This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) | |
|---|---|
| Name | Transportation Alternatives Program |
| Type | Federal grant program |
| Established | 2012 |
| Administered by | Federal Highway Administration |
| Budget | varies by authorization |
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is a United States federal grant program that funds surface transportation projects emphasizing non-motorized and community-scale infrastructure. It supports bicycle and pedestrian facilities, historic preservation, and environmental mitigation in urban, suburban, and rural settings, connecting to multimodal networks and transit hubs.
TAP provides competitive and formula-based funding for projects such as bicycle lanes, pedestrian paths, Safe Routes to School, streetscape improvements, and historic bridge rehabilitation, linking to Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Congressional Appropriations, Surface Transportation Reauthorization, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law decision frameworks. Eligible applicants include state departments like New York State Department of Transportation, regional agencies such as Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area), local governments including City of Chicago, and nonprofit organizations like Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Transportation Alternatives (New York City), and League of American Bicyclists. Projects often coordinate with programs such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, and Federal Transit Administration initiatives.
TAP originated from earlier programs including Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School program, and Recreational Trails Program when congressional reauthorization consolidated funding streams under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and later authorizations such as MAP-21, FAST Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Legislative debates involved committees like the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as stakeholders including American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, National Association of Counties, and advocacy groups like America Walks and Advocacy Advance. Regulatory guidance and program rules have been issued by Federal Highway Administration in coordination with state agencies and metropolitan planning organizations such as Metropolitan Planning Organization bodies like Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
TAP funds are apportioned through state departments of transportation such as California Department of Transportation, Texas Department of Transportation, and Florida Department of Transportation, with selection often by metropolitan planning organizations like Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency or county governments like King County. Eligible project sponsors include municipal governments like City of Boston, tribal governments such as Navajo Nation, transit agencies like Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), and nonprofit organizations including Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Eligibility criteria reference statutes including 23 U.S.C. § 133(h), environmental statutes like the National Environmental Policy Act, and historic preservation requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Funding flows from congressional appropriations and is apportioned based on formulas that consider factors found in statutes signed by presidents such as Barack Obama and Donald Trump, with oversight by agencies like Federal Highway Administration and auditing by Government Accountability Office. States set suballocation rules and competitive selection processes informed by MPO policies like those of Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area) and Houston-Galveston Area Council. Match requirements and cost-sharing involve fiscal arrangements with entities such as Community Development Block Grant recipients and may intersect with programs administered by Environmental Protection Agency for air quality and US Department of Housing and Urban Development for community development.
Typical TAP-funded projects include bicycle network construction in cities like Portland, Oregon, pedestrian safety improvements in Seattle, adaptive reuse of historic bridges in places like Minneapolis, streetscape projects in Philadelphia, and scenic or recreational trail projects connecting sites such as Grand Canyon National Park corridors. Examples of partnerships include trail conversions led by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy connecting to National Park Service units, Safe Routes to School projects coordinated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initiatives, and multimodal access projects integrating with Amtrak stations.
Implementation is coordinated among federal agencies like Federal Highway Administration and state Departments of Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations such as Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, regional transit authorities including Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), and local public works departments. Project delivery relies on design and engineering firms, construction contractors, and consultants accredited by professional societies such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, while compliance with environmental review involves agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and state historic preservation offices under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Evaluations by entities such as the Government Accountability Office and research from institutions like Transportation Research Board assess TAP’s effects on safety, mode shift, public health, and economic development, with case studies from municipalities including New York City, San Francisco, and Boulder, Colorado. Advocates including League of American Bicyclists cite reduced crash rates and increased cycling, while critiques from organizations like the National Association of Counties and certain state DOTs address administrative complexity, funding volatility, and equity in distribution. Academic analyses published through American Planning Association and Urban Institute examine outcomes, equity, and integration with broader transportation policy.
Category:Federal transportation programs of the United States