Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 5, 2014
414 Plan Act of 2014 - Declares that federal laws and regulations (including prevailing rate of wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act) shall not apply to any federal-aid highway or highway safety construction project, except those relating to: (1) the safety or durability of a highway facility, or (2) public or workplace safety.
Repeals the prohibition against approval of federal-aid highway projects or regulatory actions that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless the project or action provides for a reasonable alternative route or such a route exists.
Defines "transportation alternatives" as any of the following activities when carried out as part of an authorized or funded federal-aid highway program or project, or as an independent program or project related to surface transportation for the construction, planning, and design of: (1) transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; or (2) infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for nondrivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs. Repeals the authorization for states to use certain funds for construction of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Eliminates the requirement that statewide transportation plans and statewide transportation improvement programs provide for the development of accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities.
Expresses the sense of Congress that states, federal agencies, localities, and private stakeholders should take steps toward increased cooperation to further expedite surface transportation projects.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.4153 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.4153 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.4153 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.4153 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.