Building Safer Streets Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
The Building Safer Streets Act aims to fundamentally shift federal transportation policy towards a 'complete streets' approach, prioritizing safety and multimodal access over vehicle speed on local roads, and ensuring equitable access to federal funding for smaller communities.
What it actually does
This bill mandates federal transportation agencies to update design standards, guidance, and funding criteria to explicitly prioritize the safety and accommodation of all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. It requires greater transparency for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), elevates multimodal considerations in project design, and creates specific set-asides and increased federal funding for small communities within the Safe Streets for All program. The bill also modifies how the 'value of time' is considered in project evaluations for non-freeway roads.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for addressing the rising number of traffic fatalities, particularly among vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists. They contend it modernizes outdated design standards, promotes more equitable and sustainable transportation options, and ensures federal investments align with community safety and accessibility goals. Proponents also highlight the importance of providing dedicated resources and simplified processes for small communities to improve their local infrastructure.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns that the bill could impose overly prescriptive federal mandates on state and local transportation agencies, potentially increasing project costs, delaying implementation, or limiting local flexibility in design decisions. Some may argue that prioritizing non-motorized traffic could impede vehicle flow and economic efficiency, particularly if it leads to lower speed limits or more complex road designs on key arterial routes. Concerns about the administrative burden on federal agencies to develop extensive new guidance could also be raised.
The bill is moderately technical due to its amendments to existing U.S. Code sections and references to federal programs, but its concise nature allows for a thorough review within a reasonable timeframe for informed stakeholders.
Section 3(a), (b)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Transparency and Updates
This provision amends federal law to require the Secretary of Transportation to publish detailed documentation explaining all specific prohibitions within the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), including supporting research and considerations for local flexibility. It also mandates that the Secretary request documentation of decisions from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for future updates. Additionally, it removes an unspecified paragraph (5) from Section 11135 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which pertains to MUTCD updates.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that increased transparency in MUTCD decision-making will empower local jurisdictions to implement innovative and context-sensitive street designs that prioritize safety for all users, rather than being constrained by potentially outdated or overly rigid national standards. They believe it will foster a more responsive and data-driven approach to traffic control.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that requiring extensive documentation for every MUTCD prohibition could create an undue administrative burden for federal agencies and potentially slow down the update process. Some may also express concern that too much local flexibility could lead to inconsistent traffic control devices across jurisdictions, potentially confusing drivers and undermining safety through lack of uniformity.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between the need for national uniformity in traffic control devices for safety and clarity, and the desire for local flexibility and innovation to address specific community needs and improve multimodal safety outcomes.
Section 3(c)
GAO Study on MUTCD Use and Constraints
This section directs the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to conduct a study on how State and local government traffic engineers, planners, and consultants use the MUTCD. The study will assess the extent to which practitioners exercise engineering discretion, feel constrained by the Manual, and identify the costs and time increases associated with requesting exceptions or conducting engineering studies for alternative designs. A report on the findings must be submitted to Congress and made public within two years.
Section 4(a), (b), (c), (e)
Enhanced Multimodal Design Standards and Guidance
This section significantly strengthens federal requirements for considering all modes of transportation in highway design. It amends 23 U.S.C. 217(g)(1) to require bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be 'accounted for, where not incompatible' and 'evaluated and, where appropriate, incorporated,' elevating them from mere 'consideration.' The Administrator must update regulations to clarify 'consideration of all modes,' including specific evaluation methods, context-sensitive guidelines (urban/rural), and the necessity of complete multimodal networks. It also mandates the creation of a list of categorical design exceptions for multimodal projects to streamline approvals and requires guidance on connected networks that accommodate all users, prioritizing safe, comfortable, and reliable options.
Section 4(d)
Multimodal Review for Federal Grant Programs
This provision requires the Secretary of Transportation to include a process in funding applications for projects in urbanized areas under specific grant programs (SMART, PROTECT, ATTAIN) to indicate whether the applicant has considered multimodal infrastructure. If the final design will not include facilities for nonmotorized transportation, the applicant must provide clear criteria for this decision, including factors like right-of-way availability, presence of parallel routes, latent demand for active transportation, and future land use considerations.
Section 4(f)
Joint Guidelines for Transit Facilities and Bus Stop Placement
This section mandates that the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly issue guidelines on the placement of bus stops and associated roadway design within one year. These guidelines must consider convenience, safety, pedestrian accessibility, accessibility for individuals with disabilities, proximity to key destinations, density, and transit operations, and provide for various local contexts. They must also prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. Beginning two years after enactment, FTA must ensure recipients of certain transit funds (49 U.S.C. 5309) are provided these guidelines. FHWA must also report to Congress on its guidelines for on-road transit vehicle accommodation.
Section 4(g)
Revision of 'Value of Time' in Project Selection
This section amends 49 U.S.C. 6702(d) to stipulate that, when selecting projects for grants and analyzing their benefits and costs, the Secretary of Transportation 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. This effectively removes the benefit of increased vehicle speed from cost-benefit analyses for local and arterial roads when evaluating project eligibility for certain federal grants.
Section 5(b)
Non-Regressive Performance Targets for Vulnerable Road User Fatalities
This section amends 23 U.S.C. 150(d) to require that, in establishing performance targets for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the target for vulnerable road user fatalities in each State shall not exceed the total number of vulnerable road user fatalities for the previous target period in that State. This means states cannot set targets that anticipate an increase in vulnerable road user fatalities.
Section 6(c), (e)
Small Community Set-Aside and Increased Federal Share in Safe Streets for All Program
This section amends the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program to set aside not less than 10 percent of its total funding for projects carried out by or for the benefit of 'small communities.' These projects must have an estimated cost of less than $1,000,000 and a completion date of not more than 5 years. The Secretary may develop a modified application process for these projects and shall prioritize those that demonstrate ineligibility or inability to obtain State funding due to their size. Additionally, the federal share for these small community projects can be increased up to 90 percent if the applicant demonstrates a funding commitment from a State or local entity.
Removes an unspecified paragraph (5) from Section 11135 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs updates to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This appears to be a technical legislative drafting issue, possibly referencing a future or concurrent amendment to the base law, rather than an intentional effort to obscure a provision. However, its lack of clarity makes its substantive effect unknown to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a necessary technical cleanup or adjustment to ensure consistency with other legislative actions related to MUTCD updates, or to remove an outdated or redundant directive.
Case against: Critics might argue that without knowing the content of the removed paragraph, it's impossible to assess the full impact of this amendment. It could potentially remove a critical directive related to MUTCD updates, such as a specific mandate for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, which was present in the original IIJA Section 11135(a).
Estimated impact: The impact is unknown without the content of the removed paragraph. It could range from negligible (if it was a redundant or expired provision) to significant (if it removed a key mandate for MUTCD updates).
Amends 23 U.S.C. 217(g)(1) to change the language regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities from 'given due consideration' to 'accounted for, where not incompatible,' and from 'considered, where appropriate, in conjunction' to 'evaluated and, where appropriate, incorporated.'
Section 4(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing code, but the nuanced legal implications of such word changes are often overlooked by non-specialists.
Case for: Proponents argue that this change elevates the legal standing of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, moving them from optional 'consideration' to mandatory 'accounting for' and 'incorporation' where feasible. This strengthens the requirement for multimodal design.
Case against: Critics might argue that such prescriptive language could limit engineering discretion or impose undue burdens on project designers, potentially increasing costs or design complexity without commensurate benefits in all contexts.
Estimated impact: This linguistic shift could lead to a significant increase in the integration of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure into federally funded highway projects over time, impacting design standards and project outcomes nationwide.