PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 25, 2003
Surface Transportation Safety Act of 2003 - Amends Federal highway provisions to include within the definition of "safety improvement project" a project that installs or maintains fluorescent, yellow-green signs at pedestrian or bicycle crossings or school zones.Authorizes the payment from apportioned funds for the entire cost of construction projects involving the maintenance of protective devices at railway-highway crossings.Provides for biennial (currently, annual) reports by each State to the Secretary of Transportation on progress being made to implement the railway-highway crossings program.Requires each State to identify roadway safety improvement needs for hazardous locations, sections, and elements which may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Authorizes the Secretary to approve as a project under the hazard elimination program any safety improvement project that reduces the likelihood of crashes involving road departures, intersections, pedestrians, bicycles, older drivers, or construction work zones. Makes funds available for: (1) police assistance for traffic and speed management in construction work zones; (2) installation of barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the safety of motorists and workers; or (3) compilation and analysis of data.Directs the Secretary to: (1) transmit to specified congressional committees biennial reports on the results of the hazard elimination program; and (2) issue regulations to decrease the likelihood of worker injury and maintain the free flow of vehicular traffic by requiring workers whose duties place them on or in close proximity to a Federal-aid highway to wear high visibility garments. Authorizes such regulations to require other worker-safety measures.
People & committees
Rep. Quinn, Jack [R-NY-27] · R–NY
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, Transit and Pipelines.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E398-399)
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.906 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.906 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.906 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.906 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.