The bill amends Title 23 to allow recipients of core Federal-aid highway safety and freight programs to develop, acquire, or deploy safety data systems—explicitly naming predictive analytics, telematics, and other validated methodology tools—as eligible activities under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), National Highway Freight Program (NHFP), and certain National Priority Safety Programs (NPSP).
Beyond expanding eligible uses of grant funds, the bill requires DOT to produce guidance within one year on anonymization, security, transparency, and validation of predictive safety tools, directs the FHWA Administrator to assess the need for operating standards for intelligent freight systems and report to Congress, and creates an interagency coordination and consultation mandate. The changes push states and freight stakeholders toward data-driven safety planning while creating new operational, privacy, and procurement questions for implementers.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends 23 U.S.C. sections 148 (HSIP), 167 (NHFP), and 405 (priority safety programs) to make predictive analytics, telematics, and similar validated tools explicitly eligible for Federal grant funding and performance-based planning. It also mandates DOT guidance on data protection and validation and a one-year FHWA study on intelligent freight system standards.
Who It Affects
State DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and grant recipients that manage HSIP/NHFP/NPSP funds; freight carriers and operators using telematics; technology vendors that supply predictive safety models; and multiple DOT modal administrations tasked with coordination.
Why It Matters
The bill converts data-driven modeling and vehicle telematics from advisory tools into fundable, programmatic components of federal highway safety policy, shifting how projects are selected, evaluated, and justified. That creates procurement pressure, new privacy and validation obligations, and interoperability demands across agencies and private vendors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act changes three core parts of the Federal-aid highway law to recognize and fund modern safety technologies. For HSIP, the bill inserts a new explicit eligibility for the development, acquisition, or deployment of safety data systems—calling out predictive analytics, telematics, and other validated methodology tools—and adjusts language about the types of data states should consider when planning and analyzing highway and crossing risks.
It also strengthens evaluation requirements so that states must use those data tools to evaluate project effectiveness and compare interventions.
For freight, the National Highway Freight Program receives parallel language allowing safety data tools to support freight safety and performance-based planning. The bill adds a new requirement that the FHWA determine within a year whether operating standards for 'intelligent freight transportation systems' are needed and report to Congress if so.
It also defines the term to include technological systems and elevated freight facilities within or adjacent to Federal-aid rights-of-way and communications systems that improve freight efficiency, security, or safety.The National Priority Safety Programs language is amended to encourage states to integrate predictive analytics and telematics into their safety data systems and to use such tools specifically to identify high-risk segments and support performance-based planning under sections 134 and 135. To help address implementation risks, the Secretary must issue guidance within one year on anonymizing and securing safety data, ensuring transparency and accountability when predictive methods are used, and grounding these technologies in validated methodologies (for example, actuarial validation or behavioral risk analysis).Finally, the Secretary of Transportation must coordinate use of predictive safety tools across DOT modal administrations (FHWA, NHTSA, FMCSA, FRA, OST–R, ITS JPO) and consult with Energy, Commerce, and other agencies as appropriate to promote interoperability and effective federal program use.
The result is a federal nudge—and partial mandate—toward integrating proprietary and public-sector data-driven tools into planning, project selection, and safety evaluation, coupled with minimal centralized standards and an explicit attention to data protections and validation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new HSIP eligibility clause permitting ‘‘development, acquisition, or deployment of safety data and systems, including predictive analytics, telematics, and other validated methodology tools’’.
The Secretary of Transportation must issue guidance within one year on anonymizing and securing safety data, promoting transparency and accountability, and ensuring technologies are grounded in validated methodologies.
FHWA must decide within one year whether to establish operating standards for 'intelligent freight transportation systems' and, if needed, report that determination to Congress.
The bill defines 'intelligent freight transportation system' to include innovative technological systems or elevated freight facilities within or near Federal-aid highway rights-of-way and communication systems that improve freight safety, efficiency, or security.
National Priority Safety Programs are directed to encourage deployment of predictive analytics and telematics to identify high-risk roadway segments and support performance-based planning under 23 U.S.C. sections 134 and 135.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the 'Roadway Safety Modernization Act of 2025.' This is purely the bill's caption; it does not create substantive obligations but frames the bill's intent toward modernization and safety technology.
Makes predictive tools an eligible HSIP activity and tightens evaluation requirements
Edits to subsection (a) add an explicit HSIP eligibility clause (new clause 'xxx') authorizing states to use HSIP funds to develop, acquire, or deploy safety data and systems, with predictive analytics and telematics named. The bill also revises information elements used in planning (subsection (a)(10)(B)) to include data from these tools where practicable. Subsection (c) is amended to require proactive use of safety data, to add explicit use of predictive tools in risk modelling, and to expand evaluation criteria so states must measure project effectiveness and compare the relative benefits of interventions. Practically, this alters allowable uses of federal funds and raises expectations that HSIP projects be justified and evaluated using modeled risk estimates—not solely historical crash rates.
Allows freight program funds for safety data tools and tasks FHWA with standards study and definitions
The NHFP text is changed to permit development and deployment of predictive safety tools to improve freight safety and integrate them into performance-based planning. The bill inserts language requiring FHWA, within one year of enactment, to determine whether operating standards are needed for 'intelligent freight transportation systems' and to report to Congress if they are. It also adds statutory definitions for 'intelligent freight transportation system' and cross-references the HSIP 'safety data' meaning, which will affect how states, freight operators, and FHWA treat technological freight projects and dedicated intelligent freight lanes in eligibility and oversight.
Directs states to integrate predictive analytics into priority safety programs
The bill augments the factors the Secretary considers when approving or encouraging state safety programs by adding explicit language to promote integration and deployment of predictive analytics, telematics, and validated methodology tools to identify high-risk locations and inform performance-based planning. This provision does not create a federal mandate for a particular technology but conditions federal priority program expectations on the use of these data-driven approaches.
One-year guidance obligation on privacy, transparency, and validation
Within one year the Secretary must issue guidance covering three specific topics: anonymizing and securing highway safety data (including PII protections), promoting transparency and accountability when predictive or telematics tools are used, and ensuring tools are grounded in validated methodologies (e.g., actuarial validation or behavioral analyses). The guidance is non-prescriptive on specific technical or procurement standards but sets a baseline for federal expectations that will influence state procurements and contract clauses.
Interagency coordination requirement and external consultations
The Secretary must ensure coordination across DOT modal offices (FHWA, NHTSA, FMCSA, FRA, OST–R, ITS JPO) for programs funding predictive safety tools and consult with the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce, and other agencies as appropriate, to promote interoperability. This provision signals an intent to harmonize technical approaches and avoid stove-piped implementations, but it stops short of creating binding technical interoperability standards.
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
- State Departments of Transportation: Gain explicit grant authority to buy and deploy predictive models and telematics, which helps prioritize investments and justify HSIP/NHFP/NPSP projects using modeled risk and performance metrics.
- Freight operators and carriers: Can qualify certain telematics investments and intelligent freight infrastructure for NHFP funding and benefit from performance-based planning that reduces crash risk and improves corridor reliability.
- Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and planners: Receive a clearer federal signal to incorporate data-driven risk modeling into project selection and regional performance measures under sections 134/135.
- Technology vendors and analytics firms: See expanded market opportunities as Federal funds can be used to acquire predictive analytics and telematics systems, prompting state procurements and pilot projects.
- Traveling public and road users: Potentially benefit from better-targeted safety interventions and earlier identification of high-risk segments, which can reduce crashes if tools are validated and properly applied.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local agencies (especially smaller or rural DOTs and MPOs): Face new technical, procurement, and training costs to adopt predictive tools, anonymize and secure data, and validate models without guaranteed additional federal funding for implementation capacity.
- Freight carriers and private fleet operators: May need to upgrade telematics or data-sharing arrangements to integrate with public safety programs, incurring equipment, compliance, and data governance costs.
- Federal agencies and program offices (FHWA, NHTSA, FMCSA, OST–R): Incur administrative burdens to coordinate, develop guidance, and potentially curate interoperability approaches without dedicated appropriations.
- Privacy and civil liberties stakeholders (and individuals): Bear indirect costs in the form of increased surveillance risk if anonymization and transparency requirements are insufficient or poorly enforced.
- Procurement offices and legal teams at state DOTs: Face increased complexity negotiating contracts for proprietary predictive models and securing model validation and explainability clauses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between improving roadway safety quickly by funding and using predictive, telematics, and other advanced tools—and protecting privacy, transparency, and public accountability. Faster adoption without clear validation, auditability, and enforceable data protections risks substituting opaque proprietary models for democratic oversight and could entrench inequities in where and how safety resources are deployed.
The bill purposely limits prescriptive technical standards, relying instead on guidance and an FHWA study. That design speeds adoption but leaves open critical questions: who validates a model as 'validated' (vendor, independent auditor, or agency), what minimum anonymization is acceptable, and how to handle proprietary 'black box' models in public planning.
States that lack in-house analytic capacity may buy turnkey solutions that are hard to audit, shifting risk to public agencies.
Another unresolved area is data governance and liability. The Act urges anonymization and security but does not establish enforcement mechanisms, penalties for misuse, or standardized data-sharing agreements.
Interoperability is required in principle through consultation, but the absence of technical standards creates a patchwork risk where neighboring jurisdictions use incompatible schemas or vendors. Finally, the bill creates an implicit procurement premium for private analytics and telematics vendors, which may accelerate adoption but also concentrate influence in a few suppliers unless procurement rules demand transparency, independent validation, and open standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.