Should Michigan Prioritize Road Funding for Busy Areas?

Michigan Lawmaker Proposes Overhaul of Road Funding Formula

A Michigan state representative is pushing for a major update to the state’s road funding distribution system, which has remained largely unchanged since 1951. State Rep. Phil Skaggs, a Democrat from East Grand Rapids, introduced House Bill 4950 on September 16, aiming to replace Public Act 51 with a more modern and equitable approach. The proposed changes would direct more funding toward communities that experience heavy truck traffic, addressing what Skaggs calls an outdated and inefficient system.

The current formula, established over seven decades ago, allocates funds based on factors such as population, vehicle registration, and road miles. However, Skaggs argues that this method fails to account for critical variables like traffic load, climate conditions, and local geology. He believes the new formula should prioritize roads that are deteriorating the fastest, ensuring that funding is used effectively and fairly.

“The problem with the current funding formula is clear,” Skaggs stated. “Infrequently used roads — especially those that see little truck traffic — are among the best in the nation, while the busiest streets in our cities and suburbs are falling apart.”

House Bill 4950 comes as lawmakers work on the Fiscal Year 2026 government spending plan, with road and bridge funding being a central topic of discussion. Skaggs emphasized that simply increasing the overall budget won’t solve the issue if the money isn’t directed to where it’s needed most. His proposal includes a revised distribution model that considers multiple factors:

• Average daily commercial truck traffic (25%)
• Average daily traffic (5%)
• Lane miles (20%)
• Population (20%)
• Regional climate considerations (10%)
• Regional variable construction costs (5%)
• Subbase geology and drainage requirements (10%)
• Size of bridges and culverts (5%)

Under the proposal, the share of funds allocated to county road commissions would decrease from 39% to 30.45%, while the share for cities and villages would increase to the same percentage. MDOT’s allocation would remain unchanged.

However, the Michigan County Road Association (MCRA) opposes the change, arguing that the current formula already accounts for differences in traffic and population across communities. Denise Donohue, CEO of MCRA, pointed out that primary roads in urban counties like Wayne and Oakland receive significantly more funding than those in rural areas. She also highlighted that data required for the new formula, such as soil geology and commercial truck traffic, is not currently available at the county level.

“It would be very expensive to get the data,” Donohue said. “Something like this would take years and when we got the data, there’s no indication this would work any better than the current distribution formula.”

County road agencies face a $1 billion bridge repair backlog and have seen repair costs rise by 32% over the past two years. They have long advocated for increased funding to address these challenges. Meanwhile, Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the state House have proposed long-term solutions that include an additional $3 billion annually in road funding.

Despite these efforts, the MCRA remains skeptical about the feasibility of Skaggs’ bill. Donohue called the proposal “irresponsible” and warned that it could negatively impact local roads and bridges. She argued that introducing such a radical change late in the budget process is impractical.

This isn’t the first time Public Act 51 has faced criticism. In March, The Citizens Research Council of Michigan released an 86-page assessment recommending its replacement. Eric Paul Dennis, a research associate with the group, stated that the law is “beyond repair” and that continued investment in the current framework would not yield better results.

As of September 18, House Bill 4950 was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but no hearing had been scheduled. The debate over road funding in Michigan continues, with stakeholders on both sides advocating for solutions that balance fairness, efficiency, and practicality.