A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Transit Oriented Development Act of 2026 modifies the low-income housing tax credit to encourage affordable housing near transit. It increases the eligible basis for new buildings and rehabilitation expenditures to 150 percent for buildings in designated transit-oriented development areas. For Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories, this increase is 155 percent. These areas must be zoned for high-density and located within 1/2 mile of a rail, bus, harbor, or waterway station. The bill also requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to study geographic cost-of-living differences to recommend formula adjustments for tax credit allocations.
Yes· 3 of 36
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly targets the creation of more affordable housing near critical transportation hubs.
- Scored +8
Does this make housing cost less?
Significantly increases incentives for the creation and rehabilitation of affordable housing.
- Scored +7
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Directly promotes high-density development in metropolitan areas near transit.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Increasing tax credit basis reduces federal tax revenue.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Incentive for Affordable Housing: By increasing the eligible basis to 150 percent (or 155 percent in Hawaii, Alaska, or territories) for buildings in transit-oriented development areas, the bill incentivizes the creation and rehabilitation of affordable housing in these locations. (Section 2(a)(i) and (ii))
-
Better Access to Transportation: The bill targets development within 1/2 mile of rail, bus, harbor, or waterway stations, which could place low-income housing closer to transit options. (Section 2(a)(iii))
-
Addressing Cost-of-Living Gaps: The requirement for a study on cost-of-living differences based on geography and transit accessibility may lead to fairer tax credit allocation formulas across different states. (Section 3)
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Availability of Designated Areas: The bill limits the areas that can be designated for these credits to no more than 20 percent of the population of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan statistical areas, which may restrict where these benefits are applied. (Section 2(a)(iv))
-
Exclusion of High Cost Areas: Buildings already determined to be in high cost areas under subparagraph (B) cannot also be treated as located in a transit-oriented development area for this specific credit increase. (Section 2(a)(v))
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly targets the creation of more affordable housing near critical transportation hubs. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Directly promotes high-density development in metropolitan areas near transit. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Housing near transit is essential for people with mobility challenges. Would retired people be better off under this? — Affordable housing near transit improves independence for retirees. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors benefit greatly from affordable housing near transit for mobility. Would students be better off under this? — Students often rely on transit and require affordable housing near urban centers. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases availability of affordable, transit-accessible housing often sought by young professionals. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Low-income affordable housing initiatives often benefit communities of color. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Low-income affordable housing initiatives often benefit communities of color. Would business owners be better off under this? — Real estate developers and construction business owners gain significant tax incentives. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Low-income affordable housing initiatives often benefit communities of color. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Low-income housing supports those starting new lives in the US. Would union members be better off under this? — Stimulates construction projects which often employ union labor. Would children be better off under this? — More affordable housing options benefit families with children. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing options benefit marginalized groups. Would men be better off under this? — Affordable housing and transit access are critical for many men in the workforce. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides more affordable housing options for middle-aged families. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Includes specific bonus credits for noncontiguous states and territories. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Provides more affordable options for veterans needing housing. Would women be better off under this? — Affordable housing and transit access are critical for many women in the workforce. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Investors in affordable housing projects may see increased returns. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases overall housing supply, which can help stabilize prices. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Includes provisions for nonmetropolitan areas and specific bonuses for remote territories. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General improvement in housing availability and transit infrastructure.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Significantly increases incentives for the creation and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — More affordable housing units can lead to a reduction in homelessness. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increases availability of low-income housing and proximity to transit, reducing cost of living. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Increasing affordable housing in transit-rich areas often benefits marginalized communities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Increases demand and viability of public transit by concentrating housing near transit hubs. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Promotes transit-oriented development, which typically reduces reliance on cars and lowers emissions. Does this invest in rural communities? — Includes specific provisions for nonmetropolitan statistical areas and territories.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased tax incentives for construction and rehabilitation likely stimulate jobs in the building sector. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Encourages investment in urban development and affordable housing infrastructure. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Real estate developers may benefit from the expanded low-income housing tax credits. Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — Provides increased tax credit basis for developers rehabilitating or building affordable housing. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Increasing tax credit basis reduces federal tax revenue.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Gives HUD authority to study and recommend allocation formulas for states.
- 6/11/2026
- Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E570)
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
James MoylanRepublican · Guam
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii