Sponsors (2)
The bill standardizes what projects qualify for Section 130 funds—improving consistency and likely boosting safety project implementation—at the cost of short-term state planning burdens and a risk that some local projects will no longer qualify.
State transportation agencies and rural communities will get clearer, consistent federal guidance on which projects qualify for Section 130 set-aside funds, enabling faster and more consistent project selection and more efficient use of federal highway funds.
Rural residents, road users, and transportation workers may see more safety projects (targeting trespassing hazards) implemented, potentially reducing trespassing fatalities and improving local safety.
States may incur short-term administrative costs and planning revisions to align with the new guidance, causing temporary delays to some projects.
A narrower interpretation of eligible projects could prevent some local safety or infrastructure proposals from accessing Section 130 funds, limiting options for certain rural or local improvements.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Requires FHWA to issue guidance within one year clarifying when States may use section 130 set-aside funds for projects that reduce trespassing fatalities at rail-highway crossings.
Official title: To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue guidance regarding State projects to reduce trespassing fatalities, and for other purposes.
Introduced February 4, 2026 by Maxwell Frost · Last progress February 4, 2026
Directs the Department of Transportation, through the Federal Highway Administration, to issue guidance within one year after enactment explaining which types of projects aimed at reducing trespassing fatalities at rail-highway crossings may be funded from the set-aside funds under 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(1)(A). The guidance will identify eligible project types under the statutory provision 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(1)(B) to help States use those set-aside funds for trespassing-fatality reduction measures.