Kids on the Go Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 12, 2025
Bottom line
The bill incentivizes states to hire Safe Routes to School coordinators by increasing the federal funding share for associated projects to 95 percent.
What it actually does
This bill amends Title 23 of the United States Code to increase the federal share for Safe Routes to School projects from the standard 80 percent to 95 percent for any state that employs a dedicated Safe Routes to School coordinator. This change is intended to incentivize states to hire such coordinators by making federal funding for related projects significantly more attractive, reducing the state's financial contribution to just 5 percent.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill encourages states to invest in dedicated personnel to improve child safety and promote active transportation to school, leading to healthier communities and reduced traffic congestion around schools. The increased federal share makes it more financially feasible for states to implement and manage effective Safe Routes to School programs, ensuring better oversight and project execution.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this represents an increased federal burden on taxpayers for programs that states should primarily fund, or that it could lead to states hiring coordinators simply to access the higher federal share without a genuine commitment to the program's goals. Some may also contend that it increases federal involvement in local transportation planning beyond an appropriate level.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, making it very accessible for a quick read and understanding by any interested party.
Section 2, amending Section 208(g)(3) of title 23, United States Code
Increased Federal Share for States with Safe Routes to School Coordinators
This provision modifies existing federal transportation law to increase the federal government's financial contribution to "Safe Routes to School" projects. Specifically, if a state has a dedicated coordinator for these programs, the federal share for eligible projects will increase from the standard 80 percent to 95 percent. This means states would only need to cover 5 percent of the costs, making it more attractive for them to fund and implement projects like new sidewalks, bike lanes, and safety education near schools.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision directly incentivizes states to prioritize and effectively manage Safe Routes to School programs by significantly reducing the financial burden on state budgets. A dedicated coordinator ensures better program implementation, leading to safer routes and increased physical activity for children, which are critical public health and safety outcomes.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision shifts more financial responsibility to the federal government for programs that primarily benefit local communities, potentially leading to less state ownership or inefficient spending if states hire coordinators primarily to unlock the higher federal match rather than out of genuine need or a commitment to program quality.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal goal of promoting safe active transportation with state fiscal autonomy. It trades increased federal financial commitment for potentially broader and more effective state-level program implementation, while also raising questions about the optimal balance of funding responsibility between federal and state governments.