World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Complete streets

A person rides a bicycle in a bike lane in Toronto.

Complete Streets is a transportation policy and design approach that requires streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation. Complete Streets allow for safe travel by those walking, bicycling, driving automobiles, riding public transportation, or delivering goods.[1]

The term is often used by transportation advocates, urban planners, traffic and highway engineers, public health practitioners, and community members in the United States and Canada.

Complete Streets are promoted as offering improved safety, health, economic, and environmental outcomes. Complete Streets emphasize the importance of safe access for all users, not just automobiles. Related concepts include living streets, Woonerf, and home zones.


  • History 1
  • Design elements 2
  • Benefits 3
    • Safety 3.1
    • Health 3.2
    • Economic 3.3
    • Environment 3.4
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • External links 6


After World War II, many communities in the United States had been designed to facilitate easy and fast access to destinations via automobile. In rural and suburban communities, people often rely on the automobile as their sole means of transportation and even in areas with public transportation and safe places to walk and bicycle, they live in a state of “automobile dependence” wherein automobiles are the central focus of transportation, infrastructure and land use policies to the extent that other modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling and mass transit, have become impractical.[2]

Oregon enacted the first Complete Streets-like policy in the United States in 1971, requiring that new or rebuilt roads must accommodate bicycles and pedestrians, and also calling on state and local governments to fund pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way.[3] Since then 16 additional state legislatures have adopted Complete Streets laws.[4]

In 2003, Barbara McCann, who would later become the Executive Director of the National Complete Streets Coalition, coordinated a search for a replacement for the term “routine accommodation.”[5] The term "complete streets" was suggested by David Goldberg, the communications director for Smart Growth America, and it was adopted by a coalition of advocacy groups to refer both to a comprehensive approach to street design and to the coalition itself.

The National Complete Streets Coalition was founded in 2005 by a coalition of advocacy and trade groups, including AARP, the American Planning Association and the American Society of Landscape Architects. The American Public Transportation Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Minnesota, the National Association of Realtors, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers are examples of other current Coalition Steering Committee members.[5]

Federal complete streets legislation was proposed in 2008 and 2009, but failed to become law.[6][7][8]

In 2010 the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a policy statement on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation, declaring its support for their inclusion in federal-aid transportation projects and encouraging community organizations, public transportation agencies, and state and local governments to adopt similar policies.[9]

By early 2013, more than 490 jurisdictions in United States had adopted a Complete Streets policy. Twenty-seven states, including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, had adopted Complete Streets policies. Some of these jurisdictions passed legislation enacting their policies into law, while others chose to implemented their policies by executive order or internal policy. Still more jurisdictions have passed non-binding resolutions in support of Complete Streets, or created transportation plans that incorporate Complete Streets principles.[10]

Design elements

The specific design elements of Complete Streets vary, based on context and project goals, but they may include:

  • Pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks; traditional and raised crosswalks; median crossing islands; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 compliant facilities including audible cues for people with low vision, pushbuttons reachable by people in wheelchairs, and curb cuts; and curb extensions.
  • Traffic calming measures to lower speeds of automobiles and define the edges of automobile travel lanes, including a road diet, center medians, shorter curb corner radii, elimination of free-flow right-turn lanes, angled, face-out parking, street trees, planter strips and ground cover.
  • Bicycle accommodations, such as protected or dedicated bicycle lanes, neighborhood greenways, wide paved shoulders, and bicycle parking.
  • Public transit accommodations, such as Bus Rapid Transit, bus pullouts, transit signal priority, bus shelters, and dedicated bus lanes.[11][12]

Such elements have been used successfully in projects across the United States as shown in the following examples:

  • In Orlando, Florida, a road diet was employed to reduce Edgewater Drive from 4 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and streetscape beautifications. The change reduced crashes 35 percent and increased bicycling and walking 23 and 30 percent respectively. The change also helped spur economic development and was claimed to enhance the neighborhood's sense of place.[13]
  • In Charlotte, North Carolina, a redesign on East Boulevard completed in three phases converted a 4 lanes into 3 lanes and improved left-turn access for vehicles.[14]
  • In New York City, transit improvements through Select Bus Service included off-board fare payment to speed boarding times and dedicated lanes for buses. As a result, bus speeds increased 20 percent and total number of bus riders increased 10 percent. In addition, Fordham Road’s locally-based businesses saw a 71 percent increase in retail sales, compared to 23 percent borough-wide.[15]
  • Marin County, California added bike lanes to the busy Alameda del Prado roadway. As a result, the area saw a 366 percent increase in weekday bicyclists and 540 percent increase in weekend bicyclists [16]

Complete Streets policies normally allow for three kinds of exceptions to roadway projects roadways: freeways or other roads where non-motorized transportation is banned by law, roadways where the cost of accommodation would be too disproportionate to the need or expected use, and roadways where lack of present and future need is shown to make accommodation unnecessary.[17]


Proponents of Complete Streets policies believe that they improve safety, lower transportation costs, provide transportation alternatives, encourage health through walking and biking, stimulate local economies, create a sense of place, improve social interaction, and generally improve adjacent property values.[18] Opponents may consider automobile-only infrastructure to be a better use of public funds, or consider efforts to encourage other forms of transportation to be coercive.[19] Individual projects and policies have sometimes faced specific local opposition, typically based on concerns over traffic flow and automobile access.[20][21]


Complete streets policies are meant in part to improve safety, and various studies suggest that Complete Streets principles have done so. A Federal Highway Administration safety review found that designing the street with pedestrians in mind—sidewalks, raised medians, turning access controls, better bus stop placement, better lighting, traffic calming measures, and treatments for disabled travelers—all improve pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist safety.[22] Rates of pedestrian injuries and fatalities decrease 88% when sidewalks are added, 69% hybrid beacon signals are added, and 39% when medians are added.[23]


A variety of reports and organizations have suggested that complete streets policies could improve [25] Over one third of regular public transit users meet the minimum daily requirement for physical activity.[28]


Proponents of Complete Streets believe that as communities become safer, more attractive, and provide more transportation choices, local economies thrive and land values rise.

Successful Complete Streets implementation has helped some communities stimulate local economies. A revitalization project in Lancaster, CA helped create 50 new businesses and over 800 new jobs.[29] After a 2007 Complete Streets redesign in parts of New York City, there was a nearly 50% increase in retail sales on 9th Avenue in Manhattan and nearly 50% decrease in commercial vacancies in Union Square.[15]

Transit and bicycle/pedestrian projects create more construction jobs than traditional roadway jobs: Complete Streets projects funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created more jobs than projects on road repair and new construction. Under the stimulus, transit projects created nearly twice the job hours for every $1 billion than highway projects.[30] Pedestrian and bicycle projects create between 1.8 and 3.8 more jobs than auto-only projects.[31] This job creation, however, is not a free lunch since it requires greater government expenditure.


Complete Streets can also have a positive effect on the environment. By providing safe options for people to walk and bike, Complete Streets can lead to fewer people driving in their cars, resulting in lowered automobile emissions.

The 2009 National Household Travel Survey found that 39% of all trips in metropolitan areas are three miles or less and 17% of all trips are one mile or less.[32] Most of these trips can easily be made on foot or bicycle and Complete Streets provide the infrastructure to allow people to safely do so. Traveling by foot or bike are zero-emission means of travel.

Communities with strong Complete Streets policies and implementation, including Boulder, CO, see a reduction in their emissions. Over the last several years, fewer people in Boulder drove alone and bicycle and transit trips increased. As a result, the city cut annual carbon dioxide emissions by half a million pounds.

See also


  1. ^ Ritter, John (2007-07-29). Complete streets' program gives more room for pedestrians, cyclists"'".  
  2. ^ Newman, P. and J. Kenworthy. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press. 1999.
  3. ^ Oregon Department of Transportation. "Bike Bill and Use of Highway Funds". Page updated February 4, 2007, accessed April 12, 2011.
  4. ^
  5. ^ a b McCann, Barbara "Happy Anniversary, Complete Streets!", "National Complete Streets Coalition", 2010, accessed April 12, 2011.
  6. ^ "H.R. 1443: Complete Streets Act of 2009", "", accessed March 10, 2011.
  7. ^ "S. 584: Complete Streets Act of 2009", "", accessed March 10, 2011.
  8. ^ Library of Congress, "Bill Summary & Status", Thomas. Accessed April 15, 2011.
  9. ^ "Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation", "U.S. Department of Transportation", March 11, 2010, accessed April 15, 2011.
  10. ^ Smart Growth America, Complete Streets Policy Analysis, 2012
  11. ^ National Complete Streets Coalition, "Complete streets FAQ", 2010, accessed April 11, 2011.
  12. ^ Laplante, John and McCann, Barbara. "We Can Get There From Here". ITE Journal, May 2008.
  13. ^ City of Orlando
  14. ^ East Boulevard
  15. ^ a b New York City Department of Transportation (2012). Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets
  16. ^ Federal Highway Administration (2012) Report to the U.S. Congress on the Outcomes of the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program SAFETEA-LU Section 1807
  17. ^ "Policy Elements", "National Complete Streets Coalition", accessed February 16, 2011.
  18. ^
  19. ^ O'Toole, Randal "Secretary of Behavior Modification", "Cato@Liberty", May 29, 2009, accessed April 15, 2011
  20. ^ Goodman, J. David. "Expansion of Bike Lanes in City Brings Backlash". New York Times, November 22, 2010. Accessed April 13, 2011.
  21. ^ Juva, Theresa. "New 34th St. plan shrinks road, nixes pedestrian plaza idea". AM New York, March 13, 2011. Accessed April 12, 2011.
  22. ^ B.J. Campbell, Charles V. Zegeer, Herman H. Huang, and Michael J. Cynecki. A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad. Jan. 2004, Federal Highway Administration, Publication number FHWA-RD-03-042
  23. ^ FHWA, An Analysis of Factors Contributing to “Walking Along Roadway” Crashes: Research Study and Guidelines for Sidewalks and Walkways.Report No. FHWA-RD-01-101, FHWA, Washington D.C., 2001.
  24. ^
  25. ^ a b Teach Robbins, L., Morandi, L. Promoting Walking and Biking: the Legislative Role. NCSL, December 2002. access:
  26. ^ Powell, K.E., Martin, L., & Chowdhury, P.P. Places to walk: convenience and regular physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 93, (2003): 1519-1521.
  27. ^ Koplan, J.P., Liverman, C.T., & Kraak, V.I. (Eds.). Committee on Prevention of Obesity in Children and Youth. (2004). Preventing childhood obesity: Health in the balance. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. Retrieved December 7, 2004 from
  28. ^ Besser, L. M. and A. L. Dannenberg (2005). Walking to public transit steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. American Journal Of Preventive Medicine 29(4): 273-280.
  29. ^
  30. ^ Smart Growth America (2011) Recent Lessons form the Stimulus: Transportation Funding and Job Creation
  31. ^ Garrett-Peltier, Heidi. Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: A National Study of Employment Impacts. Political Economy Research Institute at University of Massachusetts Amherst. June 2011
  32. ^ National Household Travel Survey, 2009

This page was adapted, with permission, from informational materials developed by the National Complete Streets Coalition [2]. This information is in the public domain, and is not copyrighted material.

External links

  • National Complete Streets Coalition
  • Thunderhead Alliance National Complete the Streets Campaign
  • Livable Communities Resource Guide
  • Michigan Complete Streets Coalition
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.