Welcome to

Complete Streets Policy Evaluation Tool

The Complete Streets Policy Evaluation Tool can be used by anyone — advocates, practitioners, policymakers, etc. — to evaluate existing or draft Complete Streets policies. This tool quantifies the Complete Streets Policy Framework and can help identify policy strengths, as well as areas where the policy can be improved.

Back Next

Your element score:

Current score: 0

Back Next

The policy is clear in intent, stating firmly the jursidiction'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.

The policy states the jurisdiction "may" or "considers" Complete Streets in their transportation planning and decision-making processes.

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."

Mentions the need to create a complete, connected network.

No mention.

Specifies at least one motivation or benefit of pursuing Complete Streets.

No mention.

Specifies equity as an addition motivation or benefit of pursuing Complete Streets.

No mention.

Specifies modes, with a base of four modes, two of which must be biking or walking.

Policy mentions fewer than four modes and/or omits biking or walking.

The policy establishes an accountable, measurable definition of priority groups or places. This definition may be quantitative (i.e. neighborhoods with X% of the population without access to a vehicle or where the median income is below a certain threshold) or qualitative (i.e. naming specific neighborhoods).

No mention.

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.

Policy states its intent to "benefit" people in the underinvested and underserved communities, as relevant to the jurisdiction.

Policy mentions or considers any of the neighborhoods or users above.

No mention.

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.

No mention.

Policy includes one or more of approved exceptions - and no others.

Policy includes any other exception, including those that weaken the policy.

No mention.

Policy states who is responsible for approving exceptions.

No mention.

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.

No mention.

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.

Policy mentions or encourages interagency coordination.

No mention.

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.

Policy references, but does not formally adopt specific, best state-of-the-practice design guidance.

No mention.

Policy sets a specific time frame for implementation.

No mention.

Policy requires the consideration of the community context as a factor in decision-making.

Policy mentions community context as a potential factor in decision making.

No mention.

Policy specifies the need to mitigate unintended consequences such as involuntary displacement.

Policy acknowledges the possibility of unintended consequences.

No mention.

Policy establishes specific performance measures under multiple categories such as access, economy, environment, safety, and health.

Policy mentions measuring performance under multiple categories but does not establish specific measures.

No mention.

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.

Mentions measuring the implementation process but does not establish specific measures.

No mention.

Policy embeds equity in performance measures by measuring disparities by income/race/vehicle access/language/etc. as relevant to the jurisdiction.

Policy mentions embedding equity in performance measures but is not specific about how data will be disaggregated.

No mention.

Policy specifies a time frame for recurring collection of performance measures.

No mention.

Policy requires performance measure to be released publically.

No mention.

Policy assigns responsibility for collecting and publicizing performance measures to a specific individual/agency/committee.

No mention.

Policy establishes specific criteria to encourage funding prioritization for Complete Streets implementation.

Policy mentions revising project selection criteria to encourage Complete Streets implementation.

No mention.

Policy specifically addresses how equity will be embedded into project selection criteria.

No mention.

Policy requires that related procedures, plans, regulations, and other processes be revised within a specific time frame.

Policy mentions revising procedures, plans, regulations, and other processes.

No mention.

Policy requires workshops or other training opportunities for transportation staff. Policy is specific about the timing and/or participants for the training and workshops.

Policy mentions workshops or other training opportunities for transportation staff.

No mention.

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. Specific about which stakeholders are/will be represented on the committee.

Policy assigns oversight of implementation to a specific body that may not include internal and external stakeholders.

No mention.

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. Policy specifically addresses how the jurisdiction will overcome barriers to engagement for underrepresented communities.

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.

Policy mentions community engagement but does not go into detail about specific strategies.

No mention.

Your score

Disclaimer: This tool is meant to be an evaluation resource for Complete Streets champions. Scores received through this resource should not be considered an official policy score from Smart Growth America.

Element Score

We want to acknowledge AARP’s support on Complete Streets policy evaluation tool. It played a key role in the success of the development of this tool.