Complete Streets Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 5, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to transform transportation infrastructure nationwide by requiring states to adopt and fund policies that prioritize safe, accessible, and integrated travel options for all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.
What it actually does
H.R. 3712 mandates that states establish "complete streets programs" by October 1 of the second full fiscal year after enactment. These programs will provide technical assistance and grants to local entities for designing and constructing "complete streets," which are public roads accommodating multiple travel modes for all ages and abilities. The bill also requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish complete streets design standards and mandates that certain federal-aid highway projects comply with these standards.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will significantly improve road safety, promote active transportation, reduce carbon emissions, and enhance accessibility for underserved communities. They contend that a standardized approach to complete streets will create more equitable and efficient transportation networks, fostering healthier communities and economic development by connecting people to jobs and services.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes an unfunded mandate on states and local governments, potentially diverting funds from other critical infrastructure projects or increasing local tax burdens. Concerns could also be raised about the flexibility for states to adapt standards to unique local contexts, and the potential for increased project costs and delays due to new design requirements.
The bill is relatively concise and well-structured, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(b)
Establishment of State Complete Streets Programs
This provision requires each state to establish a competitive program by October 1 of the second full fiscal year after the bill's enactment. This program will offer technical assistance and grants to eligible local entities for designing and constructing complete streets, with grant funding beginning by October 1 of the third full fiscal year. The program aims to encourage comprehensive approaches to complete streets, address infrastructure gaps, and ensure equitable service to underserved communities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for systematically integrating complete streets principles across the nation, ensuring that all states actively work towards safer and more accessible transportation infrastructure. It provides a framework for local entities to access necessary resources.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that mandating state programs could strain state budgets and administrative capacities, especially if federal funding is perceived as insufficient to cover the full scope of the requirements. It could also be seen as federal overreach into state and local transportation planning.
Tradeoffs
Balances the federal goal of promoting complete streets with state autonomy in transportation planning. It also creates a tension between the desire for immediate implementation and the time needed for states to establish new programs and funding mechanisms.
Section 2(c)
Secretary to Develop Complete Streets Benchmarks and Guidance
Within one year of enactment, the Secretary of Transportation must develop and provide benchmarks and guidance for states to run their complete streets programs and for eligible entities to implement complete streets policies and principles. This guidance will focus on modifying design and construction procedures to integrate multiple transportation modes, assess performance, and suggest design options based on road classification, land use, traffic, and speed. It also emphasizes identifying user needs, overcoming barriers, and maximizing local cooperation.
Section 2(d)
Requirements for Complete Streets Policies
To receive federal assistance or grants, eligible local entities must adopt a "complete streets policy" that aligns with complete streets principles. These policies must describe how infrastructure will be developed, how all users will be served, how the policy applies to all project phases (planning, design, maintenance), how safety will improve in underserved neighborhoods, and any exceptions. The policy must also encourage integrated networks, benefit all abilities, coordinate with other jurisdictions, and use the latest design criteria, especially for disability access.
Section 2(j)
State Funding Obligation for Complete Streets Programs
This provision mandates that each state obligate 5% of its federal highway funds (specifically, funds apportioned under section 104(b) or 165 of title 23, U.S. Code, depending on the state type) each fiscal year to carry out its complete streets program. This ensures a dedicated funding stream for the new state programs.
Section 3
Updated Safety Standards for Federal Surface Transportation Projects
This section amends Section 1442(a) of the FAST Act to require the Secretary of Transportation to mandate that each state and metropolitan planning organization adopt and implement design standards for federal surface transportation projects. These standards must ensure the safe and adequate accommodation of all users (motorized and nonmotorized) in all phases of project planning, development, and operation. This expands the scope of existing safety requirements.
Section 4
Establishment and Mandate of Complete Streets Design Standards
This section amends title 23, U.S. Code, to require the Secretary of Transportation to establish specific complete streets design standards within 180 days of enactment. These standards must include dedicated, protected bike lanes, sidewalks and crosswalks consistent with accessibility guidelines, and guidelines for lighting and signalization. Beginning two years after enactment, new federal-aid highway projects within metropolitan planning areas with fixed-route transit service, using section 104(b) funds, and costing over $10 million (or new construction/reconstruction) must comply. A broader requirement applies five years after enactment or with the first statewide transportation improvement program. Exemptions exist for limited access highways, certain industrial areas, facilities with no current/future need, ongoing projects, and emergency repairs.
This subsection outlines specific project-specific exemptions from the complete streets policy requirements. These include cases where certain users are legally prohibited from a roadway, costs are excessively disproportionate to need, expected users are very low, or an adequate parallel complete streets corridor exists nearby.
Section 2(d)(4)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to include exceptions within the rules they modify, ensuring clarity on applicability. It's not necessarily evasive but requires careful reading.
Case for: Proponents argue these exemptions provide necessary flexibility, preventing the complete streets policy from being overly rigid or imposing unreasonable burdens in specific, unsuitable contexts. This ensures the policy is practical and adaptable.
Case against: Critics might argue that these exemptions, particularly the "excessively disproportionate cost" clause, could create loopholes that undermine the intent of the complete streets policy, allowing projects to avoid implementing complete streets principles under broad interpretations.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as the scope of projects that must comply could be narrowed by these exemptions. The impact depends on how frequently and broadly these exemptions are applied by states and eligible entities.
This subsection mandates that the Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General update their respective regulations to adopt the "Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way" (88 Fed. Reg. 53604 (August 8, 2023)) as accessibility standards. It also requires these standards to include provisions for vision, hearing, cognitive ability, and language access.
Section 2(i)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to include related regulatory updates within a broader bill, but its placement might make its specific impact less immediately obvious.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a critical step to ensure that complete streets are truly accessible to all individuals, including those with various disabilities. It codifies and expands upon existing accessibility guidelines, making them mandatory.
Case against: Some might argue that expanding accessibility requirements, particularly to include cognitive ability and language access, could introduce significant new design and implementation challenges and costs for states and local entities, potentially beyond what current infrastructure budgets can easily absorb.
Estimated impact: High, as it mandates comprehensive accessibility standards for all pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way, affecting design, construction, and maintenance across the country.