The PHASE Act of 2025 tasks the National Institute of Standards and Technology with identifying innovative, evidence-backed technological approaches to improve traffic control devices and protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, and it directs the Department of Transportation to study physical infrastructure alternatives. The bill also creates a federal grant program for local governments, tribal nations, and municipalities to implement pedestrian-focused infrastructure improvements that comply with federal regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This is a focused federal intervention: it centralizes technical review (NIST → DOT), mandates a targeted study of where pedestrian crashes are rising and how specific vehicle safety systems perform, and pairs research with a modest, ongoing authorization of funding designed to help localities pilot or install engineering countermeasures. The measure is procedural and programmatic rather than prescriptive — it commissions evidence and funds projects rather than imposing technical mandates on vehicle manufacturers or states.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs NIST to transmit potential technology solutions and supporting evidence to DOT and requires DOT to study physical infrastructure alternatives and certain vehicle safety systems. Establishes a federal grant program to help cities, municipalities, and Indian Tribes install pedestrian safety infrastructure that complies with federal law.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies (NIST and DOT), city and municipal transportation departments, Indian Tribes, vendors of crosswalk and roadway safety technology, and local accessibility planners responsible for ADA compliance.
Why It Matters
It links federal technical expertise to local implementation and pairs a targeted research agenda with funding to accelerate physical safety projects—potentially shaping near-term priorities for urban pedestrian-safety investments and future federal guidance on roadway technologies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two parallel streams of federal work. First, it directs the Director of NIST to identify and transmit to DOT potential innovative technologies to improve traffic control devices that better equip vehicle operators (including bicyclists) and protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
NIST must include supporting evidence that proposed solutions will not overwhelm, overstimulate, or otherwise distract vehicle operators and must ensure proposed solutions comply with applicable federal regulations.
Second, the bill requires DOT to carry out a study focused on physical infrastructure alternatives to reduce vehicle crashes with vulnerable road users. The study must target urban areas (as defined by the Census) where pedestrian fatalities have increased in the data available at enactment, map where pedestrian crashes happen most frequently, and evaluate technologies such as intelligent speed assistance and blind spot detection—specifically assessing their impact on vulnerable road users and whether blind spot systems detect all road users in a timely way.DOT must brief the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations Committees on the study results within two years of enactment.
Separately, DOT must establish a grant program to fund local implementation of pedestrian safety infrastructure (eligible applicants are cities, Indian Tribes, and municipalities). The statute lists eligible uses—ranging from innovative crosswalk tech and accessible pedestrian signals to expanded buffer zones, sidewalks, curb ramps, upgraded signals, lighting, and grade-separated crossings—and requires that funded projects comply with applicable federal regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act.The bill authorizes $5,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out the grant program.
Applicants must submit an application in a form and timeframe the Secretary specifies; the text leaves many program design elements to DOT rulemaking and guidance rather than prescribing matching requirements, prioritization criteria, or funding shares between capital and maintenance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
NIST must transmit candidate technological solutions to DOT and include supporting evidence showing those solutions will not overwhelm or distract vehicle operators.
DOT’s study must analyze Census-defined urban areas where pedestrian fatalities have increased according to available data as of the bill’s enactment and map crash frequency locations.
The study is required to evaluate intelligent speed assistance and blind spot detection systems, with a specific focus on blind spot systems’ ability to detect all road users in a timely manner.
The grant program’s eligible applicants are cities, Indian Tribes, and municipalities, and funded projects must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and all applicable federal regulations.
The statute authorizes $5,000,000 per fiscal year to implement the DOT grant program (authorization, not an appropriation guarantee).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
NIST transmission of technology proposals and evidence
This section obligates the NIST Director to send potential technological solutions to the Secretary of Transportation, accompanied by supporting evidence addressing operator workload and distraction risks. Practically, NIST will need to define evaluation criteria, evidence standards, and how recommendations align with existing federal regulatory frameworks (for example, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and any relevant DOT or NHTSA rulemakings). The provision gives NIST judgment over what counts as sufficient supporting evidence but does not set a deadline or require a public notice-and-comment process.
DOT study on physical alternatives and safety systems
This subsection directs DOT to perform a targeted study of physical countermeasures in urban areas where pedestrian fatalities have risen, and to examine vehicle systems such as intelligent speed assistance and blind spot detection. The study scope is data-driven—limited to areas showing increases in pedestrian fatalities as of enactment—which shapes where DOT will concentrate analysis and likely field work. The study’s technical work will need to incorporate data sources, detection performance metrics, and methodologies for attributing safety outcomes to infrastructure versus vehicle technologies.
Congressional briefing deadline
DOT must brief two House committees on the study results within two years. That creates an explicit, relatively short timeline for DOT to complete data collection, analysis, and recommendations. The statutory briefing requirement exerts programmatic pressure but does not itself create regulatory obligations; implementation choices for the grant program and any subsequent guidance remain within DOT’s discretion.
Grant program for pedestrian infrastructure (eligibility and uses)
DOT must set up a discretionary grant program for cities, Indian Tribes, and municipalities to install pedestrian safety infrastructure. The statute lists eligible project types—from innovative crosswalk technologies and adaptive lighting to curb ramps, buffer zones, and grade-separated crossings—and requires compliance with ADA and federal laws. The bill leaves application timing, selection criteria, and allowable cost categories to DOT, so grant priorities, award size, and whether funds cover planning, construction, or maintenance depend on agency rulemaking.
Funding authorization
The Act authorizes $5,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out the grant program. Authorization signals congressional intent to fund the program but does not appropriate funds; actual outlays depend on subsequent appropriations. Given the nationwide scope of pedestrian-safety needs, the authorization level is modest and will shape the program’s scale and grant award sizes unless Congress provides higher appropriations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents and pedestrians in urban areas where pedestrian fatalities are rising: The bill channels technical study and potential funding toward places identified as having increasing fatalities, increasing the chance of targeted interventions.
- Cities, municipalities, and Indian Tribes with capacity to apply for grants: Eligible local governments gain access to federal funds and technical inputs to implement crosswalk technologies, curb ramps, lighting upgrades, and other capital safety projects.
- People with disabilities: The statutory requirement that funded infrastructure comply with the ADA increases the likelihood that funded projects improve accessibility, not just vehicle safety.
- Vendors of pedestrian-safety and roadway-technology products: Companies that make accessible signals, adaptive lighting, intelligent crosswalk systems, or blind spot detection systems could see new demand from federally funded local projects.
- DOT and transportation planners: The study produces data and performance assessments—particularly on ISA and blind spot detection—that planners can use to prioritize engineering countermeasures and to inform future guidance or standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget (appropriators): The bill authorizes $5 million per year for the grant program and obligates federal agencies (NIST and DOT) to perform work that requires staff time and resources; actual appropriation decisions determine fiscal impact.
- Local governments that implement projects beyond grant awards: Smaller or cash-strapped municipalities may need to contribute local funds, cover maintenance, or scale projects to match limited federal grants.
- NIST and DOT operating units: Agencies must develop evaluation frameworks, run studies, and design a grant program—work that competes for agency budget and staff time and may require new technical expertise or contracting.
- Project designers and contractors subject to ADA and federal standards: Requiring compliance with federal rules and the ADA raises design and construction costs and timelines compared with minimal-conformance projects.
- Manufacturers and fleet operators (indirectly): While the bill does not mandate changes to vehicle manufacturers, the study’s findings on ISA and blind spot detection could spur future regulatory pressure or procurement requirements that carry compliance costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between accelerating tangible, local safety improvements (physical infrastructure and near-term technology pilots) and avoiding the introduction of additional cues or alerts that could distract road users; federal leadership can standardize evidence and fund pilots, but scarce funding and ambiguous evidence standards risk either under-resourcing meaningful projects or approving technologies that trade one safety problem for another.
The bill couples a research mandate with a small grant program, but leaves key program design choices to DOT and NIST. That delegation reduces upfront political conflict but creates implementation risk: NIST’s evidence standard—solutions must not ‘overwhelm, overstimulate, or otherwise distract’ operators—is conceptually sensible but operationally vague.
NIST will need to establish measurable human-factors criteria and evidence thresholds; absent that, DOT and local implementers may receive recommendations that are difficult to evaluate or adopt.
The statutory focus on urban areas where pedestrian fatalities have increased could sharpen attention on worsening local trends, but it also risks excluding high-risk places with chronically high pedestrian fatality rates that are flat or declining. The $5 million-per-year authorization is modest relative to nationwide infrastructure needs; without additional appropriations or matching flexibility, awards will likely be limited in size or number.
Finally, the statute requires ADA compliance for funded projects, which improves accessibility but increases upfront costs and planning time—potentially slowing deployment unless grant rules explicitly fund design and compliance work.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.