Safe Transit Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 23, 2026
Bottom line
The Safe Transit Act leverages federal transit funding to compel state and local governments and transit agencies to adopt a suite of measures aimed at reducing crime and improving safety on public transportation, including changes to criminal justice policies and increased surveillance.
What it actually does
This bill conditions federal public transportation funding on state and local governments implementing specific crime prevention measures and criminal justice policies. It mandates a 3% set-aside of federal transit funds for safety and crime prevention projects, establishes new performance targets for crime reduction and 'family friendliness,' and requires transit agencies in large urbanized areas to adopt new technologies like cameras and passenger reporting apps, and to publicly display images of individuals captured committing crimes.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary response to rising crime rates on public transportation, aiming to protect transit workers and passengers, restore public confidence, and ensure a safe and reliable transit experience. They contend that linking funding to safety outcomes will incentivize agencies to prioritize crime reduction and that measures like fare enforcement and increased policing are essential deterrents.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill represents federal overreach into state and local criminal justice systems, potentially undermining local reform efforts and disproportionately impacting marginalized communities through increased criminalization of fare evasion and restrictions on bail. Concerns are also raised about privacy implications of widespread surveillance and public display of images, as well as the financial burden of unfunded mandates on transit agencies.
The bill is moderately complex due to its numerous amendments to existing law and detailed conditions. An informed reader would need adequate time to understand the interconnected provisions and their full implications.
Section 2(a)(1), amending 49 U.S.C. 5302
Defines 'Assault' and 'Assault on a Transit Worker'
This provision establishes specific legal definitions for 'assault' and 'assault on a transit worker' within the context of federal public transportation law. An 'assault' is defined as knowingly, without lawful authority, and with intent or reckless disregard for safety, putting someone in fear of or making harmful contact. An 'assault on a transit worker' is an assault that interferes with, disables, or incapacitates the worker while performing duties.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that clear, standardized definitions are crucial for consistent reporting, data collection, and effective prosecution of crimes on public transit, particularly those targeting essential transit workers.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the act of defining terms, but some may argue that the definitions could be overly broad or lead to increased arrests for minor incidents if not applied judiciously.
Tradeoffs
The provision aims to provide clarity for enforcement, but the specific wording of 'reckless disregard' or 'reasonable fear' could be subject to interpretation in practice.
Section 2(a)(2), amending 49 U.S.C. 5307(c)(1)
Conditions Funding on Limiting Zero-Fare Programs
This provision prohibits transit agencies in urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more and operating at least 100 buses from receiving federal formula assistance if they operate zero-fare programs. Several exceptions are allowed, including programs for seniors, individuals with disabilities, children, students, veterans, temporary programs for major events or disasters, and programs fully subsidized by third parties or local taxes.
Section 2(a)(3), amending 49 U.S.C. 5321(a)
Expands Eligible Expenses for Crime Prevention and Personal Safety
This section broadens the list of activities and projects that are considered eligible expenses for federal transit financial assistance. It includes projects such as increasing lighting and camera surveillance, providing emergency telephone lines, improving farebox infrastructure and cybersecurity, investing in technology to combat crime, general security improvements, and, notably, operating costs for fare enforcement, hiring transit officers, and contracting with local police departments.
Section 2(a)(3), amending 49 U.S.C. 5321(b)
Mandates Penalties for States/Localities Not Criminalizing Fare Evasion or Restricting Bail for Violent Offenders
Beginning in fiscal year 2028, the Secretary must withhold up to 100% of federal formula assistance from direct recipients if their state or local government fails to comply with three conditions: 1) fare evasion must be a criminal offense; 2) laws must ban individuals who commit assault or violent offenses on public transit from riding the system; and 3) laws must not permit release pending trial on personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bonds for criminal offenses on public transit. Exceptions are made to protect compliant jurisdictions in multi-jurisdictional service areas.
Section 2(a)(4)(B)(i)(IV), amending 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(J)
Establishes Crime Prevention and Personal Safety Risk Reduction Program
This provision creates a new mandatory program for transit agencies in urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more. It requires these agencies to develop a crime prevention and personal safety risk reduction program, which must include strategies to mitigate assaults on transit workers (e.g., operator barriers), reduce fare evasion, and decrease assaults on both passengers and transit workers. The program also requires setting specific safety performance targets in consultation with law enforcement, aiming for better performance than the 3-year rolling national average.
Section 2(a)(4)(D), amending 49 U.S.C. 5329(l)
Mandates 3% Set-Aside for System Safety, Crime Prevention, and Personal Safety Projects
This provision requires recipients of federal formula assistance under Section 5307 to allocate not less than 3% of those funds to projects related to system safety, crime prevention, and personal safety. Eligible projects include increased lighting, enhanced camera surveillance, emergency telephone lines, inward and outward facing cameras on vehicles, event recorders, operator compartment barriers, de-escalation training, personal protective equipment, improvements to operations control centers, security personnel, additional transit policing, and infrastructure to prevent fare evasion. The Secretary may establish a lower set-aside for smaller urbanized areas.
Section 2(a)(4)(D), amending 49 U.S.C. 5329(m)
Requires Certification of Progress Towards Performance Targets with Penalties
This provision conditions the award of federal formula grants on recipients certifying that they have made progress toward meeting performance targets related to system safety, crime prevention, and 'family friendliness.' Recipients must submit annual reports demonstrating this progress. If the Secretary determines that a recipient has not made progress, penalties can be imposed, including withholding up to 100% of formula funding, terminating grants, lowering ratings for competitive grant projects, or requiring funds to be spent on correcting identified deficiencies.
Section 2(a)(4)(D), amending 49 U.S.C. 5329(n)
Authorizes Withholding Funds for High Crime Rates
This provision allows the Secretary to withhold federal formula funds from transit agencies in urbanized areas (pop >= 200,000) if their per capita rates for fare evasion, non-contact assaults, contact assaults, and murder are 10% or more higher than the national average. Specifically, agencies with rates exceeding 50% above the national average for at least one category may have up to 50% of their formula funding withheld, while those 25-50% above average may have up to 25% withheld.
Section 2(a)(4)(D), amending 49 U.S.C. 5329(o)
Mandates Inward and Outward Facing Cameras and Event Recorders on New Rolling Stock
This provision requires the Secretary to issue regulations within one year mandating that all new rail or bus rolling stock (vehicles) procured with federal financial assistance must be equipped with inward and outward facing cameras and event recorders. The regulations must include requirements for how video footage of vehicle operators may be used and minimum parameters for maintaining data from these devices.
Section 3
Establishes Minimum Performance Standards for Fare Evasion Infrastructure
This section mandates that the Secretary establish minimum performance standards for infrastructure designed to prevent fare evasion within 90 days of the bill's enactment, without typical rulemaking procedures. These standards must consider different modes of transportation, operating environments, technology use, and existing agency experience. As a condition of financial assistance for fiscal year 2027, transit agencies in large urbanized areas (pop >= 200,000) must certify that they will acquire fare evasion infrastructure meeting these new standards in the following fiscal year for all stations, terminals, and rolling stock.
Section 4
Establishes Family Friendly Transit Scorecard and Mandates Public Display of Criminals
This section requires the Secretary to create an annual 'Family Friendly Transit Scorecard' that assigns a letter grade to each public transportation system, based on performance targets related to safety, accessibility, reliability, data availability, and cleanliness. As a condition of funding, transit agencies in large urbanized areas (pop >= 200,000) must prominently display this scorecard at all rail stations and bus terminals and on their websites. Additionally, they must display images of any person captured by security camera committing a crime on the system, along with crime information, within 7 days of the crime for a period of not less than 45 days. A waiver for impracticability is allowed for displaying images.
The bill removes 'assaults on transit workers' from the general 'system safety risk reduction program' (5329(d)(1)(I)) and then creates a *new, separate* 'crime prevention and personal safety risk reduction program' (5329(d)(1)(J)) that specifically addresses mitigation of assaults on transit workers, among other crime-related issues.
Section 2(a)(4)(B)(i)(III) and (IV), amending 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) and (J)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to refine programmatic focus and create a dedicated program for crime, rather than an attempt to obscure the issue.
Case for: Proponents would argue this creates a more focused and effective approach to crime prevention by giving it a dedicated program with specific targets, rather than lumping it in with broader operational safety concerns like accidents and injuries.
Case against: Critics might argue that separating worker assaults from the general system safety program could inadvertently signal a reduced emphasis on the holistic safety of transit workers, or create bureaucratic silos that hinder a comprehensive safety approach.
Estimated impact: This structural change could lead to more targeted funding and strategies for crime prevention, but also requires agencies to manage two distinct risk reduction programs.
The bill strikes paragraph (4) of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and redesignates paragraph (5) as paragraph (4). The original paragraph (4) established a general requirement for a safety committee. While this general requirement is removed, a specific mention of a 'safety committee of the recipient' is retained in the new crime prevention program (5329(d)(1)(J)(i)) for performing risk analysis.
Section 2(a)(4)(B)(ii), amending 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)
Why it matters:This is likely a legislative streamlining effort to remove a redundant or overly broad general requirement, while ensuring the necessary function (risk analysis by a safety committee) is still explicitly linked to the new crime prevention program.
Case for: Proponents would argue this streamlines the regulatory framework by removing a potentially redundant general requirement for a safety committee, while ensuring that safety committees are still utilized where specifically needed for critical risk analysis in crime prevention.
Case against: Critics might argue that removing the general requirement for a safety committee could weaken overall safety oversight and collaboration within transit agencies, even if a committee is still mentioned for specific tasks.
Estimated impact: The impact is likely moderate, shifting from a general mandate for safety committees to a more targeted expectation for their involvement in specific risk assessments.