Advisory Council on Traffic Safety Seeks Clear Grant Authority and Study of Lane‑Filtering

The advisory council on traffic safety, created in 2023, told the conference committee it needs clearer statutory authority and funding language to administer grants and continue statewide traffic‑safety work, including a study of lane‑filtering practices and targeted grants for rural high‑risk roads and enforcement.

Mike Hansen, director of the Department of Public Safety’s Office of Traffic Safety, said the advisory council brings state and local agencies, nonprofits and other stakeholders together to advise on traffic‑safety strategy. Paul Austin of the Minnesota Safety Council, who also serves on the advisory council, said both House and Senate drafts attempt to clarify grant‑making mechanics and eligible uses but differ on which applicants should receive priority and on appropriation timing.

The Senate language enumerates eligible grant purposes that echo the council’s 2023 priorities: improvements to rural high‑risk roads, traffic safety training for law enforcement, sober‑ride programming, work‑zone safety and redesign, and safe‑route designations. The Senate draft also requires the council to give priority to local traffic safety coalitions when awarding contracts or grants; the House draft uses slightly different language around prioritization and effective dates.

Lawmakers asked about lane‑filtering (also called lane‑splitting) and inserted a study item in the Senate list to analyze the practice and related safety outcomes. Committee counsel and witnesses said the advisory council and DPS should continue to refine grant rules so the 2023 appropriations can be distributed; committee fiscal staff noted that the House draft cancels a portion of carryforward funds while the Senate would extend the availability of the remaining appropriation from the current biennium.

What’s next: The advisory council asked the committee to finalize statutory grant authority and appropriate funding so that remaining 2023‑era appropriations can be used. Lawmakers signaled intent to reconcile House and Senate language and to clarify priorities and reporting requirements; they did not adopt final grant language during the hearing.