Safe Routes Improvement Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1828
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

ID: C001096

Follow the money

The bill

Safe Routes Improvement Act

S. 1828, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$143,200 raised

26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "19" section, p. 652-654 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Environment and Public Works Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Hearings held.

July 22, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Cramer and Markey. The "Safe Routes Improvement Act" - because what's more important than creating a new bureaucratic position to oversee the already-existing safe routes to school program? I mean, it's not like there are actual problems to solve or anything.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to create a new coordinator position in each state to "improve" the safe routes to school program. Because, clearly, the existing infrastructure wasn't sufficient, and we need more government employees to... well, do what exactly? Oh right, serve as a point of contact. Wow, I bet that'll make all the difference.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 208 of Title 23, United States Code, by adding a new subsection (j) that requires each state to designate a coordinator for the safe routes to school program. The coordinator's duties will include... wait for it... being the point of contact for the program. Wow, I'm sure this will be a challenging and demanding role.

The bill also allows states to use existing staff or funds to cover the salary of the new coordinator, because who needs actual funding for new initiatives when you can just shuffle around existing resources?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* State governments, which will have to designate a new coordinator and potentially allocate existing funds to cover their salary. * The Secretary of Transportation, who will have to deal with the added bureaucracy. * Lobbyists for education and transportation groups, who will likely be thrilled to have another government employee to wine and dine.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is... drumroll please... more bureaucratic red tape! With a new coordinator position comes more paperwork, more meetings, and more opportunities for politicians to grandstand about how much they care about safe routes to school.

In reality, this bill will likely have zero tangible impact on the safety of children walking or biking to school. But hey, it's a great way for Senators Cramer and Markey to look like they're doing something without actually accomplishing anything.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Bureaucratic Creep," where politicians create new positions and programs to justify their own existence rather than addressing actual problems. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of common sense and fiscal responsibility.

Related Topics

State & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$143,200
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$11,100
Committees
$0
Individuals
$132,100

No PAC contributions found

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
2
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
1 transaction
$2,500
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
3 transactions
$2,000

No committee contributions found

1
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
3 transactions
$19,800
2
WALSH, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,700
3
JORDAN, BORIS
1 transaction
$6,600
4
SMITH, BRAD
1 transaction
$6,600
5
KAPLAN, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
6
SMITH, IRIS
1 transaction
$6,600
7
SMITH, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$6,600
8
EMMET, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600
9
GIDWITZ, RONALD J.
1 transaction
$6,600
10
SHORMA, THOMAS
1 transaction
$6,600
11
SINGER, PAUL
1 transaction
$6,600
12
DE TOLEDO, PHILIP
1 transaction
$6,600
13
VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA
1 transaction
$6,600
14
VANDERSLOOT, FRANK
1 transaction
$6,600
15
BRADLEY, JACQUELINE
1 transaction
$6,600
16
SCHWAB, CHARLES R.
1 transaction
$6,600
17
LABBAT, PETER
1 transaction
$6,600
18
GENIRBERG, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]

ID: M000133

Top Contributors

22

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 28, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jul 26, 2023
3
DONOHUE, JOHN
ARBELLA • INSURANCE
IndividualBELMONT, MA
$6,600
May 20, 2024
4
MARCHAND, PAUL
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS • EVP HR
IndividualMONTCLAIR, NJ
$4,200
Mar 11, 2024
5
MOUTOUDIS, ELEFTHERIA
ELEFTHERIA MOUTOUDIS • SELF EMPLOYEED
IndividualSOUTHBOROUGH, MA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
6
MOUTOUDIS, EVANGELOS
DEKK GROUO • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualSOUTHBOROUGH, MA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
7
SCHMIDT, WENDY
NONE • INVESTMENTS AND PHILANTHROPY
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$3,300
Oct 2, 2024
8
SWIG, MARY
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Aug 31, 2024
9
ABRAMS, JEFFREY J.
BAD ROBOT • FOUNDER
IndividualENCINO, CA
$3,300
Oct 10, 2023
10
ABRAMS, JEFFREY J.
BAD ROBOT • FOUNDER
IndividualENCINO, CA
$3,300
Oct 10, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 60 nodes and 74 connections

Total contributions: $74

Top Donors - Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • Section 2(a) implies increased investment in infrastructure for safe routes to school, which could benefit construction and engineering firms, although the connection is indirect.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

19

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 652-654AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving safe routes to school through state-level coordination, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on state and local control over transportation infrastructure and reducing federal overreach in project selection. Both prioritize efficient, locally managed transportation solutions that enhance accessibility and safety, though the bill does not directly address the broader critique of DOT's grantmaking role or funding priorities highlighted in the policy."

Key themes:state and local controltransportation safetyinfrastructure efficiencyaccessibilityreduced federal micromanagement

— 619 — 19 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Diana Furchtgott-Roth INTRODUCTION America needs transportation that is more abundant and affordable as well as dignified, accessible, and family friendly. Transportation plays a vital role in the prosperity and flourishing of the United States. Americans use trucks, tankers, and trains to keep our supply chains running and cars, transit, and planes to go where we want to go. Two hundred and forty years ago, Adam Smith recognized that connections were a bedrock of society because they stimulate specialization, innovation, and capital investment. In the following decades, America’s growth was made possible by transportation—first ports and transatlantic shipping, then roads, canals, and eventually railroads pushing westward to create the nation we call home. Access to transportation is part of what made our country great. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), with a requested fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $142 billion,1 was originally intended simply to provide a policy framework for transportation safety, rulemaking, and regulation. However, it has evolved to believe that its role is “to deliver the world’s leading transportation system”2—that is, to select individual projects and allocate taxpayer funds in the actual planning, developing, and building of transportation assets. Such a role is held more appropriately by transportation asset owners: primarily states, munic- ipalities, and the private sector. In addition to providing a safety and regulatory framework through its 11 sub- components, known as modes, the department has become a de facto grantmaking and lending organization. DOT provides approximately $50 billion in discretionary — 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA);

Department of Transportation

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section address transportation safety and mobility, but the bill focuses on coordinating safe walking/biking routes for children, whereas the Project 2025 policy emphasizes automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, and fuel economy standards, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:transportation safetymobilityinfrastructure coordination

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving safe routes for children walking or biking to school, which has indirect environmental benefits like reduced emissions and congestion, but does not directly address EPA regulatory streamlining, GHG reporting, or mobile source standards as outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:transportation emissionsair qualitystate coordinationenvironmental health

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills