The Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. No. 117-58, also known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” (BIL)) introduced several new aspects to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), both in new initiatives and adjusting existing programs. Guidance for the updated HSIP eligibility was published on February 2, 2022. See HSIP Eligibility Guidance. These Q&As represent many of the common questions FHWA received regarding this guidance. 

Updated March 7, 2024 

Except for the statutes and regulations cited, the contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the States or the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide information regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Eligibility 

General 

1. Q: What documentation is required from the State to demonstrate that they have a data-driven process?  

A: The documented HSIP process shall include documentation of the process for analyzing safety data to develop a program of highway safety improvement projects (23 CFR 924.9(a)(4)(i)). States typically document these processes in a HSIP manual, policy procedures, or standard operating procedures. 

The HSIP shall address all public roads in the State and include processes for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the three HSIP components: the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and a program of highway safety improvement projects (23 CFR 924.7). These processes shall be developed in cooperation with the FHWA Division office and in consultation with other safety stakeholders, where appropriate (23 CFR 924.7(b)), and furnished to the FHWA Division Office for documentation purposes (23 CFR 1.5).  

2. Q: What types of bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail projects are eligible for HSIP funding? 

A: Per 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(A), HSIP funds are eligible for any highway safety improvement project on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail. This would include a project located on a publicly owned multi-use path that is either on or off the public right-of-way if the project is consistent with the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A)), identified through a data-driven process (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(iv)), and contributes to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on public roads, consistent with the purpose of HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)). The safety benefit to transportation users traveling in the public right-of-way of a public road should be demonstrated through a data-driven documented process. Through such data-driven documented process, the safety benefits should demonstrate that the separation of users from vehicular traffic will result in safer conditions for the user. 

For a greenway to be a considered a bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail and eligible for HSIP funds, it would need to be used for transportation purposes per the purpose of the HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)), and it would also need to meet the other HSIP requirements in 23 U.S.C. 148 and 23 CFR part 924. If the greenway is a recreational trail and used for recreational purposes, it would not be a bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail that is eligible for HSIP funds.  

3. Q: What types of projects are considered automated enforcement and eligible for HSIP funding?  

A: Automated enforcement projects would primarily include the use of red-light running cameras and speed safety cameras. Automated enforcement projects may be considered specified safety projects under HSIP, which includes projects that facilitate enforcement of traffic safety laws (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)(B)(ii)). A State may use up to 10 percent of its HSIP funds each fiscal year on specified safety projects, such as automated enforcement projects (23 U.S.C. 148(e)(3)(A)). To be eligible for HSIP funding, the automated enforcement project must be consistent with all HSIP requirements (23 U.S.C. 148(e)(3)(C)(i)), meaning that the project must be consistent with the State’s SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A)), be identified through the State’s data-driven process (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)), and contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)).  

States considering automated enforcement projects using HSIP funds are encouraged to work with engineering and education components of the State’s safety efforts in concert with such enforcement efforts. Community engagement prior to setting up such a program is critical to the long-term success of such a program. Other considerations for setting an automated enforcement program can be found at the Speed Safety Camera Program Planning and Operations Guide. 

4. Q: Are projects that address fatal or serious injury crashes involving wildlife eligible for HSIP funding? 

A: Yes. A highway safety improvement project may include the addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce serious crashes involving vehicles and wildlife (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(xvii)). The project would need to be consistent with the State’s SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A)), identified through a data-driven process (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)), and contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on public roads (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)). 

Projects that reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions while also improving habitat connectivity may be eligible for a new Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program (23 U.S.C. 171) created under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-58, also known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” or “BIL”). 

5. Q: Are HSIP funds able to be used for Complete Streets safety improvements? 

A: When the improvement is for a safety purpose, yes. Complete Streets are designed and operated to support mobility and enable safety for all users of the transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles (BIL § 11206(a)). The elements of a project that improve the safety for these road users are eligible for HSIP funding as various kinds of highway safety improvement projects (see 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(v), (xxii), (xxvi), and (xxvii)). However, safety elements on projects funded from a source besides HSIP with a primary purpose of supporting mobility should be funded through that primary funding source (23 CFR 924.5(c)).  For example, sidewalks or guardrails on a project funded under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) (23 U.S.C. 133) that add automobile capacity should be funded with STBG funds. Stand-alone projects to make safety enhancements, such as adding sidewalks or guardrails, could be eligible for HSIP funding if they are consistent with the State’s SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A)), are identified through a data-driven process (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)), and contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on public roads (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)). States and local agencies are encouraged to have a Complete Streets policy that will guide actions to improve safety for all users of the transportation system. 

6. Q: Are the States required to include systemic safety projects as part of the HSIP? 

A: Yes. According to 23 CFR 924.9(a)(4)(i), States are required to develop a program of highway safety improvement projects, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of a comprehensive program of systemic and spot safety improvement projects. The systemic and spot safety improvement approaches are two complementary approaches to safety management. Agencies use the spot approach to implement treatments at sites based on crash history and are typically limited to one site or corridor per project. This approach, while reactive, is still important to implement when critical safety issues exist. The premise behind the systemic approach is that it takes proactive action to address safety challenges. It is not possible to predict exactly where crashes will occur, but it is possible to use the roadway characteristics and context associated with severe crash types to determine the locations that have a greater risk of experiencing a fatal or severe crash. This approach helps to deploy lifesaving countermeasures throughout the road network.  

7. Q: What is a “pedestrian security feature designed to slow or stop a motor vehicle” under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(xxviii)? 

A: A pedestrian security feature designed to slow or stop a motor vehicle is a treatment that discourages drivers of motor vehicles from entering sidewalks, shared use paths, trails, pedestrian plazas, or other areas restricted to or reserved for pedestrians. This may include the installation of effective signs, construction of properly designed path entries, or installation of appropriate crashworthy barriers which are included as eligible highway safety improvement projects. Some barriers, such as bollards, may introduce hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists and may not be crashworthy for vehicles and, as such, would not be considered an eligible highway safety improvement project under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(xxviii).  

8. Q: What is a protected intersection feature described in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(xxvii)? 

A: A protected intersection feature is a type of roadway improvement that provides separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles or between bicyclists and motor vehicles and includes treatments designed to make the intersection safer for all users of the transportation system, including vulnerable road users, to approach and cross at the intersection, while reducing motor vehicle speeds. These may be applied at either signalized or unsignalized intersections. Elements of a protected intersection feature may include the setback of pedestrian crosswalks and bike crossings, forward stop bars, corner safety islands, delineators, and certain accessibility features. Further information on protected intersection features may be found in publications such as FHWA’s guide at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/about/fhwasa22017.pdf and fact sheets at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/about/fhwasa22041.pdf. 

9. Q: Can HSIP funds be used as match for Transportation Alternatives (TA) funds? 

A: Yes. 23 U.S.C. 133(h)(7)(B)(i) allows HSIP funds to be credited toward the non-Federal share of the costs of a TA Set-Aside project if the project is an eligible HSIP project as described in 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1). Also, as generally with all HSIP projects, that project would need to be consistent with the State’s SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A)), identified through a data-driven process (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)), and contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on public roads (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)). Crediting HSIP funds to the non-Federal share of a project allows an individual project to functionally have a Federal share of up to 100 percent (23 U.S.C. 133(h)(7)(B)(iii). The average annual non-Federal share of the total costs of all TA Set-Aside projects in a State for a fiscal year must not be less than the average non-Federal share of the costs of the projects that would otherwise apply (23 U.S.C. 133(h)(7)(A)). In addition, States may only credit HSIP funds toward the non-Federal share of the costs of a TA Set-Aside project if the State has adequate financial controls, as certified by FHWA, to account for this average non-Federal share (23 U.S.C. 133(h)(7)(C)). Transportation alternatives guidance can be found at TA Guidance. 

 

Specified Safety Projects 

10. Q: Does the specified safety projects provision have a separate program code in FMIS? 

A: Yes. States use a designated program code in FMIS (YS80) for specified safety projects. Since a State may use no more than 10% of their apportioned HSIP funds each fiscal year for specified safety projects (23 U.S.C. 148(e)(3)(A)), the specified safety program code only allows up to 10% of each fiscal year’s apportioned HSIP funds to be obligated for this purpose. 

11. Q: How does a State identify and prioritize specified safety projects within the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

A: All investment decisions regarding HSIP funds, including specified safety projects, shall take into consideration safety data and analysis (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)). Using a Safe System Approach, States can plan a multi-disciplinary approach for projects that includes a combination of infrastructure and non-infrastructure countermeasures to address identified contributing factors, ensure redundancy, and reduce fatalities and serious injuries. States can decide how much, up to 10%, of their HSIP funds are to be used for specified safety projects (23 U.S.C. 148(e)(3)(A)). This decision is one that should consider the extent of the safety issues caused by various contributing factors and the effectiveness of the different safety initiatives. An enhanced description of the approach States should take in using specified safety projects can be seen in the February 2, 2022 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Eligibility Guidance.  

12. Q: Are salaries, equipment, and media buys eligible as specified safety projects that promote public awareness or facilitate traffic safety enforcement?  

A: Yes. Specified safety projects include projects that promote public awareness and inform the public regarding highway safety matters (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)(B)(i)). Projects funded under the specified safety projects provision may include eligible non-infrastructure expenses that meet all applicable requirements under title 23, U.S.C. and title 23, CFR (such as Buy America per 23 U.S.C. 313 and 23 CFR 635.410) and 2 CFR 200 (including provisions regarding program income, employee compensation, and equipment). For example, equipment funded with HSIP funds must be used solely for the safety activity intended as long as needed, whether or not the project or program continues to be supported with HSIP funds (2 CFR 200.313(c)), and follow the requirements of 2 CFR part 200, Subpart E. As specified safety projects are subject to all requirements that apply to highway safety improvement projects (23 U.S.C. 148(e)(3)(C)(i)), to be eligible for HSIP funding, a specified safety project must be consistent with the State’s SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A)), be identified through the State’s data-driven process (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)), and contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)). As with all safety projects and strategies, the consistent, fair, just, and impartial treatment of all people should be foundational. This includes activities related to compliance or enforcement efforts to make our roads safer. Traffic safety enforcement activities funded under the specified safety projects provision should only focus on serious safety violations of drivers, such as speeding and alcohol and drug impaired driving.  

13. Q: Can funds from prior authorizations be used for specified safety projects? 

A: No. Funds from previous authorizations, such as the FAST Act, are not able to be used on specified safety projects. However, for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026, up to 10% of the apportionments made available under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law can be used for specified safety projects. 

14. Q: Can 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164 penalty transfer funds be used for specified safety projects? 

A: Yes. States can elect to use penalty transfer funds under 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164 for activities eligible under 23 U.S.C. 148 (23 U.S.C. 154(c)(3)(A), 164(b)(3)(A)). Such activities include specified safety projects.  Since the 10% limit applies to funds apportioned to States under the HSIP program (23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1), (e)(3)) and penalty transfer funds come from funds apportioned under the National Highway Performance Program and STBG (23 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A), 164(b)(2)(A)), penalty transfer funds used on specified safety projects are not subject to the 10% limit. Section 154 and 164 penalty transfer funds from Fiscal Years 2022 and forward can be used for specified safety projects. Section 154 and 164 penalty transfer funds from prior fiscal years cannot. Specified safety projects using Section 154 or 164 funds must use the respective program codes for Section 154 (YS31) and 164 (YS32) in FMIS.  

This provision does not apply to the portion of the penalty transfer funds that a State may elect to transfer (per the Split letter submitted to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and FHWA) to NHTSA that needs to “be used for alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures” per 23 U.S.C. 154(c)(1)(A) and 23 U.S.C. 164(b)(1)(A). 

 

Special Rules 

Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Safety 

15. Q: What transportation users are considered Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) for the purpose of the VRU Safety Special Rule? 

A: Per 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(3), if the total annual fatalities of VRUs in a State represents not less than 15 percent of the total annual crash fatalities in the State, that State is required to obligate at least 15 percent of their HSIP funds for the following fiscal year for highway safety improvement projects to address the safety of VRUs. While the definition of VRUs in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(15) refers to the definitions of “number of non-motorized fatalities” and “number of non-motorized serious injuries” in 23 CFR 490.205, when calculating the total annual fatalities of VRUs, FHWA only looks to the definition of “number of non-motorized fatalities.” This definition includes Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) person types: Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Other Cyclists (such as unicycles or tricycles), and Persons on Personal Conveyance (such as wheelchairs, scooters, or micromobility devices regardless of motorization). People riding motorcycles or other motor vehicles are not considered VRUs under this definition. 

16. Q: What does it mean for a highway safety improvement project “to address the safety of vulnerable road users”?  

A: If a State triggers the VRU Safety Special Rule, it must spend not less than 15 percent of its apportioned HSIP funds “for the following fiscal year for highway safety improvement projects to address the safety of vulnerable road users” (23 U.S.C. 148(g)(3)). A highway safety improvement project addresses the safety of VRUs in accordance with the VRU Safety Special Rule if its purpose is to reduce death and serious injury to VRUs. While many projects may have a safety benefit for VRUs, a project’s main purpose must be to address the safety of VRUs in order to be eligible for VRU Special Rule set-aside funds. Further, a project whose purpose addresses the safety of VRUs is eligible for VRU Special Rule funds even if that project also results in safety benefits to other road users. For example, a project designed to significantly improve a safety issue for VRUs would be eligible, as it would “address the safety of vulnerable road users”, even if the project has ancillary benefits to motorists. Section 148(g)(3) of title 23, United States Code, does not require that such a project “only” benefit VRUs in order to be an eligible use of VRU Safety Special Rule set-aside funds. 

All highway safety improvement projects, including projects to address the safety of vulnerable users under the VRU Safety Special Rule, must be consistent with the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A)), be identified through a data-driven process (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)), and contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)). These requirements are further elaborated on below:  

• Ensuring consistency with SHSP: The SHSP must include either a VRU emphasis area or strategies to improve VRU safety, and the project must be consistent with such emphasis areas or strategies.  
• Using a Data-Driven Process: A project to address the safety of VRUs must be identified through a data-driven process that identifies VRU safety problems and opportunities, such as the required VRU Safety Assessment under 23 U.S.C. 148(l).  
• Focusing on Safety Performance: The State must demonstrate that the project will contribute to improved safety performance for vulnerable road users. 

Other pedestrian or bicycle projects oriented more for mobility of pedestrians and/or bicyclists and that do not address an identified safety issue are not highway safety improvement projects that address the safety of VRUs and are not eligible to be funded with VRU Safety Special Rule set-aside funds. Furthermore, a project to address the safety of VRUs that is included in the VRU Safety Assessment may not degrade transportation system access for VRUs (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(6)).   

17. Q: Can funds set-aside for the VRU Safety Special Rule be used for safety features that address the safety of VRUs as part of larger projects?  

A: Yes, in limited situations. Safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the broader project (23 CFR 924.5(c)). HSIP-funded projects are typically stand-alone safety projects. However, there may be limited instances when highway safety improvement projects that address the safety of VRUs are made in conjunction with larger road projects, and the safety portion of the project could utilize VRU Safety Special Rule set-aside funds while the rest of the project uses other funds. These situations must still meet HSIP eligibility requirements and may include the following scenarios:  

• When the highway safety improvement project to address VRU safety overlaps with a traditional road project.  
• When introducing a Proven Safety Countermeasure to the State as part of a larger Federal-aid project in order to address the safety of VRUs, and the HSIP funds would be used for a limited time (e.g., 1-2 years) to advance the rollout of that countermeasure until the feature is incorporated into the standard practices of the State.  
• When implementing road safety audit recommendations specifically to address the safety of VRUs through a resurfacing program. 

Well-proven safety countermeasures such as crosswalks and pedestrian countdown signals that have been included as components of projects for many years should be included in the larger Federal-aid project and funded with the funds that are used for the overall project. FHWA’s goal is for well-proven safety countermeasures to become standard procedures and included in States’ standard project development process. 

18. Q: Does the VRU Safety Special Rule set-aside have a 90% Federal share? 

A: Yes. Highway safety improvement projects to address the safety of vulnerable road users are funded at a Federal share of 90% (23 U.S.C. 148(j)). However, as provided in 23 U.S.C. 120(c)(1), certain safety projects may be eligible for a Federal share of 100%. 

19. Q: If a State is subject to the VRU Safety Special Rule, will 15% of the following fiscal year’s HSIP apportionment be set-aside in FMIS? 

A: Yes. If a State is subject to the VRU Safety Special Rule, 15% of a State’s HSIP apportionment along with associated obligation limitation will be set-aside in FMIS with its own program code (YS70) for the fiscal year after FHWA’s assessment that the State triggered the VRU Safety Special Rule, as shown in the below table.  

Year of Available Data	Year of Assessment	Year VRU Safety Special Rule Applies
CY 2020	FY 2022	FY 2023
CY 2021	FY 2023	FY 2024
CY 2022	FY 2024	FY 2025
CY 2023	FY 2025	FY 2026
CY 2024	FY 2026	FY2027

 

20. Q: Can a State convert projects previously identified as Advance Construction (AC) in other funding categories as VRU projects using VRU Safety Special Rule set-aside funds? 

A: Yes. A State may obligate the Federal share of a project authorized under AC from any category of funds for which the project is eligible (23 U.S.C. 115(b)).   

21. Q: How should a State plan to use their HSIP funds for highway safety improvement projects to address the safety of VRUs? 

A: Even before FHWA makes a determination of which States triggered the VRU Safety Special Rule, each State likely is aware of the extent of the VRU safety issue within its State, through its own analysis. If a State, through its SHSP, determines that VRU safety is a topic that needs to be addressed, it should identify and prioritize highway safety improvement projects to address the safety of VRUs with HSIP funds accordingly. Furthermore, the non-motorized safety performance target that States set is also a good gauge to determine the extent that HSIP funds should be invested in VRU safety. Additionally, each State is required to have a VRU Safety Assessment in place by November 15, 2023, and update it regularly with their SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(l)). This assessment will help guide where and what type of VRU safety challenges exist and the strategies needed to address these safety issues. States should use their VRU Safety Assessment as a tool to assist in obligating funds on VRU projects as required by the VRU Safety Special Rule, which requires that a State obligate at least 15% of their apportioned HSIP funds on projects that address the safety of VRUs if the State triggers the special rule (23 U.S.C. 148(g)(3)). A State should plan ahead to ensure it meets the VRU Safety Special Rule provisions. 

22. Q: Can a highway safety improvement project to address the safety of VRUs consist of education or outreach efforts? 

A: No. The VRU Safety Special Rule requires that funds be obligated for “highway safety improvement projects to address the safety of vulnerable road users” (23 U.S.C. 148(g)(3)). Education and outreach efforts are considered specified safety projects (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)), not highway safety improvement projects (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)). HSIP funds set-aside under the VRU Safety Special Rule, therefore, cannot be used for specified safety projects.  However, a State may use HSIP funds for education or outreach efforts as a specified safety project (subject to the 10% limit in 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(3)(A)) and target these funds for VRU safety education or outreach safety initiatives. 

23. Q: If a State triggers the VRU Safety Special Rule, can the special rule set-aside funds be used to develop the VRU Safety Assessment? 

A: Yes. A VRU Safety Assessment is an activity that is a function of transportation safety planning and consists of the collection and analysis of safety data. These activities are included as types of highway safety improvement projects in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(xiii) and (xiv), respectively, and their purpose is to reduce deaths and serious injuries to VRUs. These activities are therefore eligible for VRU Safety Special Rule set-aside funds or HSIP funds more broadly.  

24. Q: Is a highway/construction worker involved in a motor vehicle crash considered a vulnerable road user? 

A: A highway/construction worker who is on foot on a public roadway is considered a pedestrian and therefore a vulnerable road user (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(15)) if involved in a crash with a motor vehicle operated by the traveling public. However, a highway/construction worker who is on foot on a public road and is involved in an incident with construction equipment in a designated work zone would not be considered a vulnerable road user as defined in 23 U.S.C 148(a)(15).   

 

Questions 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Karen Scurry (202-897-7168 or karen.scurry@dot.gov) or Rick Drumm (317-226-7487 or rick.drumm@dot.gov).