The No Desire for Streetcars Act, introduced in the 119th Congress, amends title 23 and title 49 to prohibit funds from certain federal programs from being used for streetcar projects. The bill targets four major sources of federal transit and surface transportation funding: the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (Section 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (Section 149(c)), Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307), and Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants (Section 5309).
Each program receives a new prohibition stating that funds may not be used for the procurement, operation, or maintenance of streetcars, with the language phrased to prevail over other provisions. The aim is to ensure streetcar projects cannot rely on federal dollars from these sources.
If enacted, the bill would constrain transit planners and policymakers by removing a substantial set of federal funding rails for streetcar projects. This would push jurisdictions toward other transit modes or funding sources and could influence long-range urban mobility plans.
The measure does not create new programs or funding; it simply restricts the flow of money into streetcar initiatives from specific federal channels, forcing a reevaluation of streetcar viability under current federal financing rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds explicit prohibitions on streetcar funding to four major federal programs: 23 U.S.C. 133 (Surface Transportation Block Grants), 23 U.S.C. 149(c) (CMAQ), 49 U.S.C. 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Grants), and 49 U.S.C. 5309 (Fixed Guideway Grants). It states that funds may not be used for the procurement, operation, or maintenance of a streetcar, with nonoverride language.
Who It Affects
State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations administering these programs, as well as transit authorities and city governments contemplating streetcar projects.
Why It Matters
It creates a nationwide, codified restriction on using federal dollars for streetcars, potentially reordering funding priorities for urban transit and infrastructure while signaling a policy preference away from streetcar modes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill takes aim at several well-known federal funding streams that States and transit agencies use to build and operate streetcar systems. By adding prohibitions to four programs (Surface Transportation Block Grants via Section 133, CMAQ via Section 149(c), Urbanized Area Formula Grants via Section 5307, and Fixed Guideway Grants via Section 5309), it prevents funds from being used for streetcar procurement, operation, or maintenance.
The language leverages a 'Notwithstanding' clause to ensure these prohibitions trump other rules within those programs.
In practice, the bill would force transit planners to seek alternative funding paths or shift focus to non-streetcar modes, such as bus fleets or other rail forms not categorized as streetcars. It does not create new funding streams or policies; it simply restricts where and how existing federal dollars can be used when it comes to streetcar projects.
Jurisdictions would need to reassess ongoing or planned streetcar efforts in light of these restrictions and consider whether to pursue different transit strategies.Because the bill is tightly scoped to funding mechanisms, implementation would hinge on how agencies interpret what counts as a 'streetcar' and how projects qualify under each program. While it removes federal support for streetcars in these programs, it does not address other federal or local funding avenues, leaving room for reallocation or changes in project scope.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 133 adds a prohibition that streetcar funding may not be used under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program.
Section 149(c) is amended to prohibit CMAQ funds from being used for streetcar projects.
Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Grants) gains an inline prohibition on streetcar funding.
Section 5309 (Fixed Guideway Grants) includes a prohibition on streetcar funding.
The act uses 'Notwithstanding any other provision' language to ensure the prohibition prevails over conflicting rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
The act secures its formal identity as the No Desire for Streetcars Act, enabling citation in legal and policy analyses and establishing the scope of the measure for the bill’s text that follows.
Prohibition on streetcar funding—Surface Transportation Block Grant Program
Amends 23 U.S.C. 133 by adding a new subsection that bars any amounts apportioned to a State for this program from being used for the procurement, operation, or maintenance of a streetcar. The prohibition is stated with a Notwithstanding clause to ensure it cannot be overridden by other provisions in this section.
Prohibition on streetcar funding—CMAQ program
Amends 23 U.S.C. 149(c) by adding a new subparagraph that prohibits funds under CMAQ from being used for a streetcar project. The explicit restriction ensures that air-quality-focused federal spending cannot finance streetcar procurement or operation.
Prohibition on streetcar funding—Urbanized Area Formula Grants
Adds 49 U.S.C. 5307(i), prohibiting grant funds provided under this section from being used for the procurement, operation, or maintenance of a streetcar, with the Notwithstanding language preserving the prohibition’s primacy.
Prohibition on streetcar funding—Fixed Guideway Grants
Adds 49 U.S.C. 5309(s), prohibiting funds under this section from being used for streetcar procurement, operation, or maintenance, again with Notwithstanding language to ensure enforceability over other provisions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State Departments of Transportation and metropolitan planning organizations that administer these programs and may redirect federal funds toward other projects or modes.
- Transit agencies and city governments prioritizing non-streetcar mobility options, who gain funding flexibility for alternatives.
- Local governments and planning bodies seeking to avoid or delay streetcar commitments, enabling reevaluation of transit plans in light of federal funding constraints.
- Taxpayers and federal budget policymakers seeking tighter control over federal transit expenditures and a potential reallocation of resources.
Who Bears the Cost
- Streetcar project proponents and transit agencies pursuing streetcar initiatives may lose access to federal funds for these projects.
- Streetcar equipment manufacturers, contractors, and vendors tied to streetcar procurement may see diminished demand.
- Municipalities with planned or in-progress streetcar deployments may experience project delays or re-scoping costs.
- Local businesses and communities that rely on streetcar-enabled transit improvements could face higher costs or fewer options if alternatives are pursued.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing fiscal restraint and programmatic clarity with the risk of constraining transit modernization options in urban areas where streetcars might have been a preferred solution, potentially affecting long-term mobility plans and environmental goals.
The bill’s restrictions are narrowly targeted but rely on a broad interpretation of what counts as a streetcar under various federal programs. That raises questions of scope, especially for projects that blend light rail, tram-like systems, or hybrid modes that could be categorized differently across programs.
The Notwithstanding language strengthens enforceability but could invite litigation or disputes over project classification, timing, and whether funds already obligated or obligated for preliminary work are affected. The act does not address transitional funding or replacement mechanisms, so jurisdictions that planned streetcar projects may need to pivot to non-streetcar investments without a clear, single funding path.
A key tension is between limiting a specific transit mode and preserving broader transit modernization goals. If streetcar projects are systematically disincentivized, jurisdictions may shift to buses or other rail technologies, potentially altering urban development plans and ridership projections.
The bill also leaves open how to treat existing contracts or projects entering procurement phases prior to enactment, creating potential administrative hurdles for agencies currently negotiating streetcar agreements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.