HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-2023 Sustainability Commission Packet
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
City Hall—Shared Vision Room, 3989 Central Ave NE
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
6:00 PM
AGENDA
ATTENDANCE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
Members of the public who wish to attend may do so in-person or via Microsoft Teams
www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeting, Meeting ID 220 710 057 646 and passcode
9SW2ZH. For questions please call the Public Works Department at 763-706-3700.
COMMUNITY FORUM: At this time, individuals may address the Sustainability Commission about any
item not included on the regular agenda. All speakers need to state their name and connection to
Columbia Heights, and limit their comments to five (5) minutes. Those in attendance virtually should
send this information in the chat function to the moderator. The Commission will listen to brief
remarks, ask clarifying questions, and if needed, request staff to follow up or direct the matter to be
added to an upcoming agenda.
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
2. Review of Minutes.
OLD BUSINESS
3. GreenStep Cities Profile Follow Up
4. Complete Streets Proposal Follow Up.
NEW BUSINESS
5. Potential Grant Opportunities Discussion (LEAP, HUD Green Retrofit Programs, Climate
Pollution Reduction, etc.)
6. Hosting Sustainability Commission Table at Upcoming SnowBLAST Event (February 3,
2024 from 4 – 7 pm)
ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for individuals with disabilities are available upon request when the request is
made at least 72 hours in advance. Please contact Administration at 763-706-3610 to make arrangements.
1
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
City Hall—Council Chambers, 3989 Central Ave NE
Tuesday, October 10, 2023
6:00 PM
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ahmadvand at 6:01 p.m.
Members present: Commissioners Ahmadvand, Evenson, Finkelson, Groseth, Jensen Christen,
Johnson, Kurek, LaPlante, Leoni-Helbacka
Staff present: Sulmaan Khan, Interim City Engineer
Andrew Boucher, City Planner
Liam Genter, Urban Forestry Specialist
Sue Chapman, Administrative Assistant
Council Liaison: Connie Buesgens
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by LaPlante, seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes of September 12, 2023 as
presented. Motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
1. GreenStep Cities Profile Follow Up
Evenson went through the 2024 assessments and highlighted the action items she felt were the most
relevant/easiest to accomplish, along with items that may have been already accomplished.
Boucher favors the Sustainable Purchasing Policy. Some of the items listed can be incorporated into this
policy, such as WaterSense, outdoor lighting, LED lighting, etc. Some may have already been done or
are currently in process so just need to be put in writing. Councilmember Buesgens advised the City will
be replacing all residential water meters in 2024/2025. The monitor usage will be extremely accurate
and residents will be able to keep track of their water use, so this might fit into action 2.5. LaPlante
asked about action 2.1, could we provide educational/awareness information in regard to the water
meter program. Boucher stated we can; he would like to put this information on the utility bill. Groseth
suggested adding the information to the emailed receipts customers receive. She also suggested
partnering with the MWMO regarding a rain barrel workshop.
Commissioners discussed involving local businesses per action 2.4. Boucher advised in his experience
businesses don't like doing things that require them to invest more time and money. Energy Star
Portfolio Manager or similar energy tracking software are free tools. It could be worthwhile to pursue a
workshop or some engagement activities showing the business owners how to use tracking software to
get their utility data uploaded. Then they basically just need to check it every six months to make sure
their data is still reporting. Possibly reaching out to landlords was also discussed.
2
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES October 10, 2023
Sustainability Commission Page 2
Ahmadvand brought up adopting standards in action 3.5. Boucher felt action 3.5 would be good as there
are new developments coming up in the future and a lot of these buildings would have a common
interest such as green space; rainwater harvesting could be built-in, landscaping preferences, etc.
Councilmember Buesgens is definitely in favor of establishing some type of framework developers need
to follow for building construction.
LaPlante wants a more sustainable community but without creating so many hurdles that it only benefits
the large land developers. Kurek suggested looking at the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Best Practice 24: Benchmarks and Community Engagement was reviewed and discussed as well as tree
data and a dashboard or GIS data for the public.
Commissioners decided to discuss Best Practice 11: Living & Complete Streets.
Motion by Evenson, seconded by LaPlante to table the GreenStep Cities Profile discussion.
2. Follow up On Shared Email for Commission
Khan checked with the IT Department and was told that to create a Columbia Heights email you must be
a Columbia Heights staff person. Since the commission members are not staffed, we cannot create an
email for the group to use, but there are some other options. Commissioners can create their own group
email through Google, or they can have their email posted on the website if they want items to come
directly to them. Otherwise, Khan can share emails he receives with the group. Commissioners can also
email him. If there are items that the commission wants to share with the public they can send these to
Khan and he will get it out on social media or in the newsletter.
3. Adopt a Tree Update
Genter stated they received a huge number of volunteers for the Adopt a Tree program and thanked
commissioners for their part.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Review of Complete Streets Proposal
The Commission discussed the Complete Streets Proposal and ordinance and how it relates to Best
Practice 11. Commissioners questioned if the projects on 37th Avenue and 53rd Avenue could/should be
included in this best practice as they are both shared projects with another city. Another street project
coming up is 40th Avenue which will fall under the Complete Streets policy. An open house is scheduled
for November 2 at City Hall.
Boucher explained the metrics and what we need to track to get to Steps 4 and 5. Commissioners then
reviewed the proposed ordinance. Boucher strongly encouraged the commission to ensure this
ordinance is workable and does not just exist on paper. In regard to transportation and priority groups,
he tried to tie as much as he could back to the Comp Plan. Finkelson feels there are two major points
that are deficient. One being there is no mention of equity in the original draft. The other is securing
streets during construction projects. As an example, when the Ratio building was being constructed the
sidewalk was taken out. The sidewalk detour was to walk up to Reservoir Boulevard, which is basically
the biggest hill in town, and then go across and come back down on Gould Avenue. So, there was
approximately a year and a half of pedestrians walking in the street on Central Avenue. For the 37th
3
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES October 10, 2023
Sustainability Commission Page 3
Avenue project he contacted Sulmaan and Minneapolis and they put up cones, barrels and ramps where
there was nothing before. He would not go forward unless there are accommodations for pedestrians
during construction. The score sheet also mentions stating who is responsible for approving exceptions,
which he feels is important. When the City redid his street they did not do it in a safe streets fashion.
Boucher advised that this ordinance would provide accountability. Under Best Practice 24 the equity
side can be built in as commissioners develop the policy. Once commissioners are familiar with Best
Practice 24, they can start to pull from Best Practice 11. Construction on the Rainbow site is supposed
to start next year, so this policy might be a good priority. Boucher recommended commissioners become
familiar with Best Practices 24 and 11 which should help with the community equity portion of the
ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Evenson, seconded by Ahmadvand to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Chapman
Administrative Assistant
4
Item 2.
ITEM: Review of Complete Streets Proposal.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Andrew Boucher, City Planner
10/5/2023
CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below)
X Healthy and Safe Community
X Equitable, Diverse, Inclusive, and Friendly
_Trusted and Engaged Leadership
_Thriving and Vibrant Destination Community
X Strong Infrastructure and Public Services
X Sustainable
BACKGROUND
In the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City of Columbia Heights defines Complete Streets as roadways that
accommodate all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and transit) regardless of age and ability. The City has
not established design guidelines related to Complete Streets. However, the Comprehensive Plan embraces
several elements of Complete Streets and MnDOT has implemented a Complete Streets Policy to incorporate
complete street design principles in all projects, which can serve as a resource to the City for incorporating
complete street design standards into City projects. An explicit Complete Streets Policy is also a requirement
for Step 3 progression in the MN GreenStep Cities program.
GreenStep Cities provides implementation tools and resources for Complete Streets, Living Streets, and Street
Design, such as a Local Government Complete Streets Toolkit from MN Complete Streets Coalition and a
Complete Streets Policy Framework created by Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets
Coalition to assist in developing ordinances and policies. There are also examples of cities in Minnesota that
have met the highest star rating for their Complete Streets policies and served as examples to follow when
crafting Columbia Heights’ Complete Streets policies. The cities examined included Arlington, Edina, Lakeville,
and Maplewood, but staff also reviewed the policies of Fridley, Northfield, and South St. Paul as other three -
star examples.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Sustainability Commission give a positive recommendation to the City Council to
review the proposed Complete Streets policy and design standards at the next available work session and
consider implementation and adoption should the policy serve the public interest and satisfy the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA SECTION NEW BUSINESS
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 10, 2023
5
Item 4.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to recommend that the City Council review the attached Complete Street policy at an
upcoming work session to consider adoption and implementation of Complete Streets policies and design
standards.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Complete Streets Ordinance
Complete Streets Policy Framework
6
Item 4.
Complete Streets
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY DEFINING A PROCESS TO ENSURE
FUTURE STREET AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, GIVE AMPLE CONSIDERATION TO ALL FUTURE
USERS AND INCORPORATE FEATURES AS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE CITY’S VISION OF COMPLETE
STREETS
WHEREAS, Complete Streets as defined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan means roadways planned,
designed, and constructed to create a complete, connected network and provide equitable access to all
users and promotes safe and efficient movement of people and goods, whether by car, truck, transit,
assistive device, foot, or bicycle; and,
WHEREAS, Complete Streets supports economic growth, community equity and stability by providing
complete, accessible and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation, and retail
destinations by improving pedestrian and vehicular environments; and,
WHEREAS, increasing walking and bicycling offers improved health benefits for community members by
reducing air pollution, stormwater runoff, and energy consumption, and makes Columbia Heights a more
livable and equitable community; and,
WHEREAS, Complete Streets enhance safe walking and bicycling options for school-age children, in
recognition of the Safe Routes to Schools program; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights recognizes the importance of equity in relation to street
infrastructure and modifications such as sidewalks, crosswalks, shared-use paths, bicycle lanes, signage,
and accessible curb ramps that enable safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for all users regardless of
age and ability.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. PURPOSE
This policy defines a process to ensure future street and transportation projects, give ample
consideration to the equity of all current and future users and incorporate features as necessary to fulfill
the City’s vision of Complete Streets. The City views each street and transportation project as unique.
This means design features will likely differ from street to street, yet each street may still be considered
“complete’.
SECTION II. COMPLETE STREET POLICY
This policy consists of narrative standards and a map illustrating focus corridors that applies to all
development projects and phases unless an exemption is approved by the City Engineer. The following
guidelines should be followed and implemented at the beginning of the project process including
retrofitting and reconstruction, repaving and restriping to ensure that complete streets elements are
incorporated into all transportation improvement projects (except as exempted herein):
1. Complete Streets elements should be incorporated into all public transportation projects, Capital
Improvement Plan, or any other existing and future supporting plans and adhere to the
Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Complete Streets Policy to serve as a resource for
incorporating complete street design standards into City projects in line with the 2040
7
Item 4.
Complete Streets
Comprehensive Plan’s commitment to advancing equitable opportunities for all and committing
to interagency coordination as applicable. The City is committed to adopting the best state-of-
the-practice design guidance in line with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards as
the agency adopts or updates their guidelines.
2. At the start of any transportation project or when land use policies, plans or ordinances are
being reviewed, the following factors shall be considered:
Identifying priority groups, places, and the presence of historically disenfranchised or
disproportionately underrepresented groups of people regardless of age or ability,
whether there are special accommodations necessary to make the process more
accessible, and acknowledging unintended consequences such as involuntary
displacement and determining if mitigating actions are required.
Current and anticipated land uses along the corridor as well as nearby designations
(parks, library, post office, shopping centers, etc.)
Anticipated uses and their abilities anticipated to frequent the corridor based on the
identified land uses, nearby destinations, and surrounding development.
Existing and anticipated transportation infrastructure that will interact with the subject
corridor.
Stated public desires for specific transportation infrastructure in specified areas; such as
public facilities, transit, regional transportation network, and commercial areas.
General and specific guidance for the corridor in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Identifying the presence of gaps or barriers to active transportation and connectivity
with existing street networks and seek out opportunities to enhance connectivity for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.
3. Complete Streets elements that potentially address the agreed upon factors should be identified
at the start of a project.
Determine whether the project area includes or intersects with any identified gaps,
underinvested, or has a presence of underrepresented people such as Black and Native
Americans, older adults, and people walking in low-income neighborhoods that should
be engaged as part of the outreach process and included as stakeholders.
Require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that
connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the
development.
Include consideration of the logical termini by mode when designing a bike lane or
sidewalk.
Provide accommodations for all modes of transportation to continue to use the road
safely and efficiently during any construction or repair work that infringes on the right of
way and/or sidewalk incorporating feedback received during previous roadwork projects
to guide these accommodations.
4. Within the City of Columbia Heights, there is no singular design prescription for Complete
Streets; each design is unique and responds to its neighborhood area or overall community
context. A complete street may include but is not limited to one or more of the following
elements:
Designated walking facilities, including sidewalks, trails, and adequate roadway
shoulders if other facilities are not feasible;
8
Item 4.
Complete Streets
Safe crossing facilities, including marked crosswalks and curb ramps;
Signs, signals, and pavement markings that improve pedestrian visibility, safety and
convenience;
American with Disabilities Act compliant accessibility improvements, including curb
ramps, detectable warnings and audible signals;
Improvements to the quality of the pedestrian environment, including street trees,
boulevard landscaping, plater stirps, street and sidewalk lighting, street furniture and
other pedestrian amenities;
On-street bicycle facilities
Off-street bicycle facilities, including shared-use paths and bicycle trails;
Bicycle parking/storage facilities
Preservation of on-street parking
Safe and effective lighting
Adequate drainage facilities.
5. All identified elements may not be warranted based on the importance and limitations of the
corridor but will include the following guidelines to direct the planning, funding, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths, and
trails while allowing for context-sensitive designs.
Keep street pavements widths to the minimum necessary.
Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-
use pathways on all arterial and collector streets and on local connector streets as
determined by context. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public
school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be
determined by context.
Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossing. These may be at intersections
designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and
appropriate.
Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes.
Allocate right-of-way for boulevards.
Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living
Streets principles.
Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees,
rain gardens, and other features to improve air and water quality.
6. The ideal roadway design may not always be feasible due to either a physical constraint such as
lack of right-of-way or an economic constraint such as unsustainable cost of improvement.
Factors to consider in making this judgment may include but are not limited to:
Whether or not the corridor is within an identified area for complete streets as
illustrated on the attached map;
Community desires;
Available and planned right-of-way;
Existing and future use context;
Existing improvements;
The number and types of users;
9
Item 4.
Complete Streets
Existing and proposed utilities;
Parking needs
Available budget
7. When balancing competing interests, design decisions should favor the following:
Transportation infrastructure that provides safe and equitable access for as many
appropriate modes of transportation as possible regardless of age or ability and with
special consideration taken to conduct outreach to historically underrepresented groups
through accessible means and ensure these groups can provide input.
Transportation design that fits within the corridor’s environmental context in that it
preserves the scenic, historic, aesthetic, community, and environmental conditions of
the location.
SECTION III. COMPLETE STREETS FOCUS CORRIDORS
The maps accompanying this narrative is intended to illustrate Complete Street focus areas. The
following suggestions are provided for consideration as the Columbia Heights Complete Streets policy is
administered:
Downtown: Consider all ages and abilities. Design to accommodate delivery trucks and
passenger autos at low speeds. Favor the pedestrian experience. Sidewalks should be
maintained throughout the Downtown adjacent to streets. Pedestrian enhancements
are desired for boulevard areas. Greenspace, pocket parks, and decorative lighting will
enhance the pedestrian experience. Bike racks are necessary to allow bicyclists to park
and walk through Downtown.
Future expansion: Implement Complete Streets policy as development occurs. Consider
all ages and abilities. Consider truck routes, passenger auto routes, sidewalks/trails,
overhead street lighting, and boulevard trees when reviewing street designs.
Industrial: Consider all ages and abilities. Design to accommodate heavy trucks and
delivery traffic. Provide for employees arriving/departing by various means including on
foot, by bicycle, and other modes. Favor lighting for safety and security purposes.
Residential: Consider all ages and abilities. Implement Complete Streets policy as
street/utility reconstruction and/or sidewalk maintenance/construction plan is
implemented. Truck traffic should be accommodated in designated truck routes.
Vehicular traffic at slower speeds should be anticipated. Pedestrian accommodation
should be considered on sidewalks adjacent to one or both sides of the street. Bikes may
be accommodated in on-street lanes adjacent to collector streets. Lighting is anticipated
overhead, typical street style. Boulevard trees incrementally spaced are recommended.
Residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors along and adjacent to University
Ave., Central Ave., and 37th Ave. should be prioritized as there is a high correlation
between frequency of crashes and higher traffic volumes and the City must improve
safety along the corridor as opportunities arise to benefit underserviced or
underinvested communities.
10
Item 4.
Complete Streets
SECTION IV. BENCHMARKS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The City will monitor and measure its performance relative to this policy, demonstrating success will
include:
Measure the amount of pedestrian accidents and deaths per 100,000 by race and ethnicity
as certain populations are disproportionately represented in traffic fatalities, specifically
measuring the rate of pedestrian deaths or injuries by race and ethnicity and by census tract
income.
Priority groups are defined by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as follows:
o Minority populations such as Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska
Native, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, or other immigrant
populations that are not explicitly identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
o Older adults aged 65+ and children as defined as being under the age of 18.
o People with disabilities.
o Households with incomes below $55,000.
Residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors along and adjacent to University Ave.,
Central Ave., and 37th Ave. should be prioritized as there is a high correlation between
frequency of crashes and higher traffic volumes and the City must improve safety along the
corridor as opportunities arise to benefit underserviced or underinvested communities.
The City shall track the following metrics and provide annual updates:
o Number of crashes, severity of injuries, and fatalities based on each mode of
transportation (walking, driving, biking, etc.).
o Presence and conditions of lighting, transit, biking, and walking/rolling facilities such
as sidewalks, streets, trails, street trees, and multimodal connections.
o
SECTION V. EXEMPTIONS
Complete Street elements shall be considered and included in street construction, reconstruction,
repaving and rehabilitation projects unless:
Accommodation is not necessary on corridors where specific users are prohibited, such as
interstate freeways or pedestrian malls. Exclusion of certain users on particular corridors
should not exempt projects from accommodating other permitted users.
Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use.
A documented absence of current and future need.
Emergency repairs such as a water main leak that require an immediate, rapid response;
however, temporary accommodations for all modes should still be made. Depending on the
severity of the repairs, opportunities to improve multimodal access should still be
considered where possible.
Transit accommodations are not required where there is no existing or planned transit
service.
Routine maintenance of the transportation network that does not change the roadway
geometry or operation, such as mowing, sweeping, and spot repair.
11
Item 4.
Complete Streets
Where a reasonable and equivalent project along the same corridor is already programmed
to provide facilities exempted from the project at hand.
Whereas exemptions occur, the City Engineer will be responsible for seeking alternative options to
accommodate users with whom the City was unable to initially accommodate and approve exemptions
on a case-by-case basis with an opportunity for the public to provide feedback through online posting
and during the Community Forum section of City Council meetings.
12
Item 4.
The Complete Streets
Policy Framework
13
Item 4.
2COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Writing a strong Complete Streets policy
Once someone gets familiar with the basic concept of Complete
Streets—streets designed and maintained to serve the needs of
everyone—the next step is understanding the role that a policy plays
in getting there. So what exactly goes into an effective and strong
Complete Streets policy? There are 10 discrete elements identified by
the National Complete Streets Coalition.
If you or your community is aiming to begin the hard but vital work of
passing a policy, this short guide is the best place to start. Each of the
10 elements are covered in detail on the following pages, including
the scoring details used to evaluate the potential effectiveness of a
Complete Streets policy. (New to Complete Streets? For more of the
basics on the concept and the Coalition, please visit completestreets.org)
A brief history of the Complete Streets policy framework
Having coined the term “Complete
Streets” in the early 2000s, the nascent
National Complete Streets Coalition
succeeded in popularizing a fresh
approach to street design that prioritizes making streets safe for people
of all ages and abilities, however they get around. But by the mid-2010s,
as pedestrian fatalities increased to historic levels, the Coalition realized
that many of the policies being passed were failing to have the desired
effect of making streets safer. Most alarmingly, the crisis of people being
struck and injured or killed while walking or biking was not felt evenly—
people of color and people in lower-income areas were being killed
disproportionately.
There were two primary reasons that the policies weren’t having
the fullest effect: First, the early versions of these policies lacked
accountability measures to ensure that the Complete Streets policies
were fully put into practice. Second, most policies failed to specify and
require the incredibly difficult work of institutionalizing the approach,
such as training agency staff, traffic engineers, and project managers.
It’s worth noting that Complete Streets represents a massive paradigm
shift from a status quo that prioritizes moving vehicles quickly at almost
any cost. And these limitations in the early policies also came against
a backdrop of the federal approach to street design that continued to
prioritize speed above safety. This is why, in addition to our primary role
encouraging strong local, state, or federal Complete Streets policies,
as part of a broader team within Smart Growth America, we work
1. Establishes commitment and vision
2. Prioritizes underinvested and underserved communities
3. Applies to all projects and phases
4. Allows only clear exceptions
5. Mandates coordination
6. Adopts excellent design guidance
7. Requires proactive land-use planning
8. Measures progress
9. Sets criteria for choosing projects
10. Creates a plan for implementation
14
Item 4.
3COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
more expansively on improving safety by pressing for changes to the
transportation design guides, models, and measures that contribute to
producing streets that are dangerous by design.
While the Coalition succeeded in putting this vital, brand new concept
on the map, fostering a powerful movement from coast to coast, and
encouraging local and state governments to reconsider their approaches
to street design, it was also time to re-evaluate what should go into a
strong Complete Streets policy.
So in 2018, the Coalition produced an improved framework for
Complete Streets policies that requires binding language and more
accountability to ensure that any policy produces tangible changes and
prioritizes the needs of underinvested and underserved communities.
The Complete Streets Policy Framework you read here, produced in
2023, represents the current best practices for creating a strong policy
that can be implemented at any level of governance. It’s the go-to policy
framework to guide any community who wants to develop their own
policies.
The full content of this document is also available in a series of sharable,
individual posts online: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/10-elements-
of-complete-streets/
The Best Complete Streets Policies, issued regularly by the
National Complete Streets Coalition, scores all policies using
this 10-element framework to evaluate and uplift the best
Complete Streets policies from across the country which can
serve as a model for other communities.
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/best-complete-streets
15
Item 4.
16
Item 4.
5COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
What does this element look like in practice?
In practical terms, a commitment and vision means that the policy uses
clear, binding, and enforceable language like “shall” or “must” in the
legislative text itself, rather than words like “may” or “considers.”
In the earliest years of this movement, a large share of the Complete
Streets policies adopted across the country were non-binding
resolutions. This was not good enough for a community that truly
wanted to build Complete Streets. Policies that are binding and not just
“optional” are proven to make a tangible difference in what gets built,
how, and where.
The policy must clearly acknowledge the need for building a complete,
connected, comprehensive transportation network and explicitly state
the tangible benefits of ensuring all people can comfortably travel to and
from their destinations safely, in a reasonable amount of time, without
breaking the bank.
Most notably, and improving upon the standards that policies were
held to a decade ago, equity—which includes the consideration of race,
income, and physical ability—should be a core motivation for pursuing a
Complete Streets policy.
The policies that receive the maximum point value from this area also
mention several transportation modes and specifically call out biking
and walking. Why those modes specifically? Because a Complete
Streets policy is both about prioritizing the most vulnerable users of the
transportation system (people walking, rolling, and biking), and fostering
Element #1: A strong Complete Streets policy establishes
commitment and a vision
How and why does a community want to complete its streets? Clear
answers to that question—an unmistakable and binding statement of
intent—are the vital first element for creating a complete, connected
network of streets that considers the needs of all users.
Every policy is an opportunity for a jurisdiction to make its intentions and
motivations clear to the public as they craft, develop, and prioritize their
rationale for adopting a Complete Streets policy. No two communities
are identical, and no two Complete Streets policies should be exactly the
same either.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Every successful effort to do something markedly different—whether
that’s a new approach to street design or designing a longer-lasting light
bulb—starts with the “why” and the “how.” Starting a policy with a clear
statement of intent and commitment to Complete Streets accomplishes
several vital purposes: It makes the intentions crystal clear to a public
who can provide accountability. It shapes or directs the community’s
approach to its transportation practices, policies, and decision-making
processes. And it provides a necessary foundation for the rest of the
policy.
Element #1 17
Item 4.
6COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
• 3 points: The policy is clear in intent, stating firmly the
jurisdiction’s commitment to a Complete Streets approach, using
“shall” or “must” language. This needs to be in the body of the
legislation, not the “whereas” statement.
• (1 point) – The policy states the jurisdiction “may” or
“considers” Complete Streets in their transportation planning
and decision-making processes.
• (0 points) – The policy language is indirect with regard to
their intent to apply a Complete Streets approach, using
language such as “consider Complete Streets principles or
elements.”
• 2 points: mentions the need to create a complete, connected,
network.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: specifies at least one motivation or benefit of pursuing
Complete Streets.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 1 point: specifies equity as an additional motivation or benefit of
pursuing Complete Streets.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 4 points: specifies modes, with a base of four modes, two of which
must be biking and walking.
• (0 points) Policy mentions fewer than four modes and/or
omits biking or walking.
a paradigm shift away from prioritizing speedy car travel, the status quo
of transportation planning for the last 60-plus years.
Complete Streets policies also work best when the policy reflects a
community’s own unique vision and needs. While each policy calls
for a commitment to diverse users and abilities, communities should
also articulate their own particular visions of economic, equitable,
sustainable, healthy, safe, and livable futures. The process of writing and
adopting a Complete Streets policy provides a valuable opportunity for
the community to come together and articulate their deeply held values
and a shared vision, building a foundation of support to advocate for
the longer-term changes that a strong policy requires. By setting out a
clear vision and committing to realizing it, communities can create better
policies that reach their most pressing, unique needs—and their most
vulnerable populations.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 12 out of 100 possible points. This
element is the third most valuable of the 10 in part because it provides a
foundation for the other elements and establishes the clear and binding
commitment by the jurisdiction to institutionalize a Complete Streets
approach. Without binding language, the other elements lose their
potential value.
Element #1 18
Item 4.
19
Item 4.
8COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
while Black communities continue to suffer from underinvestment.
At the national level, we see certain populations disproportionately
represented in traffic fatalities—people of color, particularly Black
and Native Americans; older adults; and people walking in low-income
neighborhoods are struck and killed at much higher rates than other
populations.
All people should have options for getting around that are safe,
convenient, reliable, affordable, accessible, and timely regardless of
race, ethnicity, religion, income, gender identity, immigration status, age,
ability, languages spoken, or level of access to a personal vehicle. This
requires focusing attention on the communities and places that have not
been appropriately or adequately invested in.
Element #2: A strong Complete Streets policy prioritizes
underinvested and underserved communities
Building a complete and connected transportation network requires
investing in places and people that have not received investment.
The strongest Complete Streets policies will specifically prioritize
underinvested and underserved communities based on the
jurisdiction’s composition and objectives.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
A core goal of the Complete Streets approach is to create a complete and
connected transportation network. And a network is only as strong as
its weakest points—its gaps. In order to achieve a connected network, a
jurisdiction needs to allocate its often-limited resources most efficiently
and equitably: by first focusing on these gaps. The gaps are likely to be
places that have been systematically under-invested in because the
people living there were discriminated against, ignored, or deprioritized.
The strongest Complete Streets policies will therefore first fund and
address gaps in their network.
The U.S.’s history of systemic discrimination, oppression, and exclusion,
especially based on race, income, and ability, is part of the transportation
context and cannot be ignored. For example, inadequate transportation
safety investments in predominantly Black communities stem from
government-sanctioned segregation and redlining practices. This
has resulted in white neighborhoods receiving disproportionately
larger benefits of safe, convenient, reliable, affordable infrastructure,
From Dangerous by Design. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/
Element #2 20
Item 4.
9COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
if you aren’t clear on who those communities are, those reading your
policies will come to their own conclusion on who they think should be
included within that group. It’s important to be specific and qualitatively
or quantitatively define which groups are included in the definition of
underinvested and underserved communities. Below are some examples
of qualitative and quantitative definitions.
• Qualitative: older adults, people with disabilities, specific
neighborhoods with historic disinvestment, low-income
neighborhoods
• Quantitative: census tract(s) with X% of people below the poverty
line, X% of individuals with a disability, X% of households without
access to a vehicle
In order to remedy inequities, this policy element requires the
jurisdiction to equitably invest in its transportation network by ensuring
underinvested and underserved communities are considered above and
beyond others.
This policy element holds jurisdictions accountable for including equity
in their plans based on the composition and objectives of the community.
The communities that are disproportionately impacted by transportation
policies and practices will vary depending on the context of the
jurisdiction.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
The jurisdictions with the strongest Complete Streets policies will do
two things: 1) define their priority groups (the communities or areas
that have been underinvested and underserved), and 2) prioritize those
communities.
Defining who you consider your underinvested and underserved
communities is crucial to a strong policy. For example, It’s one thing to
say that you are going to prioritize certain areas or communities, but
From Dangerous by Design. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/
Element #2 21
Item 4.
10COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 9 out of 100 possible points.
• 4 points: The policy establishes an accountable, measurable
definition for priority groups or places. This definition may be
quantitative (e.g. neighborhoods with X% of the population without
access to a vehicle or where the median income is below a certain
threshold) or qualitative (e.g. naming specific neighborhoods).
• (0 points) No mention.
• 5 points: The policy language requires the jurisdiction to
“prioritize” underinvested and underserved communities. This
could include neighborhoods with insufficient infrastructure
or neighborhoods with a concentration of people who are
disproportionately represented in traffic fatalities.
• (3 points) Policy states its intent to “benefit” people in the
underinvested and underserved communities, as relevant to
the jurisdiction.
• (1 point) Policy mentions or considers any of the
neighborhoods or users above.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #2 22
Item 4.
23
Item 4.
12COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
construction, operation, and maintenance. Instead of, for example,
applying Complete Streets elements after a project’s purpose has
already been scoped or defined, such as tacking on some features late in
the design process.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
The policy element is very clear that every transportation project—
including every maintenance operation—accounts for the needs of all
modes of transportation and users of the road network.
Instead of applying only to certain projects or a narrowly defined
set of projects, the strongest Complete Streets policy requires
the consideration of all users for all new, retrofit/reconstruction,
maintenance, and ongoing projects. (A weaker policy merely considers
these projects as opportunities for applying these principles.) This
might mean integrating a Complete Streets approach into existing
maintenance schedules and using basic repaving work to improve the
overall network, rather than just waiting on large, expensive, capital
projects. While the requirement to consider all users does not mean all
modes will be equally accommodated in the final project, it does mean
that motor vehicles are not presumed as the primary mode and it will
demonstrate a foundational culture shift in the department or agency.
Whether a repaving or more expansive construction project, this work
can also be disruptive to people using the street. Under the typical status
quo, the needs of people outside of cars are generally not carefully
considered or accounted for when the right-of-way gets ripped up or
temporarily blocked. That’s why this element also specifies the need
Element #3: A strong Complete Streets policy applies to all
transportation projects, in every phase
To which projects or streets should a Complete Streets policy apply?
If the policy is a strong one, then it dictates a holistic approach to
every transportation project, in every place, in every phase of work.
This means the application of a policy will also look different based
on context.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
There are two big reasons that our policy framework includes this third
element requiring that any policy applies to all projects and phases.
First, Complete Streets is not just a set of projects, it’s a holistic
approach and process to the transportation system, which by
definition, applies to all kinds of projects. Getting to Complete Streets
requires more than just isolated projects here and there. It requires
building a complete network of streets that are safe for all users. Doing
this demands a new paradigm to the entire transportation system, so a
strong policy will be applied to every project, not just the “convenient”
ones, for example. (Exceptions may sometimes exist, but they are limited.
Read more in element #4.)
Second, Complete Streets are never just an add-on component or
a design feature tacked on at the end of the same old conventional
road-building project. The strongest, most effective policies apply to
every phase of any project’s development, including planning, design,
Element #3 24
Item 4.
13COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
For state/MPO policies:
• 4 points: Policy requires all new construction and reconstruction/
retrofit projects receiving state or federal funding to account for
the needs of all modes of transportation and all users of the road
network.
• (1 point) Policy considers or mentions these projects as
opportunities to apply this policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 4 points: Policy requires all maintenance projects and ongoing
operations, such as resurfacing, repaving, restriping, rehabilitation,
or other types of changes to the transportation system receiving
state or federal funding, to account for the needs of all modes of
transportation and all users of the road network.
• (1 point) Policy considers or mentions these projects as
opportunities to apply this policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
For all policies:
• 2 points: Policy specifies the need to provide accommodations for
all modes of transportation to continue to use the road safely and
efficiently during any construction or repair work that infringes on
the right of way and/or sidewalk.
to provide safe and routine accommodations during any construction
or repair work that infringes on the right of way and/or sidewalk. E.g, a
city’s Complete Streets policy would codify a requirement that when
a sidewalk is closed for adjacent construction, the property owner/
developer must provide a sidewalk that’s comparable to the one being
temporarily removed. In an urban area that might mean a sheltered
sidewalk to protect people from nearby construction. In a less dense
suburban or rural area, that might just mean an adjacent sidewalk of the
same width and quality.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth 10 out of 100 possible points.
For municipality/county policies:
• 4 points: Policy requires all new construction and reconstruction/
retrofit projects to account for the needs of all modes of
transportation and all users of the road network.
• (1 point) Policy considers or mentions these projects as
opportunities to apply this policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 4 points: Policy requires all maintenance projects and ongoing
operations, such as resurfacing, repaving, restriping, rehabilitation,
or other types of changes to the transportation system to account
for the needs of all modes of transportation and all users of the
road network.
• (1 point) Policy considers or mentions these projects as
opportunities to apply this policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #3 25
Item 4.
26
Item 4.
15COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
What does this element look like in practical terms?
The jurisdictions with the strongest Complete Streets policies 1) clearly
specify a list of exceptions (ones that don’t stray from the National
Complete Streets Coalition’s approved list of exceptions,) 2) require that
any proposed exceptions are made publicly available prior to approval,
and 3) designate someone responsible for reviewing and approving
exceptions.
Below is the list of the Coalition’s approved exceptions. The Coalition
considers these “approved exceptions” because they have limited
potential to weaken the intention of the policy. These exceptions follow
the Federal Highway Administration’s guidance on accommodating
bicycle and pedestrian travel and/or identified best practices frequently
used in existing Complete Streets policies:
Element #4: A strong Complete Streets policy allows only
clear exceptions
Complete Streets policies are comprehensive and apply to all streets
and in all phases of all projects, but there are certain circumstances
where exceptions can—and should—be made. But those exceptions
must be narrowly and clearly defined, as well as require public notice
prior to approval by a high-level official.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Complete Streets policies should be comprehensive and apply to all
transportation projects in a community, but in certain circumstances,
exceptions can—and should—be made. This might seem counterintuitive,
especially considering that the strongest Complete Streets policies apply
to all projects and all phases (element #3.) But including specific, clear,
and limited exceptions actually increases the strength of your policy
because it prevents discretionary exceptions in the future, helping to
ensure equitable implementation.
By having a clear and specific list of exceptions in the policy, everyone—
transportation staff, policymakers, powerful community members—is
limited to that list only. This means no backroom dealings. It means that
no one has the discretionary power to exclude certain projects from
the applicability of the Complete Streets policy. And residents can hold
agency staff and policymakers accountable for adhering to the clearly
defined exceptions. In other words, the Complete Streets policy will
apply except in the very specific situations listed in the policy.
“The only way exceptions do not turn into a big black hole
is by bringing a lot of sunlight to it. So exceptions are used
when necessary—not just to bypass the policy. But if you
don’t make it clear what you’re trying to do and involve
the public in the decision then the exception can be a
process by which the intent of your policy is completely
undermined.”
– Beth Osborne, Vice President of Transportation at Smart
Growth America.
Element #4 27
Item 4.
16COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
• It also includes specifying who will be responsible for granting
approved exceptions. Ideally, this individual is a part of senior
management.
In the strongest policies, everyone knows what the exceptions are, how
they are reviewed and approved, who is responsible for reviewing and
approving them, and a clear path for the public or other agencies to offer
comments—improving transparency and accountability.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 8 out of 100 possible.
• 4 points: Policy includes one or more of the above exceptions—and
no others.
• (2 points) Policy includes any other exceptions, including
those that weaken the intent of the Complete Streets policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy states who is responsible for approving exceptions.
• 2 points: Policy requires public notice prior to granting an
exception in some form. This could entail a public meeting or an
online posting with opportunity for comment.
• Accommodation is not necessary on corridors where specific
users are prohibited, such as interstate freeways or pedestrian
malls. Exclusion of certain users on particular corridors should not
exempt projects from accommodating other permitted users.
• Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need
or probable use.
• A documented absence of current and future need.
• Emergency repairs such as a water main leak that require an
immediate, rapid response; however, temporary accommodations
for all modes should still be made. Depending on the severity of the
repairs, opportunities to improve multimodal access should still be
considered where possible.
• Transit accommodations are not required where there is no
existing or planned transit service.
• Routine maintenance of the transportation network that does
not change the roadway geometry or operations, such as mowing,
sweeping, and spot repair.
• Where a reasonable and equivalent project along the same
corridor is already programmed to provide facilities exempted
from the project at hand.
In addition to clearly defining appropriate exceptions, the policy must
outline a clear process for reviewing and approving them, providing
clarity to the staff charged with implementing the policy.
• This includes making the proposed exceptions publicly available
prior to their review and potential approval. This could mean
posting proposed exceptions to a public website that allows
comments or including space for discussion on proposed
exceptions during public meetings.
Element #4 28
Item 4.
29
Item 4.
18COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Element #5: A strong Complete Streets policy requires
coordination between jurisdictions, agencies, and
departments
Any number of agencies—city, county, metro region, or state—may
be responsible for the streets and sidewalks, often with overlapping
authority. This is why the strongest Complete Streets policies clearly
define who is responsible, what level of coordination is required, and
even when or how outside parties must comply.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
While some streets have clear ownership by a single agency, it’s rarely
that straightforward. For example, the state manages a street that’s
intersected by city streets. What happens when new crosswalks are
planned? Or you have a metro planning organization that doles out
federal money to the city that actually owns and maintains the streets.
Or a private developer who controls a portion of the sidewalk (or even
a street) through a new development surrounded by other city-owned
streets.
These overlapping authorities can make it difficult to create a true
network of Complete Streets rather than just a patchwork. But a strong
policy will clearly define and regulate coordination and cooperation to
ensure a Complete Streets approach is used on every project, especially
when those projects cross or implicate multiple jurisdictions or agencies.
As an example, San Jose’s (CA) policy says they will “work in coordination
with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to maximize
opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation.”
What does this element look like in practical terms?
There are really just two main components in the scoring for this
element, depending on whether or not the policy is intensely local
(city, county) or less so (state, metro), since a city has limited ability
to dictate terms to their state DOT, though they can still establish
their own commitment to coordination. At the local level, the focus
is requiring private developers to comply with the Complete Streets
policy to prevent gaps in the broader network of Complete Streets. For
instance, in order for private developers to move forward with a zoning
or building permit, they should also be required to address how they
will incorporate Complete Streets into the project being reviewed, if
applicable.
At the state and metro level, it’s largely about incentives within the
policy to steer a greater share of that funding to projects that account
for the needs of all modes and users. States (and metro areas to a lesser
degree) control the lion’s share of all federal transportation funding. And
so a state- or metro-level policy gets all five points if the policy makes
it clear that projects that account for the needs of all modes and users
will be prioritized for funding. (Often this happens by receiving extra
weight in the scoring process to decide which projects are included in
the state- or metro-level transportation plan. At the metro level, this is
the Transportation Improvement Plan, which is a list of projects that are
actually in the pipeline to receive funds and get built.)
Element #5 30
Item 4.
19COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
The second component for all policies is a requirement for agencies
within a jurisdiction to coordinate and bring their other plans into
alignment with the vision for building Complete Streets, like requiring
a city’s zoning or housing department to coordinate with the
transportation department. Every transportation problem is also a
land-use issue, and vice versa, so requiring this coordination is vital for
ensuring that the benefits of having safe streets for walking or biking are
maximized by the land-use decisions on or near those streets.
Policy scoring details
The best Complete Streets policies clearly define the role and
responsibility of each particular agency and require, rather than just
encourage, cooperation and coordination. Using the right tool at the
right scale ensures that agencies and jurisdictions use their resources
effectively, minimizes opportunities for variances from the policy, and
creates a framework for better decision-making amongst everybody
involved. Doing this well also builds trust and the kinds of relationships
that are essential to building a complete network.
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 8 out of 100 possible points.
For municipality/county policies:
• 5 points: The policy requires private development projects to
comply.
• (2 points) The policy mentions or encourages private
development projects to follow a Complete Streets approach.
• (0 points) No mention.
For state/MPO policies:
• 5 points: The policy clearly notes that projects that address
how they will account for the needs of all modes and users are
prioritized or awarded extra weight for funding and/or inclusion in
Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs).
• (2 points) A state’s or MPO’s policy mentions or encourages
projects receiving money passing through the agency to
account for the needs of all modes and users.
• (0 points) No mention.
For all policies:
• 3 points: The policy specifies a requirement for interagency
coordination between various agencies such as public health,
housing, planning, engineering, transportation, public works, city
council, and/or mayor or executive office.
• (1 point) Policy mentions or encourages interagency
coordination.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #5 31
Item 4.
32
Item 4.
21COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Transportation Officials (NACTO). State and local agencies may also
choose to create their own guidance, and in those instances they often
will adapt existing guidance.
But not all guides are created equally, and some jurisdictions still rely
on design guides that use highway engineering principles and prioritize
vehicle throughput over all other uses of the street. For example,
encouraging wider lanes and fewer crossings, in order to move vehicles
more efficiently, is often done at the expense of safety and mobility
for anyone not in a vehicle. This kind of guidance is at odds with the
Complete Streets approach.
The National Complete Streets Coalition believes that the strongest
Complete Streets policies need to adopt specific, best state-of-the-
practice design guidance and/or require the update of internal design
policies and guides. In order to effectively design a Complete Streets
street network, engineers need design guidance that includes both
specific standards and explicit flexibility to accommodate all users and
modes, and prioritize safety for vulnerable roadway users.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
When it comes to design guidance, the jurisdictions with the strongest
Complete Streets policy will do two things: 1) direct the adoption of
specific, best state-of-the-practice design guidance and/or outline
which internal design guidance it plans to revise or develop and 2) set a
timeline for implementing the guidance.
Element #6: A strong Complete Streets policy adopts
excellent design guidance
What facilitates the transition from a policy into tangible street
designs? To bring a Complete Streets policy to life, engineers need
to know how to design these streets in very clear, concrete terms.
The best Complete Streets policies will adopt excellent street
design guidance that directs and supports practitioners to create an
accessible and complete network of streets.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Adopting excellent design guidance equips your jurisdiction’s engineers
with the practical information they need to design streets that reflect
the vision of your Complete Streets policy. Design guidance bridges
Complete Streets from policy to pavement.
But first, what is a design guide? Design guides are resources that help
engineers determine the appropriate dimensions and characteristics
of roadways. For example, they help engineers navigate questions
around lane widths, speed limits, turning radii, crossing locations and
markings, signal timings, traffic controls, and much more. Design guides
are used in all phases of transportation projects from new construction
and reconstruction to operations and maintenance. Typically, design
guides are issued by national organizations and agencies like the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the National Association of City
Element #6 33
Item 4.
22COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
ran into issues with their state prohibiting certain design guidelines.
However, thanks to a rule change in the 2021 infrastructure law, for
federally funded projects, localities can use safer street design guidelines
approved by the FHWA (such as those from NACTO), even if their state
has prohibited them from doing so.
Some examples of what the Coalition considers best, state-of-the-
practice design guidance are below. Note: This is not a comprehensive
list of all the state-of-the-practice design guides, and also reflect what was
available in April 2023. Refer to the online version of the policy framework for
any available up-to-date information: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/10-
elements-of-complete-streets/
• Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA)
• Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA)
• Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and
Reducing Conflicts (FHWA)
• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian
Facilities (AASHTO)
• Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO)
• A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design (AASHTO)
• Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive
Approach: An ITE Recommended Practice (ITE)
• Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO)
• Transit Street Design Guide (NACTO)
• Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO)
• Urban Street Stormwater Design Guide (NACTO)
• Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) (United
States Access Board)
There are a number of existing design guidance documents that can help
your jurisdiction build out a complete network of streets. Moreover,
since design procedures and protocols continue to evolve, organizations
like NACTO, ITE, and AASHTO are constantly releasing new, updated
editions. While some jurisdictions adopt existing design guidance
outright, others use said guidance to revise or develop their own internal
design guidance documents. Regardless of whether you choose to adopt
something existing or develop your own, it is crucial to set a timeline for
implementation. At what date are engineers required to use the newly
adopted guidance? When will you plan to have a draft and final version
of your internal guidance ready? When do you plan to revisit and review
your guidance to ensure it is still the best state-of-the-practice?
For the most part, jurisdictions have the ability to select appropriate
design guidance for their community. In the past sometimes cities
“A common barrier to implementation of Complete Streets
policies are outdated design protocols with both state and local
governments. Even when design engineers want to advance
Complete Streets design solutions, they are often limited by
design standards, guidelines, forms, and manuals that haven’t
been updated to support their Complete Streets policy and
align with the needs of their communities. This element
rewards governments that are able to align their design
doctrine with their Complete Streets policies.”
– Mike Jelen, PE – Principal Director, WSP
Element #6 34
Item 4.
23COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 7 out of 100 possible points.
• 5 points: Policy directs the adoption of specific, best state-of-the-
practice design guidance and/or requires the development/revision
of internal design policies and guides.
• (1 point) Policy references but does not formally adopt
specific, best state-of-the-practice design guidance.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy sets a specific time frame for implementation.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #6 35
Item 4.
36
Item 4.
25COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
comes to bear on a project to retrofit an existing street that runs through
an area zoned or earmarked in the city’s comprehensive land-use
plan for greater density and a mix of uses, perhaps neighborhood-
serving retail with multi-family housing like apartments or rowhomes.
But those buildings haven’t been built out yet or are in progress.
In this specific example, a Complete Streets policy receiving maximum
points would require the transportation agency to incorporate a
Complete Streets approach in future land-use plans for this area and
consider the needs not just of today’s users of that street, but those
who will be using it in the coming years as new buildings are built next to
the sidewalk and more residents and businesses come to the area. This
contrasts with the approach of the old paradigm, which would just look
at a street running through an area without any mix of uses, people, or
activity and make decisions that ignore zoning maps and comprehensive
land-use plans. There may not be an opportunity to rebuild the street for
Element #7: A strong Complete Streets policy requires
proactive and supportive land-use planning
Streets don’t exist in a vacuum. They are inextricably connected to
the buildings, sidewalks, spaces, homes, businesses, and everything
else around them that they serve. The strongest Complete Streets
policies require the integration of land-use planning to best sync up
with a community’s desires for using and living on their land today
and in the future.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Streets are tools that we use to connect us to destinations. They provide
spaces for us to gather and move around, and create a framework for
creating and capturing economic value so we can build productive places
with opportunity for everyone. They are a means to an end, serving the
places and spaces between all the streets. This element recognizes this
fundamental truth by requiring coordination with land-use planning and
clearly defining how a Complete Streets effort will serve current and
future land uses.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
In the simplest terms, this element requires a jurisdiction’s land-use
policies (including but not limited to plans, zoning ordinances, or similar
documents) to specify how these other non-transportation plans will
both support and be supported by the community’s Complete Streets
vision. For example: A community has a Complete Streets policy and it
“People don’t care what the underlying transportation
function of a street is. What we care about is whether we can
safely and reliably use our streets to access the places we
want to go, on foot, by bike or transit, or by car. This element
supports integrative decision-making by matching street
designs with the planned land use context and adopting a
diverse mix of land uses that encourage shorter trips. This
makes the places we want to go safer and easier to get to.”
– Drusilla van Hengel – Principal, Nelson\Nygaard
Element #7 37
Item 4.
26COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 10 out of 100 possible points.
For municipality/county policies:
• 5 points: Policy requires new or revised land-use policies, plans,
zoning ordinances, or equivalent documents to specify how they
will support and be supported by the community’s Complete
Streets vision.
• (4 points) Policy requires new or revised transportation
plans and/or design guidance to specify how transportation
projects will serve current and future land use, such as by
defining streets based not just on transportation function but
on the surrounding land use.
• (2 points) Policy discusses the connection between
land use and transportation or includes non-binding
recommendations to integrate land use and transportation
planning.
• (1 point) Policy acknowledges land use as a factor related to
transportation planning.
• (0 points) No mention.
For state/MPO policies:
• 5 points: Policy requires new or revised long-range transportation
plans and/or design guidance to specify how transportation
projects will serve current and future land use such as by directing
the adoption of place-based street typologies.
• (2 points) Policy discusses the connection between
land use and transportation or includes non-binding
recommendations to integrate land use and transportation
a decade or more, so build the street to serve the place that’s envisioned
in the land-use plans, rather than the place it once was.
This is the kind of tight integration between land-use and transportation
that is required by the strongest Complete Streets policies. Land-use
considerations should be deeply embedded into the processes and plans
of the transportation planners and their departments.
Complete Streets are also reflective of the needs of the surrounding
community and are designed to serve them, so strong policies always
consider that context throughout the process. It’s also an unfortunate
reality in most places that transforming certain streets to be less
dangerous and better serve everyone in those communities can also
make those areas more attractive for future development, so a forward-
looking policy will specify a need to address potential unintended
consequences—like the displacement of residents due to rising costs of
living—while still prioritizing streets that serve everyone.
Element #7 38
Item 4.
27COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
planning.
• (1 point) Policy acknowledges land use as a factor related to
transportation planning.
• (0 points) No mention.
For all policies:
• 3 points: Policy requires the consideration of the community
context as a factor in decision-making.
• (1 point) Policy mentions community context as a potential
factor in decision-making.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy specifies the need to mitigate unintended
consequences such as involuntary displacement.
• (1 point) Policy acknowledges the possibility of unintended
consequences.
• (0 points) No mention
Element #7 39
Item 4.
40
Item 4.
29COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
performance of the transportation network, staff are able to make
more informed decisions on project design, planning, maintenance,
and operations.
• The general public and advocates are able to hold city agencies
and elected officials accountable. When performance measures
are publicized, transparency and government accountability
is improved since individuals, community organizations, and
advocates are equipped with information they can use to hold their
government accountable to the vision and priorities set out in the
Complete Streets policy.
• Elected officials can better communicate to the public, and
build broader support for Complete Streets. By tracking
progress on the Complete Streets policy, elected officials and
other policymakers have information that helps them better
communicate the status of transportation improvements in
their community. Information on the impact of transportation
investments can also help elected officials build broader support
for Complete Streets.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
The jurisdictions with the strongest Complete Streets policies take four
clear, concrete steps:
1. Establish specific performance measures across a range of
categories, including implementation and equity
2. Set a timeline for the recurring collection of performance
measures
3. Require performance measures to be publicly shared
4. Assign responsibility for collecting and publicizing performance
measures
Element #8: A strong Complete Streets policy measures
progress
How do you know if your Complete Streets policy is working?
You measure it. And then you share the results publicly. A strong
Complete Streets policy requires tracking performance measures
across a range of categories—including implementation and equity—
and making someone responsible for doing it.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
As the old saying goes, “what gets measured, gets done.” That rings
true for Complete Streets policies too—if you want to make sure your
Complete Streets policy is fully realized, you need to measure your
progress. Measuring performance in transportation is not new. But
historically, transportation metrics have focused on motor vehicles with
metrics like pavement quality and congestion. But adopting a strong
Complete Streets policy represents a different approach to transportation
which means committing to new performance measures that reflect the
policy’s vision and motivation.
Performance measures provide a quantitative or qualitative indicator
of the performance of a specific street, corridor, or of the whole
transportation network. This information helps stakeholders better
understand the impact of their Complete Streets policy and take
corrective actions. For example, when progress is tracked:
• Staff and committees tasked with implementing the policy are
able to do their jobs better. With more information on the current
Element #8 41
Item 4.
30COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
• Number of trips by walking/rolling, biking, transit, and driving
• Presence of transit facilities, biking facilities, and walking/rolling
facilities
• Sidewalk condition ratings
• Number of curb ramps
• Building vacancy rates
• Access to jobs by mode
• Temporary and permanent jobs created by project
• Emergency vehicle response times
• Number of students who walk or bike to school
• Number of mode users: walk, bike, transit
• Bike route connections to off-road trails
• Number of bike share users
• Air quality
• Number of street trees
• Number of temporary and permanent art installations
• Internal policies and documents updated
• Number of staff trained
• Effectiveness of community engagement process
Additional examples can be found in Evaluating Complete Streets Projects: A
Guide for Practitioners.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this information is only valuable
if it is made publicly available on a consistent basis. To do that means
committing to a timeline of how often the data will be collected and
published publicly and it means putting someone in charge of that
process.
As far as the specific measures are concerned, a community should
adopt performance measures that reflect the community’s priorities,
and more specifically reflect the overall vision and motivations stated
in the Complete Streets policy itself. For example, if your community’s
priority is improving health equity, one metric you might track is serious
injuries by race, ethnicity, age, gender, income, disability status, and/or
neighborhood. Measures should be tailored to a community’s priorities
but they should also cover a wide range of categories to ensure a holistic
evaluation of the transportation network. Some examples of categories
your community might measure are safety, access, economy, public
health, and environment.
Beyond these, it’s crucial to track two specific areas: policy
implementation and equity. For the former, this could include tracking
which internal policies and documents have been updated, how many
staff members have been trained, how many exceptions have been
approved, and how well the public engagement process is working.
Equity is less of a specific single measure, and should instead be
embedded within all performance measures; jurisdictions can do this by
disaggregating the data by race, ethnicity, age, gender, income, disability
status, and/or neighborhood. Measuring this information can help
jurisdictions evaluate whether disparities are being exacerbated or
mitigated.
Below is a list of examples that can be used:
• Number of crashes and severity of injuries
• Injuries and fatalities for all modes
• Presence of adequate lighting
• Travel time in key corridors (point A to point B) by mode
Element #8 42
Item 4.
31COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
• 1 point: Policy assigns responsibility for collecting and publicizing
performance measures to a specific individual/agency/committee.
• (0 points) No mention.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 13 out of 100 possible points.
• 3 points: Policy establishes specific performance measures under
multiple categories such as access, economy, environment, safety,
and health.
• (1 point) Policy mentions measuring performance under
multiple categories but does not establish specific measures.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy establishes specific performance measures for
the implementation process such as tracking how well the public
engagement process reaches underrepresented populations or
updates to policies and documents.
• (1 point) Policy mentions measuring the implementation
process but does not establish specific measures.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 3 points: Policy embeds equity in performance measures by
measuring disparities by income/race/vehicle access/language/etc.
as relevant to the jurisdiction.
• (1 point) Policy mentions embedding equity in performance
measures but is not specific about how data will be
disaggregated.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy specifies a time frame for recurring collection of
performance measures.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy requires performance measures to be released
publicly.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #8 43
Item 4.
44
Item 4.
33COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
ignoring the more holistic impacts of improving access to jobs and
services.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
This is often the part of the transportation planning process that is the
most opaque for the public: How projects are selected.
In some places, such as with the Virginia’s Smart Scale program, projects
are measured quantitatively against a range of predetermined criteria
and the highest-scoring projects receive funding.a This is far more
transparent than Virginia’s previous process. In other states or cities,
this process is much more of a black box, and residents may have far less
confidence that anything other than politics or influence is shaping which
projects move forward. A strong Complete Streets policy both opens
up this black box and institutes criteria that prioritize projects that will
advance the community’s goals (see element #1) within their Complete
Streets policy, such as improving active transportation options,
completing a network of Complete Streets, targeting underserved
communities, and reducing health, safety, and economic disparities.
If the process for choosing transportation projects is unchanged by the
Complete Streets policy, then that policy will fail to be fully implemented.
a Read more about Virginia’s Smart Scale program here: https://smartscale.org/how_it_
works/default.asp
Element #9: A strong Complete Streets policy sets criteria
for choosing projects that prioritizes Complete Streets
projects
Every local community, region, and state has a process by which
they choose which transportation projects to fund and build. A
strong Complete Streets policy changes that process by adding new
or updated criteria that give extra weight to projects that advance
Complete Streets and improve the network.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
A Complete Streets policy that results in the same old road projects
being built is just a paper tiger. A strong and effective Complete Streets
policy starts to reshape the process by which projects are chosen for
funding and advancement.
At every level of government—state, metro, and local—there is some
sort of prescribed process in place for selecting transportation projects
for funding and construction. The strongest policies clearly define new
or updated criteria for that process to ensure that Complete Streets
projects get prioritized to advance.
It’s also often true that the existing, conventional process for choosing
projects prioritizes the needs of people who are driving rather than
all people within a community. There’s a heavy focus on criteria that
prioritize vehicle level of service (how many cars can be moved through
a corridor), or account for potential impacts to vehicle travel time, while
Element #9 45
Item 4.
34COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy scoring details
Three clear changes are the goal for this element. First, modifying
the jurisdiction’s project selection criteria. Second, establishing clear
and specific criteria that will prioritize Complete Streets projects
and create better multimodal network connectivity for all users. And
third, embedding equity considerations in those criteria by targeting
underserved communities and/or alleviating disparities in health, safety,
economic benefit, and access to destinations.
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 8 out of 100 possible points.
• 5 points: Policy establishes specific criteria to encourage funding
prioritization for Complete Streets implementation.
• (1 point) Policy mentions revising project selection criteria to
encourage Complete Streets implementation.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 3 points: Policy specifically addresses how equity will be
embedded in project selection criteria.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #9 46
Item 4.
47
Item 4.
36COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
thorough and thoughtful implementation.a
What does this element look like in practical terms?
To produce different outcomes when it comes to designing and building
streets, departments of transportation must change the way they
operate, including changes to their project development process, design
guidelines, and performance measures. This is most successfully done
through training, education, and strong leadership. Jurisdictions should
include language and actionable steps for implementation in their
Complete Streets policy. Implementation steps are worth the most
points out of all of the policy elements, as they lay out specific next steps
for putting the policy into practice.
Unlike the other nine elements, based on our long experience and
hard-won knowledge borne of real-world experience in scores of
communities, this element is a little more prescriptive. These five short
steps—to be embedded in the policy itself—provide an actionable
checklist for implementing a new, strong Complete Streets policy:
• Restructure or revise related procedures, plans, regulations,
and other processes to accommodate all users on every project.
This could include incorporating Complete Streets checklists or
other tools into decision-making processes.
a While “implementation” was included in the National Complete Streets Coalition’s
pre-2018 policy framework, it was revised to set the bar far higher and provide clearer
guidelines, including increased accountability from jurisdictions and requirements to
include equity and community engagement.
Element #10: A strong Complete Streets policy requires a
plan for implementation
A formal commitment to a Complete Streets approach is just
the beginning. A strong policy also spells out specific steps for
implementing the policy in ways that will make a measurable impact
on what gets built and where.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Over the last decade, we’ve come to understand that a Complete Streets
policy is only the first step to making streets safer and more accessible
to everyone. The strongest policies often represent a massive paradigm
shift from the current practices, agency processes, and standards that
have been producing unsafe, incomplete, inaccessible, and unproductive
streets. And so they must also include a clear plan for how an agency will
go about putting the policy into practice.
We have seen policies in the past that are clear and strong in nearly
every area, yet fail to produce the desired impact because there was
no plan, checklist, or entity in charge of institutionalizing the policy
and putting it into practice. (If everyone is responsible, then no one is
responsible.) These missing components make it difficult (or impossible)
to ensure professional staff is trained, stakeholders are held accountable,
processes are updated, and the public is equitably engaged.
And so achieving a Complete Streets policy’s ambitious goals requires
this tenth and final element: A clear, measurable, accountable plan for
Element #10 48
Item 4.
37COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
the timing and/or staff members for the training and workshops.
• (1 point) Policy mentions workshops or other training
opportunities for transportation staff.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 3 points: The policy assigns responsibility for implementation
to a new or existing committee that includes both internal and
external stakeholders that are representative of underinvested
and vulnerable communities. The policy is specific about which
internal and external stakeholders are/will be represented on the
committee.
• (1 point) Policy assigns oversight of implementation to a
specific body that may not include both internal and external
stakeholders.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 6 points: The policy creates a community engagement plan
with specific strategies for who, when, and how they will
approach public engagement in the project selection, design,
and implementation process. The policy specifically addresses
how the jurisdiction will overcome barriers to engagement for
underrepresented communities.
• (3 points) Policy creates a community engagement plan with
specific strategies for who, when, and how they will approach
public engagement but does not address underrepresented
communities.
• (1 point) Policy mentions community engagement but does
not go into detail about specific strategies.
• (0 points) No mention.
• Develop new design policies and guides or revise existing
policies to reflect the current state of best practices in
transportation design. Communities may also elect to adopt
national or state-level recognized design guidance.
• Offer workshops and other training opportunities to
transportation staff, community leaders, and the general public.
• Create a committee to oversee implementation. The committee
should include both external and internal stakeholders as
well as representatives from advocacy groups, underinvested
communities, and vulnerable populations such as people of color,
older adults, children, low-income communities, non-native English
speakers, those who do not own or cannot access a car, and those
living with disabilities.
• Create a community engagement plan that considers equity
by targeting advocacy organizations and underrepresented
communities which could include non-native English speakers,
people with disabilities, etc. depending on the local context.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 15 out of 100 possible points.
• 3 points: The policy requires that related procedures, plans,
regulations, and other processes be revised within a specified time
frame.
• (1 point) The policy mentions revising procedures, plans,
regulations, and other processes.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 3 points: The policy requires workshops or other training
opportunities for transportation staff. The policy is specific about
Element #10 49
Item 4.
Smart Growth America advocates for people who want to live and work
in great neighborhoods. We envision a country where no matter where
you live, or who you are, you can enjoy living in a place that is healthy,
prosperous, and resilient. Learn more at www.smartgrowthamerica.org.
The National Complete Streets Coalition, a program of Smart
Growth America, is a non-profit, non-partisan alliance of public interest
organizations and transportation professionals committed to the
development and implementation of Complete Streets policies and
practices. A nationwide movement launched by the Coalition in 2004,
Complete Streets is the integration of people and place in the planning,
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation
networks. www.completestreets.org
Smart Growth America project team: Based on language produced in
in 2018, the primary authors of this revised version were Mae Hanzlik
and Steve Davis. Released in April 2023.
This report can be found online at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/10-
elements-of-complete-streets/
Thank you to Stantec
The cover and 10 element graphics
were produced by Stantec and their
Urban Places department. The National
Complete Streets Coalition extends
our deepest thanks to Stantec for their
contributions to this document and to our work.
National Complete
Streets Coalition
1152 15th Street Ste 450
Washington, DC 20005
smartgrowthamerica.org
@smartgrowthusa
@completestreets
50
Item 4.