HB2011, titled the Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act, would amend federal highway safety law to give greater priority to projects that improve safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable road users. The bill adds two new eligible highway safety improvement project categories: connecting two or more segments of existing bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure, and reducing safety risks to vulnerable road users through projects or strategies identified in a state safety program.
The bill also expands financing flexibility for certain safety projects. It would allow some eligible projects funded under the highway safety improvement program to receive up to 100 percent federal funding, rather than requiring a state or local match, when the project involves bicycle or pedestrian safety countermeasures or is tied to vulnerable road user safety planning. It further allows funds from the highway safety program to count toward the non-federal share of certain projects if they are supported by recognized safety plans such as pedestrian or bicyclist safety plans, Complete Streets plans, Vision Zero plans, ADA transition plans, tribal transportation safety plans, or comprehensive safety action plans.
In addition, the bill would amend the federal cost-share rules for proven safety countermeasures by explicitly including proven bicycle and pedestrian safety countermeasures among the eligible items. Overall, the measure is designed to make it easier for states and local governments to fund and implement active transportation safety improvements within the existing federal highway safety framework.
The bill’s impact would be to broaden the scope of projects eligible for federal highway safety funding and to reduce local financial barriers for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. It would affect Title 23 of the U.S. Code, especially the Highway Safety Improvement Program, federal matching requirements, and the treatment of safety-planning documents in project selection and financing. States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, tribal governments, and transportation agencies would all be potential beneficiaries, particularly where they are pursuing Complete Streets, Vision Zero, ADA, or other safety-oriented plans.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call data. Based on the bill text and its bipartisan sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed as a safety-focused, noncontroversial transportation policy proposal. The main policy emphasis is on improving protection for vulnerable road users and making federal funding more accessible for those projects, with no explicit opposition reflected in the available materials.
HB2011 would amend Title 23 of the U.S. Code to expand the Highway Safety Improvement Program’s eligible project types, allow up to 100 percent federal funding for certain bicycle and pedestrian safety projects, and permit safety-program funds to satisfy non-federal match requirements in specified circumstances. It would also recognize a broader set of safety plans and proven countermeasures in federal funding decisions, affecting how states, local governments, MPOs, and tribal entities plan and finance active transportation safety projects.
No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. The bill’s bipartisan introduction and safety-oriented purpose suggest generally favorable sentiment, with the measure likely viewed as a targeted transportation safety improvement rather than a controversial policy change.
The bill text itself does not show explicit controversy, but the likely policy tension is over federal funding flexibility and match requirements. Potential points of contention could include whether up to 100 percent federal funding for certain projects reduces state financial responsibility, how broadly “vulnerable road user” safety projects should be defined, and how much discretion the Secretary of Transportation should have in recognizing additional safety plans. No specific opponents or disputed provisions are identified in the materials provided.