- Potential benefitCould reduce pedestrian and cyclist injuries through safer multimodal infrastructure and intersection improvements.
- Potential benefitIncreases accessibility for people with disabilities by adopting ADA-aligned pedestrian right-of-way accessibility guid…
- Federal agenciesDirects federal transportation funding toward underserved communities, improving transit access and connections to jobs.
Complete Streets Act of 2025
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
The Complete Streets Act of 2025 requires each State to establish a competitive complete streets program that provides technical assistance and grants for multimodal street projects, sets design benchmarks and accessibility standards, and mandates that certain federally funded projects meet complete streets design standards. The Secretary of Transportation must develop benchmarks and guidance, States must obligate 5 percent of specified Federal-aid highway apportionments to the program, and eligible local/regional entities must adopt approved complete streets policies and prioritization plans to receive funding.
Left emphasizes equity, safety, and accessibility benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed substantive policy measure that mandates State-level programs and changes to Federal project design requirements to advance "complete streets." It combines prescriptive elements (design standards, funding percentage, grant limits, timelines) with delegated implementation authority to the Secretary and States.
The Complete Streets Act of 2025 requires each State to establish a competitive complete streets program that provides technical assistance and grants for multimodal street projects, sets design benchmarks and accessibility standards, and mandates that certain federally funded projects meet complete streets design standards.
The Secretary of Transportation must develop benchmarks and guidance, States must obligate 5 percent of specified Federal-aid highway apportionments to the program, and eligible local/regional entities must adopt approved complete streets policies and prioritization plans to receive funding.
The bill phases compliance timelines, includes exemptions, requires reporting, and updates accessibility regulations to broaden vision, hearing, cognitive, and language access provisions.
Practical, policy-focused bill with measurable goals but significant implementation complexity and resource reallocation that create political and intergovernmental friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed substantive policy measure that mandates State-level programs and changes to Federal project design requirements to advance "complete streets." It combines prescriptive elements (design standards, funding percentage, grant limits, timelines) with delegated implementation authority to the Secretary and States.
Left emphasizes equity, safety, and accessibility benefits.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Federal agenciesRequires states to set aside 5 percent of specified Federal-aid funds, reducing available funds for other projects.
- Local governmentsAdds new certification, planning, and reporting requirements that increase administrative and compliance burdens for st…
- Potential burdenMay increase upfront construction costs for projects that must meet new design and accessibility standards.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Left emphasizes equity, safety, and accessibility benefits.
Overall supportive: the bill advances multimodal safety, accessibility, and equity by embedding complete streets principles into federal and state practice.
It aligns with priorities to protect vulnerable road users and direct funds to underserved communities, though some details may need strengthening.
Generally favorable but pragmatically cautious: the bill standardizes safety measures and provides grants, but raises concerns about fiscal tradeoffs, administrative burden, and state implementation capacity.
Would seek clearer cost data and phased flexibility.
Skeptical or opposed: views the bill as a federal imposition on state and local transportation priorities, redirecting highway funds and imposing prescriptive design standards.
Concerned about costs, regulatory burden, and effects on vehicle and freight operations.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Practical, policy-focused bill with measurable goals but significant implementation complexity and resource reallocation that create political and intergovernmental friction.
- No Congressional Budget Office cost estimate included
- State DOT appetite for 5% set-aside varies widely
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Left emphasizes equity, safety, and accessibility benefits.
Practical, policy-focused bill with measurable goals but significant implementation complexity and resource reallocation that create politi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed substantive policy measure that mandates State-level programs and changes to Federal project design requirements to advance "complete streets." It combi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.