PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 14, 2005
Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2005 - Amends Federal highway law to require each State transportation department to adopt a policy statement ensuring that the needs and safety of all road users (including the need for pedestrian and bicycle safety) are fully integrated into the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of the State's transportation system. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to take necessary actions to double the percentage of trips made by foot or bicycle while simultaneously reducing crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians by ten percent.
Requires the Secretary to allocate certain funds for research that directly benefits the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of the transportation system for nonmotorized users. Requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to certify, as part of the certification review of their bicycle and pedestrian programs, that the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians (including people who use wheelchairs and people with impaired vision) have been adequately addressed by their respective long-range transportation plans, including a target level that doubles the percentage of trips made by foot and bicycle.
Requires the Secretary to establish: (1) a safe routes to school program for the benefit of children in primary and middle schools; and (2) a task force to study and develop a strategy for advancing such programs nationwide.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish a nonmotorized transportation pilot program to construct, in four communities, a network of nonmotorized transportation infrastructure facilities (including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle trails) that connect directly with transit stations, schools, residences, businesses, recreation areas, and other community activity centers; and (2) develop specified statistical information on changes in motor vehicle, nonmotorized, and public transportation usage in those communities, and assess how such changes decrease congestion and energy usage, increase the frequency of biking and walking, and promote better health and a cleaner environment.
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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3664)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.794 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.794 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.794 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.794 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.