The bill amends 23 U.S.C. §104(c)(1) to allow the Secretary of Transportation to award an additional, discretionary payment to States that have grown in population since the previous decennial census. That extra allocation must be proportionate to each qualifying State’s relative population increase, with the Secretary given broad latitude to determine the specifics.
The legislation also directs the Secretary to conduct a highway formula modernization study in consultation with State departments of transportation and local governments (including MPOs). The study must assess whether current apportionment methods fairly reflect tax contributions and program goals, consider specific historical and performance factors, recommend new formula factors and weightings, and deliver a report and recommendations to Congress within 90 days of enactment.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new discretionary subparagraph to 23 U.S.C. §104(c)(1) allowing the Secretary to provide additional apportionments to States that increased in population since the previous decennial census, allocated in proportion to each State’s relative growth as the Secretary determines appropriate. It also orders a study to reassess the formula factors and weights used to apportion Federal-aid highway funds and requires a report to Congress.
Who It Affects
State departments of transportation (especially in fast-growing States), metropolitan planning organizations and local governments that influence project selection, recipients of Federal-aid highway apportionments, and the Federal Highway Administration which must implement the change and perform the study.
Why It Matters
The change introduces a new growth-based adjustment to an established federal apportionment framework, creating a pathway for faster-growing States to capture more formula dollars. The required modernization study opens the door to broader, data-driven changes to how highway dollars are allocated nationwide.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new discretionary mechanism into the legal apportionment framework for Federal-aid highways. Under the new language, the Secretary of Transportation may award an additional amount to any State whose population has increased since the prior decennial census.
That additional payment is to be allocated in proportion to each qualifying State’s relative population increase, but the statute leaves the precise calculation and implementation details to the Secretary’s judgment.
Practically, the amendment does not mandate a fixed entitlement; it creates authority for the Secretary to top up apportionments. The provision becomes effective for the first fiscal year beginning after enactment, meaning the Department must build any allocation rules and administrative processes into its next apportionment cycle.
Because the statute ties eligibility to population change measured against the 'previous decennial census,' the metric relies on Census benchmarks rather than annual estimates.Separately, the bill requires the Secretary to lead a highway formula modernization study in cooperation with State DOTs and local governments, including metropolitan planning organizations. The study must evaluate whether current apportionment methods produce an allocation consistent with estimated tax payments attributed to highway users and with contributions from the Treasury general fund, and whether the apportionment furthers the statutory goals under 23 U.S.C. §101(b)(3).
The Secretary must consider a defined set of legacy factors (from SAFETEA–LU-era statutes), the availability and quality of data needed to compute formula apportionments, whether performance measures under section 150 are relevant to formula design, and any other factors the Secretary deems appropriate.Finally, the Secretary must produce recommendations that identify candidate formula factors, propose weightings for those factors, and suggest other design choices to achieve a distribution that aligns with the study’s equity and goal-based criteria. The law requires submission of the completed study and the recommendations to Congress within 90 days of enactment, creating a compressed window for analysis and stakeholder engagement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 23 U.S.C. §104(c)(1) by adding a new subparagraph authorizing discretionary additional apportionments for States with population growth since the previous decennial census.
The Secretary’s authority is permissive, not mandatory; the statute gives the Secretary discretion to determine the relative proportions and whether to provide the additional amounts.
The amendment takes effect beginning with the first fiscal year that starts after the date the law is enacted.
The Secretary must conduct a highway formula modernization study—consulting State DOTs and local governments, including MPOs—and assess whether current apportionments align with estimated Highway Trust Fund tax payments and the goals in 23 U.S.C. §101(b)(3).
The Secretary must deliver the study and recommended new formula factors and weightings to Congress within 90 days after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the 'Highway Formula Fairness Act.' This is a conventional heading and carries no substantive effect beyond identifying the statute.
Discretionary population-based increase to apportionments
Adds a subparagraph (C) that authorizes the Secretary to provide an additional amount to each State that has increased in population since the previous decennial census. The extra allocation must be distributed in proportion to the relative population increases 'as determined appropriate by the Secretary.' The change is permissive, not formulaic: Congress delegates substantial implementation detail to DOT, including which programs or apportionment lines receive the top-up and precisely how to measure 'relative increase.'
Applicability timing
Specifies that the amendment applies beginning with the first fiscal year starting after enactment. That timing requires DOT to incorporate any new discretionary allotments into its next apportionment schedule and creates an administrative deadline for rulemaking or internal guidance to operationalize the Secretary’s discretion.
Highway formula modernization study: scope and consultation
Directs the Secretary to lead a study on the methods and data used to apportion funds under 23 U.S.C. §104(b) and (c), working with State DOTs and local governments including MPOs. The statute sets a broad evaluation mandate: assess equity relative to estimated tax contributions to the Highway Trust Fund and to the Treasury general fund, and judge whether the current apportionment furthers the goals in 23 U.S.C. §101(b)(3). It also lists legacy statutory factors (from SAFETEA–LU-era sections) and instructs the Secretary to review data availability and performance measures under §150.
Report and recommendations to Congress
Requires the Secretary to submit the completed study and the recommended new apportionment method—identifying candidate factors, proposed weightings, and other design choices—to Congress not later than 90 days after enactment. The tight deadline compresses analysis, consultation, and decision-making into a short period, increasing pressure on DOT to prioritize which technical issues receive attention.
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
- States with recent population growth: They become eligible to receive discretionary top-up funds proportionate to their growth, potentially increasing their share of Federal-aid highway dollars.
- State departments of transportation in growing metropolitan areas: Increased apportionments translate into more project funding options and leverage for local matching and planning.
- Local governments and MPOs in fast-growing regions: More federal dollars can accelerate capacity and congestion-relief projects prioritized by regional planners.
- Construction and engineering firms targeting growing-State projects: Shifts in apportionments can redirect contract opportunities toward markets with population-driven funding increases.
Who Bears the Cost
- States with stagnant or declining populations: Relative shares may shrink if discretionary top-ups favor growing States, reducing available federal funding for those States’ projects.
- Other apportionment recipients: Because the statute creates a discretionary pool rather than new funding, existing distributions could be reduced or reallocated to finance population-based increases.
- Federal Highway Administration and DOT staff: Implementing discretionary allocations and completing the mandated study within 90 days will require staff time, data analysis, and potentially new administrative processes.
- Data providers and analysts (including Census and state data offices): DOT will need timely, reliable population and fiscal attribution data, increasing demand for state-level tax and usage estimates that are not currently standardized.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is responsiveness versus predictability: making apportionments responsive to recent population growth rewards States facing new infrastructure demand but undermines the predictability and stability that States and localities rely on for multi-year project planning. The Secretary’s broad discretion can mitigate rough edges, but it also concentrates consequential allocation choices in the executive branch without prescriptive statutory guardrails.
The bill pairs a new, growth-sensitive allocation tool with a rapid, mandated reassessment of the entire apportionment approach. That coupling is pragmatic—growth matters—but it raises technical and governance questions.
The statute ties eligibility to population change since the 'previous decennial census,' which provides a clear benchmark but relies on infrequent snapshots; States experiencing rapid intra-decade shifts may be advantaged or disadvantaged depending on timing. The Secretary’s charge to allocate 'as determined appropriate' grants wide discretion; that flexibility helps tailor allocations to complex realities but also opens the door to inconsistent application, political pushback, and legal challenges if stakeholders view the criteria as opaque.
The study requirement attempts to address longer-term fairness by asking whether apportionments match estimated tax payments to the Highway Trust Fund and to the Treasury’s general fund, and whether they serve statutory goals. Both aims are technically demanding.
State-level attribution of federal fuel, vehicle, and other relevant taxes involves assumptions about cross-border travel, commercial versus local use, and reporting limitations. The statute instructs DOT to consider legacy factors from SAFETEA–LU and the newer performance metrics under §150, but it leaves unresolved whether measures designed for program evaluation are suitable as persistent formula inputs.
Lastly, the 90-day reporting window forces prioritization: DOT must balance breadth of stakeholder input against the need to deliver concrete factor and weighting recommendations quickly.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.