No TAP Act of 2026
- Bill Number
- H.R. 8349
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Transportation and Public Works
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-04-16: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-21T16:30:30Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "No TAP Act of 2026" (H.R. 8349) aims to eliminate a specific funding requirement—known as a "set-aside"—for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) within the federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program. TAP funds smaller-scale projects like bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and historic preservation, rather than major highways. This frees up those funds for states to use more flexibly.
Key Provisions
- Amendments to Section 133 of Title 23, U.S. Code (governing Surface Transportation Block Grants):
- Removes references to the TAP set-aside in funding formulas.
- Deletes subsection (h) entirely, which mandated the TAP set-aside (typically 2% of certain funds).
- Adjusts subsection numbering and cross-references for consistency.
- Conforming Changes:
- Updates Section 126(b) to remove TAP-related restrictions on transferring unused highway funds.
- Revises Section 134(r)(3) to eliminate TAP-specific rules for metropolitan planning fund suballocation.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Eliminates TAP Set-Aside: States no longer must reserve a portion of Surface Transportation Block Grant funds specifically for TAP projects; these funds return to the general pool for broader highway and transportation uses.
- Simplifies Funding Rules: Removes exceptions and exclusions tied to TAP, streamlining how states calculate and allocate federal-aid highway funds and planning resources.
- No New Funding or Programs: The bill only repeals existing mandates; it does not create new programs or increase total funding.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: U.S. Department of Transportation and state transportation departments gain flexibility in spending, potentially speeding up highway projects but reducing dedicated support for alternative transport.
- Citizens: Could lead to fewer bike/pedestrian projects in some areas, shifting focus to roads and bridges; benefits drivers via more funds for maintenance and expansion.
- No International Relations Impact: Purely domestic transportation funding issue.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- States and Local Governments: Primary beneficiaries, as they control reallocated funds (e.g., for roads over trails).
- Advocates for Cycling/Pedestrians: Lose dedicated funding stream.
- Highway Users and Drivers: Gain indirectly from flexible state spending.
- Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Simplified rules for fund distribution in urban areas.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Straightforward statutory amendment; no challenges to federal authority over interstate highways (a long-established congressional power under the Commerce Clause).
- Constitutional: None apparent; aligns with Congress's spending power.
- Political: Signals preference for highway priorities over "alternative" projects; may spark debate in transportation reauthorization bills, but lacks broader policy shifts like environmental mandates.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2026-04-16: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 2026-04-16: Introduced in House
- 2026-04-16: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- No TAP Act of 2026 — issued 2026-04-16 — PDF (3 pages)