PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 24, 2011
Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2011 - Requires each state to have in effect within two years a law, or each state department of transportation and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) an explicit policy statement, that requires all federal-aid highway projects, with certain exceptions, to accommodate the safety and convenience of all users in accordance with certain complete streets principles.
Defines "complete streets principles" as federal, state, local, or regional level transportation laws, policies, or principles which ensure that the safety and convenience of all users of a transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, children, older individuals, motorists, freight vehicles, and individuals with disabilities, are accommodated in all phases of project planning and development.
Allows such law or policy to make project-specific exemptions from such principles, subject to proper approval, only if affected roadways prohibit specified users by law from using them, the cost of a compliance project would be excessively disproportionate to the need, or the population and employment densities, traffic volumes, or level of transit service around a roadway is so low that the expected roadway users will not include pedestrians, public transportation, freight vehicles, or bicyclists.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Revises federal-aid highway project standards to require the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that project plans provide for highway facilities that are consistent with the complete street principles.
Requires the construction design for a highway on the National Highway System to take into account certain criteria, including the need to balance design speed, right-of-way needs, and community livability. Directs the Secretary (who currently is merely authorized) to develop criteria for such design. Requires the Secretary also, in developing such criteria, to consider roadway design guidelines issued jointly by Congress for the New Urbanism and the Institute of Transportation Engineers in developing such criteria.
Requires the Secretary to establish a method for ensuring compliance by state departments of transportation and MPOs with complete streets principles.
Requires the Access Board to issue final standards for accessibility of new construction and alterations of pedestrian facilities for public rights-of-way.
Requires the Secretary to conduct research regarding complete streets to: (1) assist states, MPOs, and local jurisdictions in developing and implementing complete streets-compliant plans, projects, procedures, policies, and training programs; and (2) establish benchmarks for, and provide technical guidance on, implementing complete streets policies and principles.
People & committees
Sen. Harkin, Tom [D-IA] · D–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze S.1056 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.
Examine S.1056 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.
Examine S.1056 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.
Examine S.1056 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.