Complete Streets Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 4, 2025
Bottom line
The bill establishes a federal mandate for states to create and fund complete streets programs and adhere to new federal design standards, aiming to improve safety and accessibility for all road users nationwide.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that states establish competitive 'complete streets' programs to provide technical assistance and grants for designing and constructing public roads that safely accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists. It requires eligible entities to adopt complete streets policies and prioritization plans, and obligates states to dedicate 5% of their federal highway funds to these programs. Additionally, it establishes federal design standards for complete streets that projects on federal-aid highways must comply with on a phased basis.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for modernizing transportation infrastructure to meet the needs of all Americans, not just motorists. They contend it will significantly enhance safety for vulnerable road users, promote equitable access to transportation, and encourage healthier, more sustainable communities by integrating diverse travel modes into road design. The dedicated funding and clear standards will ensure consistent progress.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill represents federal overreach into state and local transportation planning, imposing significant administrative and financial burdens. They may contend that mandating a fixed percentage of federal highway funds for complete streets reduces state flexibility to address other critical infrastructure priorities, such as highway maintenance or expansion, and that strict federal design standards may not be appropriate for all local contexts.
The bill is relatively concise, allowing for a thorough understanding of its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(b)
State Complete Streets Program Establishment
This provision mandates that each state 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 entities for the design and construction of complete streets. Grant funding must begin by October 1 of the third full fiscal year after enactment, with goals focused on promoting policies, strategic development, addressing infrastructure gaps, and ensuring equitable service to underserved communities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is crucial for ensuring that complete streets principles are adopted and implemented consistently across the nation, leading to safer and more accessible transportation options for all. The competitive nature encourages high-quality proposals, and the equity focus addresses historical disparities in infrastructure investment.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this mandate imposes a significant administrative and financial burden on states, requiring them to divert resources to establish and manage new programs. They may argue it reduces state autonomy in setting transportation priorities and could lead to a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't suit every local context.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal goal of promoting complete streets nationwide with the need for states to manage their own transportation programs. It creates a tension between federal oversight and state flexibility in resource allocation and program design.
Section 2(d)
Eligible Entity Complete Streets Policies
This section requires eligible entities (such as local governments or metropolitan planning organizations) to adopt a 'complete streets policy' to qualify for technical assistance or grants. These policies must detail how complete streets infrastructure will be developed, how all users will be served, how the policy applies to all project phases, and how safety will be improved in underserved neighborhoods. It also outlines specific, limited exemptions for when a project might not need to fully comply with the policy.
Section 2(j)
Mandatory State Funding Allocation
This provision mandates that each state obligate 5% of the federal highway funds apportioned to it (specifically, funds under section 104(b) or 165 of title 23, United States Code) each fiscal year to carry out its complete streets program. This ensures a dedicated and consistent funding stream for complete streets initiatives at the state level.
Section 3
Enhanced Safety Standards for Federal Surface Transportation Projects
This section amends existing law (Section 1442 of the FAST Act) to require the Secretary of Transportation to mandate that each state and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) adopt and implement standards for the design of federal surface transportation projects. These standards must ensure the safe and adequate accommodation of all users of the surface transportation network, including both motorized and nonmotorized users, throughout all phases of project planning, development, and operation.
Section 4
Federal Complete Streets Design Standards
This section adds new requirements to Title 23, United States Code, mandating the Secretary of Transportation to establish federal complete streets design standards within 180 days. These standards must include dedicated, protected bike lanes, sidewalks and crosswalks consistent with accessibility guidelines, and guidelines for lighting and signalization. Compliance with these standards becomes mandatory for certain new federal-aid highway projects within metropolitan areas, particularly those with transit service or costs over $10 million, with a phased implementation starting 2 and 5 years after enactment. It also provides specific exemptions and an appeals process for MPOs.
This subsection details the specific conditions under which a project can be exempted from the complete streets policy. These include situations where the roadway cannot legally be used by certain users (requiring accommodation elsewhere), the cost of compliance is 'excessively disproportionate' to the need, the expected user density is too low, or a parallel complete streets corridor already exists nearby.
Section 2(d)(4)
Why it matters:Defining exceptions within policy requirements is standard legislative practice to provide necessary flexibility. However, the detailed nature and external reference for a key term make it less immediately apparent to a casual reader, potentially obscuring the scope of the policy's application.
Case for: Supporters would argue that these exemptions are essential for practical implementation, allowing states and eligible entities to avoid wasteful or impractical applications of complete streets principles in specific, justifiable circumstances. This flexibility can prevent unnecessary costs and ensure resources are directed where they are most impactful.
Case against: Critics might contend that these exemptions, particularly the 'excessively disproportionate cost' clause, could be broadly interpreted or exploited by entities seeking to avoid implementing complete streets. This could undermine the bill's overall goal of universal accommodation and lead to inconsistent application of the policy across different jurisdictions.
Estimated impact: The application and interpretation of these exemption clauses could significantly influence the actual number of projects that fully comply with complete streets policies, potentially affecting billions of dollars in infrastructure spending over time and the extent of safety improvements for vulnerable road users.
These subsections outline the phased implementation schedule for the new federal complete streets design standards. Compliance becomes mandatory for certain new projects on Federal-aid highways within metropolitan planning areas (with scheduled transit service and using Section 104(b) funds, or costing over $10 million) starting two years after enactment for some, and five years after enactment (or the first statewide transportation improvement program thereafter) for others.
Section 4(2) and 4(3)
Why it matters:Phased implementation is a common legislative technique to provide agencies and states with a reasonable transition period to adapt to new requirements, update procedures, and allocate resources. While practical, the detailed phasing can make the immediate and future impacts less obvious to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents would argue that the phased implementation is a pragmatic approach, allowing states and MPOs sufficient time to update their design manuals, train staff, and integrate the new standards into their planning processes without causing immediate disruption to ongoing projects. This gradual rollout helps ensure smoother adoption and effective compliance.
Case against: Critics might contend that the phased implementation, particularly the five-year timeline for broader application, delays the realization of critical safety and accessibility improvements. They might argue that the urgency of addressing road safety for vulnerable users warrants a more rapid transition to the new standards.
Estimated impact: The phased implementation will dictate the pace at which billions of dollars in federal-aid highway projects will adopt complete streets design standards, significantly influencing the timeline for nationwide improvements in road safety and accessibility.