4), the target for vulnerable road user fatalities shall not exceed the total number of vulnerable road user fatalities for the previous target period in that State.
The bill would reserve at least 10 percent of each fiscal year's funding for the program under section 24112 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for projects carried out by, or benefiting, small communities. Each qualifying project must have an estimated total cost below $1 million and an estimated completion date of no more than five years. Eligibility uses an existing statutory definition of “small and rural community” that is not reproduced in the bundle.
Section 24112 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (23 U.S.C. 402 note; Public Law 117–58) is amended
The term small community has the meaning given the term small and rural community in section 28(a) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3722a(a)).
Of the total amount made available to carry out the program for each fiscal year, not less than 10 percent shall be set aside for projects carried out by, or for the benefit of, a small community that each have— (i) a total estimated cost of less than $1,000,000; and (ii) an estimated completion date of not more than 5 years.
For those small-community projects, the Secretary could develop an application process adapted to community capacity and project needs. In selecting projects, the Secretary would have to prioritize those demonstrating that their size makes them ineligible for, or unable to obtain, state funding.
(B) Application The Secretary may develop a modified application process for projects described in subparagraph (A) that reflects small community capacity and project needs. (C) Considerations In selecting projects under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give priority to projects that can demonstrate ineligibility or inability to obtain State funding due to the size of the project.
For a qualifying small-community project with a demonstrated funding commitment from a state or local entity, the Secretary could increase the federal contribution to as much as 90 percent of project costs. The increase would be discretionary, and the bill does not reproduce the ordinary federal contribution rate.
In the case of a grant for a project described in subsection (c)(3)(A) for which the applicant can demonstrate a funding commitment from a State or local entity, the Secretary may increase the Federal share of the cost of the project up to 90 percent.
The Secretary would have to help eligible grant recipients collect and meaningfully use data about nonmotorized travelers for grant-funded project planning and decisions, particularly data on how many such travelers use a route or facility.
The Secretary shall provide assistance to eligible entities that receive a grant under the program in collecting and meaningfully using data relating to nonmotorized travelers for planning and decisionmaking with respect to a project carried out with funds from the grant, particularly nonmotorized traveler volume data.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated August 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on August 6, 2026. It provides no later action.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-14T08:05:44Z. 2026-08-06: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2026-08-06: Introduced in House 2026-08-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish attachment history or the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. A statutory program allocation is not automatically an earmark. This conclusion is limited to this version; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains targeted funding preferences and regulatory exceptions related to its main policy. Classification identifies special treatment, not whether it is justified.
Qualifying small-community projects would receive a reserved share of program funding and potentially a higher federal contribution. At least 10 percent of annual program funding would be reserved for projects carried out by, or benefiting, small communities, costing less than $1 million and having estimated completion dates of no more than five years. Projects demonstrating ineligibility or inability to obtain state funding because of their size would receive selection priority. The Secretary could also develop an application process adapted to small-community capacity and project needs. For qualifying projects with a state or local funding commitment, the Secretary could raise the federal contribution to 90 percent. These are specific preferences within the broader grant program and relate to the bill's transportation-safety policy; the incorporated definition determining which communities qualify is not reproduced.
The term small community has the meaning given the term small and rural community in section 28(a) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3722a(a)).
Of the total amount made available to carry out the program for each fiscal year, not less than 10 percent shall be set aside for projects carried out by, or for the benefit of, a small community that each have— (i) a total estimated cost of less than $1,000,000; and (ii) an estimated completion date of not more than 5 years.
In selecting projects under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give priority to projects that can demonstrate ineligibility or inability to obtain State funding due to the size of the project.
The Secretary may develop a modified application process for projects described in subparagraph (A) that reflects small community capacity and project needs.
In the case of a grant for a project described in subsection (c)(3)(A) for which the applicant can demonstrate a funding commitment from a State or local entity, the Secretary may increase the Federal share of the cost of the project up to 90 percent.
Section 4(c) would provide targeted regulatory exceptions for categories of multimodal projects and features on Federal-aid highways. Within two years of enactment, the Federal Highway Administration would have to develop a list of categorical exceptions from design standards developed under title 23, section 109(c). The list must include categories recommended by the agency, including Proven Safety Countermeasures, that improve safety for vulnerable road users and are currently subject to the design-exception process. These exceptions would benefit qualifying projects and features and directly relate to the bill's street-safety policy. The list must be updated at least every five years. The supplied text does not specify the final categories or reproduce the underlying standards, so the precise scope of relief remains uncertain.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop a list of categorical design exceptions from standards developed under section 109(c) of title 23, United States Code, for categories of multimodal projects and features on Federal-aid highways.
The list developed under paragraph (1) shall include categories of multimodal projects and features that— (A) are recommended by the Federal Highway Administration, including Proven Safety Countermeasures; (B) improve safety for vulnerable road users; and (C) are currently subject to the design exception process.
Not less frequently than every 5 years, the Administrator shall update the list under paragraph (1).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI