Compete for USDOT SS4A Road Safety Grants: How Cities, Counties, MPOs, and Tribes Can Prepare Now for the Remaining $982 Million

There are two kinds of transportation funding. The kind that repaves what you already have, and the kind that forces you to look your crash data in the eyes and admit: “We built this. We can fix it.”

The U.S. Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program sits squarely in that second category. It’s one of the rare federal programs that’s unapologetically about preventing deaths and serious injuries, not “improving mobility” in the vague way that sometimes translates to “people will drive faster.”

And yes, the timing is weird right now. The FY 2025 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) closed on June 26, 2025, and FY 2026 has not been released yet. If you’re tempted to shrug and come back later, don’t. This “nothing is open” season is when the strongest applications get built—quietly, steadily, with fewer panicked emails and fewer last-minute political surprises.

USDOT has also referenced about $982 million remaining for future SS4A rounds. That is not pocket change. That is real money for real projects—if you can show reviewers that you’re not submitting a wish list dressed up as a safety strategy.

SS4A is a tough grant to win, but absolutely worth the effort. It rewards jurisdictions that can do three things well: tell the truth (with data), choose wisely (with an action plan), and deliver (with a credible scope, schedule, and governance setup). Let’s talk about how to be that jurisdiction.

SS4A Status Update for FY 2026: What Is Closed, What Is Pending, and Why It Matters

SS4A runs through periodic NOFOs, which is federal-speak for “a short window when everyone in America tries to upload PDFs at the same time.” At the moment:

• FY 2025 is closed (deadline was June 26, 2025).
• FY 2026 is pending (not yet posted, as of February 2026).

So no, you can’t hit “submit” today. But you can do something more valuable: build the foundation so that when FY 2026 drops, your team is editing and polishing—not inventing a plan, negotiating ownership, and trying to remember your Grants.gov password at 11:47 p.m.

Think of this period like pre-season training. Nobody wins the championship by starting cardio the day before the game.

SS4A Grants At a Glance (February 2026)

What This USDOT SS4A Opportunity Offers (and What It Expects in Return)

SS4A is often described as “road safety funding,” which is true—but incomplete. SS4A is strategy funding. It’s money tied to a theory of change: identify where serious crashes happen, understand why, pick interventions that match the cause, and measure whether the fix worked.

The program typically supports two major paths.

Planning and Demonstration funding is the “get your house in order” track. If your jurisdiction lacks a comprehensive safety action plan—or has one that’s outdated, unadopted, or not actually driving investment decisions—this is where you build the backbone. That backbone includes data analysis, identifying your high-injury network, setting priorities, and doing the public-facing work (community engagement) that keeps projects from getting torpedoed at the first sign of controversy. Demonstration work can also fit here—think pilots and quick-build projects that test safety concepts in the real world.

Implementation funding is where things get serious. This is the build track, and reviewers generally expect you to show you’re ready: a plan exists, priorities are clear, project scopes are defined, costs are credible, and governance is settled. In plain language, Implementation dollars are not for jurisdictions still deciding whether they believe in traffic calming. They’re for jurisdictions prepared to move from “we should” to “we are.”

The quiet truth: SS4A is not impressed by aspiration. It’s impressed by execution, even at the application stage.

Who Should Apply for SS4A Grants (Eligibility and Real-World Fit)

SS4A eligibility is straightforward on paper, and refreshingly aligned with who actually plans and controls transportation in the U.S. Eligible applicants include metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), political subdivisions (such as cities, counties, towns, and certain special districts or agencies depending on legal status), and federally recognized Tribal governments.

But competitive fit is a different question—and it’s the one that matters.

You should be thinking seriously about SS4A if you can point to a safety problem that isn’t abstract. Not “we have dangerous roads,” but “this corridor has repeated severe crashes, speeds are high relative to context, crossings are sparse, and people walking to transit are paying the price.” Reviewers tend to respond when an applicant clearly understands where harm is occurring, who is experiencing it, and what design or operational factors are contributing.

A few examples of strong-fit applicants (not official USDOT examples, just what tends to make sense in SS4A logic):

A city with a documented high-injury network and a short list of corridors where speeding and turning conflicts are predictable patterns—not mysteries. If you’ve got an adopted action plan that prioritizes those corridors and you’re ready to move into design and construction, you’re speaking SS4A’s language.

A county responsible for rural arterials where severe crashes cluster at certain intersections, and where systemic improvements (lighting, signing, speed management, safer intersection geometry) can be delivered with a clear maintenance plan. Counties often do well when they avoid “scattershot fixes” and instead package improvements around a coherent systemic approach.

An MPO coordinating multiple jurisdictions where the high-injury network crosses boundaries. MPOs can be especially compelling when they show how they’ll convert regional alignment into action—shared standards, shared prioritization, and a pipeline that doesn’t collapse the moment a project crosses a city limit.

A Tribal government with clear safety needs, strong community participation, and a delivery path that respects local context. SS4A can be a powerful tool here, particularly when the application shows that the selected interventions fit community priorities and are feasible to maintain long-term.

If your project is essentially “transportation improvements, plus the word safety,” SS4A will notice. Reviewers have seen that movie. It doesn’t get sequels.

Planning vs Implementation Grants: Picking the Right Lane Before You Apply

Planning and Demonstration: Build the Decision Engine

If your safety plan is missing, stale, or not truly guiding what gets built, Planning and Demonstration is often the smartest play. A strong plan is more than a glossy PDF. It functions like a decision engine: it prioritizes, it explains tradeoffs, and it creates political cover to act on data instead of whoever emails the most.

Demonstrations can also be a strategic move here. Quick-build projects—temporary curb extensions, pilot lane reductions, pop-up crossings—can help you gather speed data, observe conflicts, and refine designs before spending big construction dollars.

Implementation: Build the Project, Not the Myth

Implementation proposals should read like they’ve already survived contact with reality. That means scope clarity, delivery roles, a plausible schedule, and a measurement plan that doesn’t depend on magic or unpaid staff time.

If Planning is architectural drawings, Implementation is permitting, procurement, construction phasing, and explaining to the public why the street looks different. Don’t request Implementation funds if your “plan” is a draft and your “project list” is a brainstorm.

Insider Tips for a Winning SS4A Application (The Stuff That Separates Winners from Almost-Winners)

You can submit a technically complete application and still lose. SS4A is competitive, and reviewers are looking for jurisdictions that feel ready to act. Here are strategies that consistently improve an SS4A application’s odds.

First, argue your case like you’re presenting evidence, not vibes. Use crash and serious injury data to demonstrate the problem, then connect it to specific locations and contributing factors. If a corridor is on your high-injury network, show it. If certain users are disproportionately impacted, say it clearly. “Safety is important” is not an argument. It’s a bumper sticker.

Second, make your comprehensive safety action plan the backbone of the application. Don’t just cite it. Use it. Quote its goals, show its prioritization method, and explain how your proposed projects rise from that method. Reviewers want to see that you have a repeatable way of choosing safety investments—because a one-off project won’t solve a systemic problem.

Third, show design maturity without pretending you’re 100% engineered. Especially for Implementation, reviewers get nervous when scope is foggy. You don’t need final plans to demonstrate readiness, but you do need concept-level clarity: what changes, where, and why it will reduce risk. If right-of-way is tight, acknowledge it. If utilities could complicate construction, address your approach. Uncertainty is fine; unspoken uncertainty is what kills scores.

Fourth, be painfully clear about governance and authority. Who owns the road? Who owns the signals? Who maintains the new assets? If the state DOT must approve changes on a state route, show that you’ve already coordinated and have a path to approval. Many good projects die not from engineering, but from “we assumed they’d be fine with it.”

Fifth, build your measurement plan before you submit. Baselines matter: crashes, serious injuries, speeds, yielding behavior, conflicts, and exposure measures where available. Then state what you’ll collect after implementation and when. Even if you can’t promise a specific crash reduction percentage (crashes are messy), you can promise a credible evaluation approach that’s resourced and scheduled.

Sixth, document engagement like someone might actually read it. Because they will. “We held public meetings” is weak. What did you hear? Who participated? In what languages? What changed because of feedback? The best engagement sections read like a chain of cause and effect, not a compliance exercise.

Seventh, budget like a jurisdiction that has lived through inflation and supply chain delays. Reviewers can smell fantasy numbers. Explain assumptions, include contingencies, and show you understand procurement lead times and construction seasons. A realistic budget is not pessimism—it’s competence.

Application Timeline: A Realistic Plan While FY 2026 Is Pending

Without an FY 2026 deadline, the best timeline is one anchored to how long good work actually takes.

At 8–12 weeks before you expect an application window, refresh crash and serious injury analysis and confirm your high-injury network method. This is also the moment to shortlist candidate projects and pressure-test them: do they match plan priorities, do they have community support, do they require outside approvals?

At 6–8 weeks out, tighten scopes and delivery readiness. Get concept drawings, refine cost estimates, and pin down procurement. If you need state DOT or transit agency coordination, secure it now—not in the final week when everyone is “out of office.”

At 4–6 weeks out, draft the narrative and measurement plan. This is when contradictions show up (scope bigger than budget, schedule that ignores permitting, metrics that don’t match goals). Better to find those problems early, when you can still fix them.

At 2–4 weeks out, assemble attachments, finalize budget narratives, and run internal reviews: legal authority, leadership sign-off, and grants office checks. Also—truly—test your Grants.gov access and roles.

In the final 7–10 days, polish and submit early. Grants.gov issues are not rare, and “the portal ate our application” is not an acceptable ending to your story.

Required Materials: What You Should Expect to Produce (and How to Prep Now)

The exact checklist will be in the FY 2026 NOFO, but strong SS4A applications usually include the same core components, and you can start preparing them immediately.

You should expect a project narrative that explains the safety problem, ties projects to your action plan, describes scope and readiness, addresses equity and engagement, and lays out how you’ll measure results. Don’t treat the narrative like a formality. In SS4A, the narrative is the project.

You’ll also need a budget and budget narrative that shows line items, assumptions, contingencies, and how costs map to tasks. If your numbers change between sections, reviewers will assume you don’t have control of the project.

Most applicants also benefit from a schedule with milestones that reflects procurement reality, design phases, and delivery constraints. A timeline that ignores seasonal construction or approval pathways is a red flag.

Finally, expect to submit maps and figures—high-injury network maps, project location maps, and concept visuals. A good map can do more than pages of text, especially when it shows concentrated harm and targeted interventions.

If interagency coordination is required, prepare letters or written confirmations that demonstrate alignment, roles, and decision authority.

What Makes an SS4A Application Stand Out (What Reviewers Are Really Scoring)

Strong SS4A applications have a particular “feel.” They read like a jurisdiction that is already moving.

Reviewers tend to reward a clear, data-backed safety problem: patterns, locations, affected users, and contributing conditions. They also reward direct alignment to an action plan that demonstrates prioritization rather than improvisation.

Then comes risk reduction through readiness. The more you reduce uncertainty—scope clarity, governance, timeline realism, maintenance responsibility—the easier it is for a reviewer to imagine your project getting built.

SS4A also cares about equity and engagement that changed decisions, not engagement as theater. If your project list, design elements, or rollout strategy shifted due to community input, say so plainly and show evidence.

And finally, a credible measurement plan. You’re asking for safety money. You need to show how you’ll demonstrate safety outcomes, learn from results, and report them.

Common Mistakes to Avoid (and the Fixes That Actually Work)

One classic mistake is waiting for the NOFO to coordinate partners. If your project touches a state-owned roadway, a transit corridor, or multiple jurisdictions, begin coordination now. Alignment takes time, and SS4A windows are not generous.

Another is a weak connection to the action plan. If the plan exists, use it to show prioritization. If the plan doesn’t exist, don’t pretend it does—apply for Planning and Demonstration and build it properly.

A third pitfall: hazy readiness. When scope, right-of-way, utilities, or procurement are unclear, reviewers assume delays and cost growth. Even a concept design and a frank risk plan can calm those fears.

Also common: thin equity documentation. Name communities engaged, methods used, accessibility steps taken (language, location, timing), and what changed. Specificity beats slogans every time.

Finally, budget narratives that hide assumptions. State unit costs, escalation assumptions, contingencies, and what is included versus excluded. Credibility is the goal; nobody expects omniscience.

Frequently Asked Questions About SS4A Grants

Is SS4A open right now?

Not at the moment (as of the February 2026 status context). FY 2025 closed June 26, 2025, and FY 2026 has not been released yet.

Who is eligible to apply?

Eligibility generally includes MPOs, political subdivisions (cities, counties, towns, and certain special districts/agencies depending on legal status), and federally recognized Tribal governments.

Do we need a comprehensive safety action plan?

SS4A is built around that framework. Implementation applications are typically far stronger when they’re clearly tied to an adopted plan with priorities and measurable goals. Planning and Demonstration funding can help you develop or strengthen the plan.

How large are SS4A awards?

Award size varies by NOFO and project type. The headline context is that USDOT has referenced ~$982 million remaining for future rounds, but each NOFO sets specific funding parameters.

Should we apply for Planning or Implementation?

If your plan and priorities aren’t solid, Planning and Demonstration is often the smart, winnable move. If you have an adopted plan and projects that are truly ready to advance, Implementation may fit.

Where do we apply when it opens?

SS4A applications are submitted through Grants.gov during the open NOFO window.

What should we do now while we wait for FY 2026?

Update your crash analysis, confirm your high-injury network method, tighten a shortlist of plan-priority projects, document engagement, refine cost estimates, and draft a measurement framework. The goal is to be “ready to submit,” not “ready to start.”

How to Apply for SS4A (and What to Do Before the FY 2026 NOFO Drops)

You can’t submit an FY 2026 SS4A application today—but you can set your team up to move fast when the window opens.

Start by assigning an internal owner for SS4A. Not a committee. A person. Have them monitor program updates, maintain the document folder, and run the timeline. Next, decide whether you’re targeting Planning and Demonstration or Implementation, and be honest about readiness. Overreaching into Implementation without a real plan is a fast way to burn staff time and political goodwill.

Then build your “application backbone” now: the safety story (data), the action-plan tie (priorities), the project specifics (scope), the delivery plan (governance and schedule), the budget assumptions (credibility), and the measurement plan (accountability). When the NOFO posts, your job should be tailoring—not panicking.

Ready to track updates and prepare using the official guidance? Visit the official SS4A program page here: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A