The Complete Streets Act of 2025 directs every State (including territories and DC) to create a competitive complete‑streets program that funds design, construction, and technical assistance for projects that make streets safe and accessible for walking, biking, transit, freight, and people with disabilities. The bill tasks the Secretary of Transportation with producing implementation benchmarks and requires States to obligate a fixed share of certain Federal highway formula funds to those programs.
This statute matters because it converts a widely used local planning concept into a nationwide, federally backed program with binding design standards, grant rules, and reporting requirements. For planners, DOT officials, and compliance officers this bill substitutes federal minimums for previously voluntary practices, creates new certification and appeal pathways, and attaches clear funding flows and project thresholds that will reshape capital programming and project design choices at State and local levels.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires each State to create a competitive complete‑streets program that offers technical assistance and grants tied to locally adopted complete‑streets policies and prioritization plans; directs the Secretary to publish benchmarks and to adopt nationwide design and accessibility standards. Sets program timelines and reporting, and requires States to dedicate a percentage of specified highway formula funds to the program.
Who It Affects
State departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), transit agencies, local governments seeking grant funding, and entities that design or rebuild roadways in metropolitan areas with fixed‑route transit. Vulnerable road users — pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities, older adults, and transit riders — are the intended beneficiaries.
Why It Matters
This bill replaces voluntary complete‑streets adoption with a federal compliance regime: States must certify programs, approve local policies, and enforce design standards that apply to a defined set of federally funded projects. The funding set‑aside and grant structure create a new incentive path for jurisdictions to conform, while accessibility and design mandates can change how projects are scoped, costed, and permitted.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill sets a federal floor for what many jurisdictions call “complete streets.” It requires each State to stand up a program offering competitive grants and technical assistance to implement transportation projects that explicitly plan for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, freight, and people with disabilities. The Secretary of Transportation must publish benchmarks and guidance within statutory timeframes so States and local entities have a common playbook for policy content, project scoping, design decisions, and performance measurement.
To tap the program, eligible entities (local governments, MPOs, transit agencies, tribes, nonprofits, and other designated bodies) must adopt a complete‑streets policy approved by the State or, where delegated, by an MPO under an intergovernmental agreement. Approved policies must describe how facilities will serve users of all ages and abilities, include measurable performance standards, identify exceptions and an approval process for them, and require use of current design criteria including public right‑of‑way accessibility guidelines.Every eligible entity seeking construction grants must prepare a complete‑streets prioritization plan that lists specific projects, costs, timelines, and alignment with local plans and maintenance schedules.
States may provide up to $100,000 per eligible entity for technical studies to prepare those plans. Grants for construction are capped at the lesser of $20 million or 20% of a State’s complete‑streets program funding for the fiscal year.
The statute also requires States to devote a set percentage of certain highway formula apportionments to carry out their complete‑streets programs.The Secretary and Attorney General must incorporate the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board’s pedestrian right‑of‑way guidelines into DOT and DOJ accessibility regulations and expand standards to address vision, hearing, cognitive, and language access. In addition, the bill directs the Secretary to issue national complete‑streets design standards — for example, protected bike lanes scaled to speed and volume, sidewalks and crosswalks tied to accessibility guidelines, and lighting/signal guidance — with phased compliance deadlines tied to project type, cost thresholds, and statewide planning cycles.
The law creates reporting, certification, and appeal processes so States, MPOs, and the Federal Highway Administration can monitor and enforce compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
States must obligate 5% of specific highway formula apportionments (section 104(b) or section 165, depending on jurisdiction) to operate complete‑streets programs.
Grants for construction are limited to the lesser of $20,000,000 or 20% of a State’s complete‑streets program funding in a fiscal year.
The Secretary must publish benchmarks and guidance within one year; complete‑streets design standards must be issued within 180 days and apply to certain federally funded projects after 2 years (with broader application after up to 5 years).
Eligible entities may receive up to $100,000 per fiscal year from a State to perform studies or analyses supporting a complete‑streets prioritization plan.
The DOT and DOJ must adopt the 2023 Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right‑of‑Way and extend accessibility requirements to address vision, hearing, cognitive, and language needs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State programs, funding timeline, and program goals
This provision obligates each State to establish a competitive complete‑streets program by a statutory deadline tied to fiscal years and to begin providing construction grants one year later. It sets program goals—technical assistance, policy adoption incentives, gap‑closing for nonmotorized and transit infrastructure, performance‑based rewards, and an explicit equity mandate to serve underserved communities. Practically, State DOTs must design a new grant administration track and ensure their program rules implement the equity and measurement goals specified here.
Federal benchmarks and guidance from the Secretary
The Secretary must deliver benchmarks/guidance within one year and open them for public comment. The guidance targets operational changes — scoping, design, construction procedures, and performance expectations — and emphasizes identifying user needs, cost accounting, barrier analysis, and retrofit approaches for existing roads. States and local agencies will rely on these benchmarks to craft compliant policies and to justify design choices during grant review and certification.
Policy adoption, certification, and oversight
Eligible entities must adopt complete‑streets policies that explain how all project phases will accommodate all users, set measurable performance standards, and specify exceptions and an approval procedure. States (or delegated MPOs under formal agreements) approve policies using Secretary guidance and minimum standards. The bill creates a certification regime: State DOTs report to the Secretary on program implementation and the Secretary evaluates State incorporation of complete‑streets principles across project delivery. Failure of a State or MPO to certify a local policy bars that entity from grant eligibility but not from using the policy locally.
Prioritization plans, technical assistance, and grant mechanics
To receive construction funding, an eligible entity must develop a prioritization plan listing projects, costs, timelines, and links to existing safety or ADA transition plans. States may supply up to $100,000 per eligible entity for plan preparation. Grant awards are capped per project recipient (lesser of $20 million or 20% of State program funds) and selection must prioritize corridors and intersections where nonmotorized users face the highest risk. These mechanics force localities to prioritize and sequence investments to compete effectively for limited Federal‑backed dollars.
National complete‑streets design standards and phased compliance
The Secretary must publish clear design standards within 180 days, covering protected bike lanes, sidewalks/crosswalks consistent with accessibility guidelines, and lighting/signalization. Initial compliance is required two years after enactment for certain federally funded projects in metropolitan areas with fixed‑route transit and projects costing over $10 million or involving new construction/reconstruction; a broader compliance trigger follows by the earlier of five years or the State’s next statewide TIP cycle. The law includes exemptions for limited access highways, heavy industrial arterials without transit, documented absence of need, or where compliant projects are already underway, and it creates an FHWA appeal path for MPOs denied by States.
Accessibility rules and DOJ/DOT regulatory updates
DOT and DOJ must adopt the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board’s 2023 pedestrian right‑of‑way guidelines into regulation and add provisions addressing vision, hearing, cognitive, and language access. That direction raises the regulatory floor for pedestrian facilities and ties ADA‑type accessibility obligations explicitly into street design nationwide, affecting design review, procurement specs, and project approval workflows.
Funding allocation and safety standard changes
The statute requires States to obligate 5% of specified highway formula apportionments annually to their complete‑streets programs. Separately, it amends prior FAST Act language to require States and MPOs to adopt design standards ensuring safe accommodation of all users for federally funded projects. Together these provisions convert programmatic goals into recurring budget obligations and tie safety standards to planning and project development processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders — they receive a federalized commitment to safer, accessible facilities through design standards and grant‑funded projects that close network gaps and improve crossings, curb ramps, and multimodal connections.
- People with disabilities and older adults — the required incorporation of public right‑of‑way accessibility guidelines and expanded provisions for vision, hearing, cognitive, and language access aim to make sidewalks, crossings, and transit access more usable and legally standardized.
- Underserved communities and low‑income neighborhoods — the program’s stated equity goal and the project‑selection priority for access to jobs and services direct resources toward areas with historical underinvestment, increasing the likelihood of targeted investments.
- MPOs and local governments that have advanced plans — jurisdictions with existing safety, Vision Zero, ADA transition, or complete‑streets plans are positioned to compete successfully for grants and technical assistance, since the bill explicitly allows incorporation of existing plans into prioritization lists.
- Active‑transportation and pedestrian infrastructure suppliers and contractors — demand for protected bike lanes, accessible sidewalks, signals, and lighting is likely to increase where projects are funded, expanding contracting opportunities in those sectors.
Who Bears the Cost
- State departments of transportation — States must create and administer new competitive programs, certify local policies, comply with reporting, and commit an annual set‑aside (5% of certain formula funds), shifting budgetary flexibility and requiring new administrative capacity.
- Local governments and eligible entities seeking grants — to qualify they must draft compliant policies and prioritization plans, absorb upfront planning and design work (even with some technical assistance), and meet Federal design and accessibility standards that can increase project costs.
- Project owners and designers — national design standards, stricter accessibility requirements, and performance metrics will change design specifications, potentially increasing construction and right‑of‑way modification costs and requiring additional expertise.
- Utility owners and private landholders adjacent to rights‑of‑way — retrofits like sidewalk widening, curb ramps, or protected bike lanes can trigger utility relocations or easement negotiations that raise project complexity and cost.
- Federal agencies (DOT and DOJ) — the statute requires regulatory updates, additional guidance, and periodic reporting and oversight duties that will demand staff time and resources to draft rules, evaluate State certifications, and handle appeals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a uniform, enforceable federal baseline for safe, accessible multimodal streets against the diversity of local contexts and fiscal constraints: national standards and a formula set‑aside drive consistent minimum protections and equity goals, but they also compel States and localities to reconcile higher design and administrative costs, ambiguous exemption tests, and varying technical capacity without creating a one‑size‑fits‑all burden.
The bill imposes a national framework where local context matters most, creating implementation tensions. The 5% set‑aside of highway formula funds is explicit, but it forces trade‑offs at the State level: money earmarked for complete‑streets programs will reduce the pool available for other federally aided priorities unless States increase overall transportation spending.
The grant caps and the 20% per‑State cap mechanism concentrate funds in jurisdictions that can meet relatively demanding policy and planning preconditions, which may disadvantage less‑resourced rural towns or small Tribal governments unless States use discretionary allocations intentionally to promote equity.
Design and accessibility mandates create legal and technical complexities. Incorporating the 2023 pedestrian right‑of‑way guidelines and expanding accessibility to cover vision, hearing, cognitive, and language access raises the compliance floor — but those standards will need interpretation across very different roadway typologies.
The bill’s exemption criteria (for example, “excessively disproportionate” cost) cross‑references prior guidance but leaves room for disagreement in how costs and safety needs are weighed. That ambiguity can spawn disputes between MPOs and State DOTs, producing appeals to FHWA and drawing out project timelines.
Finally, the law relies on data and performance measurement to prioritize projects and demonstrate equity outcomes, yet many jurisdictions lack consistent crash, pedestrian exposure, and multimodal access data. The Secretary’s benchmarks will be critical, but without additional resources for data collection and capacity building, smaller jurisdictions may struggle to prepare credible prioritization plans or to demonstrate compliance, undermining the program’s equity ambitions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.