No TAP Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
The "No TAP Act of 2026" removes the federal mandate for states to fund transportation alternative programs, granting states more flexibility in how they spend federal highway dollars, but potentially redirecting funds away from non-motorized and environmental transportation projects.
What it actually does
This bill eliminates the federal requirement for states to set aside a portion of their Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds for Transportation Alternatives Programs (TAP). Currently, these set-aside funds are dedicated to projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, and safe routes to school. By removing this mandate, the bill gives states full discretion to use these funds for any eligible STBG project, including traditional road and bridge infrastructure.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that states are best equipped to determine their own transportation priorities and should not be constrained by federal set-asides. They contend that this bill increases state flexibility and allows funds to be directed to critical infrastructure needs like roads and bridges, which may be seen as higher priorities in some states. Removing the set-aside also streamlines funding administration.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is vital for funding essential pedestrian, bicycle, and environmental projects that enhance community safety, public health, and environmental sustainability. They contend that removing the set-aside would lead to a significant reduction in funding for these programs, as states may prioritize traditional highway projects, thereby undermining efforts to create more balanced and multimodal transportation systems.
The bill is very short and clear, making it easy for any reader to understand its direct impact quickly.
Section 2(a)(2), (3), (4), and (5) of the bill, amending 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(1), striking subsection (h), and amending subsection (i).
Elimination of the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Set-Aside
This provision directly removes the requirement for states to set aside a portion of their Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). This means that funds previously earmarked for projects like pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes, recreational trails, and safe routes to school will no longer be federally mandated for those specific uses. Instead, these funds will become part of the general STBG pool, allowing states to allocate them to a wider range of surface transportation projects at their discretion.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this change empowers states to make decisions that best suit their unique transportation needs, rather than being dictated by federal mandates. They believe that states can more effectively prioritize funds for critical road and bridge repairs or other high-priority projects without the constraint of specific set-asides.
Critics contend
Critics contend that removing the TAP set-aside will lead to a significant underfunding of essential alternative transportation projects. They argue that without a dedicated funding stream, states will likely divert these funds to traditional highway projects, neglecting crucial investments in pedestrian safety, bicycle infrastructure, and environmental initiatives that benefit communities and public health.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances state autonomy and flexibility in funding allocation against the federal interest in promoting specific types of transportation infrastructure, such as non-motorized and environmental projects. It creates a tension between broad state discretion and ensuring dedicated funding for often-underserved transportation modes.
Section 2(b)(1) and (2) of the bill, amending 23 U.S.C. 126(b) and 23 U.S.C. 134(r)(3).
Technical Adjustments to Federal-Aid Highway Fund Transferability and Metropolitan Planning
This provision makes necessary technical and conforming amendments to other sections of title 23, United States Code, to align them with the removal of the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) set-aside. Specifically, it strikes references to "Certain Set-Asides" and related suballocation funding provisions in sections governing the transferability of federal-aid highway funds and metropolitan transportation planning. These changes ensure that the statutory language across related federal highway programs is consistent with the elimination of the TAP mandate.
Amends subsection (b)(23) by striking "subsection (j)" and inserting "subsection (i)"; and redesignates subsections (i) through (k) as subsections (h) through (j), respectively.
Section 2(a)(1) and (5) of the bill.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to maintain logical numbering within a statute after a section (in this case, subsection (h)) has been removed. It's not evasive, but rather a necessary cleanup.
Case for: Ensures the internal consistency and correct referencing within Title 23, United States Code, preventing confusion in legal interpretation and application.
Case against: No direct case against technical renumbering, as it's a procedural necessity.
Estimated impact: Minimal direct impact on policy or budget; primarily administrative.