America Bikes Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 26, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance safety, infrastructure, and incentives for bicycling and walking across the United States through a combination of new federal grants, increased federal funding shares, and tax/tariff adjustments.
What it actually does
The America Bikes Act establishes new programs and amends existing law to significantly boost bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, safety education, and active transportation incentives. It increases federal funding and matching rates for related projects, creates a new competitive grant program for active transportation networks and spines, and reauthorizes the Safe Streets and Roads for All program. Additionally, it includes provisions to temporarily suspend duties on bicycle parts to encourage domestic manufacturing and expands employer-provided tax-free fringe benefits for bicycle commuting.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will significantly improve public safety for vulnerable road users, reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health by encouraging active transportation. They contend that investments in active transportation infrastructure lead to a higher quality of life, stronger local economies, and increased mobility, especially for short trips and access to public transit. The duty suspension is presented as a way to stimulate domestic bicycle manufacturing and assembly.
Opponents contend
Critics may raise concerns about the overall cost of the new programs and the potential revenue loss from duty suspensions and expanded tax benefits, arguing it could contribute to the national deficit. Some may also question the extent of federal involvement in local transportation planning or argue that funds could be better allocated to other infrastructure priorities. Concerns might also be raised about the effectiveness of tariff changes in genuinely boosting domestic manufacturing versus primarily benefiting importers.
The bill is moderately complex due to its amendments to existing statutes and the introduction of new programs, but it is concise enough for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Highway Safety Improvement Program Amendments
This section expands the definition of eligible Highway Safety Improvement Projects to include connecting existing bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure segments and reducing safety risks for vulnerable road users. It also increases the federal share for these specific projects to up to 100 percent, allowing for more flexible financing and crediting other funds towards the non-Federal share if certain safety criteria are met, particularly for projects involving proven safety countermeasures for bicyclists or pedestrians.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that increasing the federal share and expanding eligible projects will incentivize states and localities to prioritize and invest more heavily in critical bicycle and pedestrian safety infrastructure, directly addressing high fatality rates among vulnerable road users.
Critics contend
Some may argue that a 100% federal share could lead to states relying too heavily on federal funds without sufficient local commitment, potentially distorting local spending priorities. Concerns might also be raised about the definition of 'proven safety countermeasures' and its application.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need to incentivize critical safety investments with concerns about federal overreach and potential impacts on state and local fiscal responsibility.
Section 3
Grant Funds for On-Bicycle Education
This section amends existing law (23 U.S.C. 405(g)(5)) to explicitly include providing on-bicycle education to elementary and secondary school students as an eligible use of grant funds. This aims to promote bicycling skills and safe practices among young riders.
Section 6
Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs Set-Aside for Active Transportation
This section mandates that not less than 5 percent of funds authorized for Federal Lands Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 203) and Tribal Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 204) be set aside for active transportation projects. Active transportation is broadly defined to include construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation, as well as projects providing safe routes for non-drivers and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors.
Section 7
Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
This section establishes a new competitive grant program, administered by the Secretary of Transportation, to fund eligible projects that construct safe and connected active transportation facilities. The program authorizes $500 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 from the Highway Trust Fund. Grants are divided, with not less than 30% for active transportation networks (connecting destinations within communities) and not less than 30% for active transportation spines (connecting communities or states). The federal share is generally 80%, but can be up to 100% for projects serving disadvantaged communities.
Section 8
Temporary Duty Suspension for Bicycle Assembly and Manufacturing Parts
This section amends the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to create a new temporary duty-free heading (9903.87.11) for specified bicycle parts imported for use in the assembly or manufacturing of complete bicycles (including electric bicycles and trailers) within the U.S. It also excludes these parts from additional duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Importers must certify their intent to use parts for domestic assembly/manufacturing. This provision takes effect for a 10-year period.
Section 9
Reinstatement and Expansion of Employer-Provided Fringe Benefits for Bicycle Commuting
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate and expand the tax-free employer-provided fringe benefit for qualified bicycle commuting. It broadens the definition of 'qualified bicycle commuting benefit' to include reimbursement for purchase, lease, rental (including bikeshare), improvement, repair, or storage of qualified commuting property, or direct provision of such. 'Qualified commuting property' now includes electric bicycles and certain electric scooters. The monthly exclusion limit is set at 30 percent of the mass transit/parking benefit amount. This applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Section 10
Safe Streets and Roads for All Program Reauthorization
This section reauthorizes the Safe Streets and Roads for All program (established under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) through fiscal year 2031. It also amends the federal share for grants under this program, reducing the maximum federal share from 40 percent to 20 percent for certain activities (likely planning or demonstration activities, though the specific subsection (c)(2)(B) is not fully detailed in the provided context).
Section 13
Grants for Projects in Comprehensive Safety Action Plans Set-Aside
This section mandates that in each fiscal year, each State shall use not less than 5 percent of funds apportioned under section 104(b)(1) of title 23, United States Code (National Highway Performance Program funds), to carry out projects described in subsection (a)(3)(C) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (23 U.S.C. 402 note). These projects are typically those identified in comprehensive safety action plans.
Section 14
Bicycle Transit Integration Grant Program
This section establishes a new competitive grant program, administered by the Secretary of Transportation, to fund bicycle transit integration projects. Eligible entities include metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies, states, local governments, and Indian Tribes. Projects include developing bicycle parking at transit stations, expanding bicycle sharing programs, and other similar initiatives aimed at seamlessly integrating bicycles with public transit.
This subsection allows funds made available for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (Section 148) to be credited toward the non-Federal share of costs for certain projects under Section 133(h)(7) (Surface Transportation Block Grant Program) if specific safety criteria are met. One criterion references a program of projects or strategies developed pursuant to 'paragraph section 148 (l)' or identified by local entities through a planning process and data-based analysis, including consultation required under 'paragraph (xx)(B)'.
Section 2(b)(2)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing code, assuming readers have access to the full U.S. Code. It is not necessarily evasive, but it does require external lookup.
Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing existing code ensures consistency and avoids redundancy, relying on established definitions and processes within federal transportation law.
Case against: Critics might argue that such dense cross-referencing makes the bill less accessible to the general public and even to some policymakers who may not have immediate access to the full U.S. Code, hindering transparency.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the conditions under which HSIP funds can be used to meet local matching requirements for STBG projects, potentially increasing the financial viability of certain safety projects.
This section mandates that each State shall use not less than 5 percent of funds apportioned under section 104(b)(1) of title 23, United States Code (National Highway Performance Program funds), to carry out projects described in subsection (a)(3)(C) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (23 U.S.C. 402 note), which are projects identified in comprehensive safety action plans.
Section 13
Why it matters:While not overtly evasive, placing a mandate on core highway funds within a section reauthorizing a separate safety program might allow it to pass with less scrutiny than if it were a standalone provision or placed in a section directly amending the National Highway Performance Program.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures a dedicated, consistent funding stream for critical safety projects identified through comprehensive planning, preventing states from diverting these funds to other priorities and reinforcing the federal commitment to Vision Zero goals.
Case against: Critics might argue that this is an unfunded mandate on states, as it dictates how a portion of their existing federal highway funds must be spent, thereby reducing state flexibility and potentially impacting other highway maintenance or expansion projects that states deem priorities.
Estimated impact: Redirects a significant portion of National Highway Performance Program funds (which are substantial) towards safety projects, potentially shifting state spending priorities.