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 · Jun 4, 2025
Complete Streets Act of 2025
This bill supports the development of safe and accessible roads through complete streets design and construction grants, policies, and design standards.
Under the bill, a complete street means a public road that provides safe and accessible travel options for multiple travel modes (e.g., walking, cycling, transit, mobility devices, automobiles, and freight) for people of all ages, abilities, and disabilities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In general, each state must establish a competitive grant program that provides a portion of its federal highway funds to eligible entities for complete streets grants and technical assistance. Eligible entities include local and tribal governments, local agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and nonprofit organizations.
An eligible entity must develop a complete streets policy and a prioritization plan. The state or an MPO must approve the policy and plan. The Department of Transportation (DOT) must develop complete streets benchmarks and guidance for states and eligible entities.
In addition, DOT and the Department of Justice must update and adopt certain accessibility standards (e.g., by including provisions for cognitive ability and language access).
Further, DOT must require each state and MPO to adopt and implement design standards for the safe and adequate accommodation of all surface transportation network users.
DOT must also establish complete streets design standards for federal projects and phase in their adoption, with exemptions for certain roadways, facilities, and projects. The standards must include (1) dedicated, protected bike lanes; (2) requirements for sidewalks and crosswalks; and (3) guidelines for lighting and signalization to promote safety.
People & committees
Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA] · D–MA
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.1953 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.1953 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.1953 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.1953 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.