URGENT: Two Senate Bills Threaten Street Safety & Local Control
“Current Status on Senate Bills 1140 and 1144:
On March 6th, Senate Bills 1140 and 1144 were pulled from the Senate Transportation Committee’s agenda. It may be discussed (and have an opportunity to testify) on Thursday, March 13th. Keep checking this blog post for updates on the status.
We anticipate that we will have short notice to testify, so please keep an eye on this page and on our social media for a call to action to testify!”
Overview of Senate Bills 1140 and 1144
Senate Bills 1140 and 1144 would work in tandem to restrict how Highway Districts statewide are able to act in order to make roads more safe - by ensuring that projects “primarily benefit motor vehicles” and mandating that bicycle and pedestrian safety infrastructure only occur as a secondary benefit of a project.
In short, 1140 and 1144 would tie public servant’s hands from being able to make our streets safer.
You can take action now by doing the following:
1. Let Your Legislators Know You Oppose These Two Bills
Submit through this link.
2. Call Your Legislator
Tell them to OPPOSE SB 1140 & SB 1144 - find your legislator here
Talking Points
These bills prioritize motor vehicle movement over people’s lives. Widening roads increases speeds and puts pedestrians, bicyclists, and even drivers at greater risk, especially Idaho’s youth. If you can focus on the safety of kids that would be very helpful.
Street Safety – These bills prioritize motor vehicle movement over people’s lives. Widening roads increases speeds and puts pedestrians, bicyclists, and even drivers at greater risk.
Local Control – Cities and agencies should have the flexibility to design streets that best serve their communities—not be forced into a one-size-fits-all approach dictated by state law.
Fiscally Irresponsible – Road widening is expensive. Forcing highway districts to expand roads could lead to higher local taxes or take funding away from critical road maintenance.
Key Takeaways about Senate Bill 1140
From a Bicycle & Pedestrian Advocacy Perspective
SB1140 will impact bicycle and pedestrian projects.
By defining highway projects primarily in terms of benefiting motor vehicles, it restricts bike and pedestrian improvements to being only "secondary" or "collateral" benefits.
This could reduce opportunities to incorporate safe biking and walking infrastructure into road projects, even when it could reduce congestion and improve safety for all users.
This is where we should lean on the safety of Idaho’s youth. How would kids walk or bike to school or other activities safely?
From a Broader (Non-Bike-Specific) Perspective
SB1140 limits flexibility in transportation planning.
By defining projects primarily in terms of motor vehicle benefits, it prevents cities and local agencies from designing projects that best fit their community needs.
Good planning should be based on what works best for each location—not a one-size-fits-all approach dictated by state law.
It reduces local control over transportation decisions.
Cities and local agencies should have the ability to design road projects based on safety, efficiency, and economic development—not just reducing car delays.
This bill ties their hands and makes it harder to create livable, walkable, safe communities.
It could limit funding opportunities and economic growth.
Investing in complete streets boosts local economies by making streets more accessible to businesses, tourists, and people who rely on walking, biking, or transit.
Conclusion: Why This Matters
This bill might seem like a technical update, but in reality, it reinforces a car-centric approach to transportation funding and planning. While reducing congestion is a valid goal, it shouldn’t come at the cost of safety, sustainability, or local decision-making. A truly effective transportation system prioritizes all users—not just cars.
Key Takeaways from Senate Bill 1144
Prevents Road Diets & Traffic-Calming Measures – Prohibits narrowing non-residential collector and arterial roads, even if local communities support safer, slower streets.
Prioritizes Motor Vehicles in Roadway Design – New and modified roads must focus on reducing congestion and travel time for cars, limiting investment in other transportation modes.
Restricts Bike & Pedestrian Infrastructure – Non-motorist improvements can only be included if incidental to a highway project or legally required for safety near schools or parks.
Takes Effect Immediately on July 1, 2025 – Would impact transportation planning decisions right away, limiting flexibility for future infrastructure projects.
Talking Points
From a Bicycle & Pedestrian Advocacy Perspective
It makes roads more dangerous, especially for kids.
Without the ability to plan for safer bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks, children walking or biking to school face greater risks. The bill speaks to the safety of kids’ movement around or to schools, parks, or other designated bike or pedestrian areas. Let’s think of other areas that kids might want to go to! Like a friend’s house? The Greenbelt or a local pool?
From a Broader (Non-Bike-Specific) Perspective
This bill limits flexibility in transportation planning.
By mandating a car-first approach, it prevents cities and counties from designing road projects that best serve their unique needs.It takes away local control.
Local governments should decide how to manage their streets—not be forced into costly, unnecessary road expansions by state law.It creates unfunded mandates and strains budgets.
Widening roads is expensive, and this bill does not provide funding. It could pull resources away from maintenance, bridge repairs, and safety improvements.There’s no evidence it will reduce traffic.
Highway widening leads to induced demand—new lanes fill up quickly, bringing congestion back to previous levels. Smarter traffic management is a more effective solution.
Conclusion: Why This Matters
This bill reinforces an outdated, car-centric approach to transportation planning, limiting communities’ ability to design safer, more efficient streets. While reducing congestion is a valid goal, it shouldn’t come at the cost of safety, sustainability, or local decision-making. A truly effective transportation system serves all users—not just cars.
