PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 8, 2003
Roadway Safety and Congestion Mitigation Improvements Act - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a roadway safety program under which a State may obligate funds apportioned to carry out activities pertaining to: (1) older driver safety enhancements; (2) roadway safety management systems; (3) run-off-road mitigation; (4) speed management; (5) pedestrian and bicycle safety; (6) intersection safety; (7) emergency management; (8) alcohol and seatbelt awareness; (9) highway-rail crossings; and (10) compliance with Federal requirements as specified below.Requires the Secretary to issue regulations requiring each State to comply with requirements regarding: (1) training of installers of guardrail and associated roadside safety systems; (2) pavement markings; (3) work zone safety and mobility enhancement; and (4) high-risk work zone specifications.Directs the Secretary to: (1) gather annual work zone safety and mobility data; and (2) develop a national standard on the use of positive separation for roadway work zones of highway projects eligible for assistance.Limits the amount of Federal highway funds apportioned to a State for the roadway safety program that the State may obligate for: (1) safety enhancement activities under this Act; (2) measures to facilitate the safe walking or bicycling of children to and from school; (3) safety measures at highway-rail crossings.Directs the Secretary, before making roadway safety apportionments, to set aside specified amounts for: (1) educational materials for older and inexperienced drivers; (2) roadway safety research and data evaluation and issuance of an annual report on safety construction; (3) the National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse; (4) National Work Zone Awareness Week activities; and (5) local technical assistance staff training.Sets forth provisions governing the apportionment of Federal highway funds for the roadway safety program.Provides that the Federal share for police assistance during high-risk work zone activities and for certain positive separation measures may be 100 percent of project construction costs.
People & committees
Rep. Inslee, Jay [D-WA-1] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. 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.288 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.288 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.288 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.288 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.