Federal Highway Administration

National Complete Streets Assessment

The majority of states, and hundreds of local jurisdictions, have adopted Complete Streets Policies. A Complete Street is safe and accessible for all users. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is supportive of transportation 

agencies in planning, implementing, and evaluating equitable streets and networks that prioritize safety, comfort, and connectivity to destinations for all who 

use the street network. 

Dozens of United States Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have individually developed, implemented, and matured their own Complete Streets principles and programs based on best practices and local initiatives. Furthermore, 

states have matured their Complete Streets practices through related initiatives including context sensitive solutions, practical design, community connections, sustainable transportation planning principles, and the development 

of their multimodal networks. 

In support of these efforts, FHWA has launched numerous initiatives to support Complete Streets and assist DOTs in the evolution of their respective 

Complete Streets programs. One initiative included a sweeping data collection 

exercise in the form of a comprehensive survey of fifty-two United States 

DOTs, as well as multiple interviews, research, and input from a Technical 

Review Panel comprised of representatives from agencies, professionals, and 

advocacy organizations. 

FHWA conducted the 2023 National Complete Streets Assessment (NCSA) 

with support from all fifty state DOTs as well as Washington, D.C. and Puerto 

Rico. The purpose of this assessment was to establish a national baseline 

related to Complete Streets, active transportation, and similar efforts. This 

At-a-Glance Report provides high level findings from this National Assessment. 
Trends and Notable Practices from Departments 

of Transportation (DOTs), Including Each of the 

50 States, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico

Federal Highway Administration

National Complete Streets Assessment

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

NF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NF

HP

NF

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

PD

PD

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

NF

PD

HP

Presence of a Complete Streets or Equivalent 

Policy Across the United States

HP

HP

NF: 

31%

PD: 

6%

HP:

63%

Has a Policy

Policy in Development

Planning, but No Formal Policy

HP

HP

PD

NF
Does your DOT contribute to regional and local planning efforts that 

address Complete Streets, active transportation, or similar topics?

Does your DOT conduct regular assessments 

of safety and access needs for all users as part 

of your Complete Streets implementation? 

Yes, conducts procedural assessments

No, does not conduct procedural assessments

Procedural assessments are in development

Minnesota: looks at equitybased latent demand factors 

and systemic crash risk factors 

tosupport its safety studies and 

multimodal planning.

Nevada: holds Context 

Sensitive Design Meetings in line 

with their policy to examine the 

roadway environment early in the 

design process.

Notable practices:

19%

Yes, actively engaged with local 

or regional government projects

54%

Yes, minimally engaged No, not usually participating

6%

Yes, actively engaged with

21%

facilities managed by the DOT

N:

40%

P:

14%

Y: 

Y 46%

N

P
Washington State: screens projects for Complete Streets 

applicability if they have a budget of $500,000 or more. Plans are 

subject to Complete Streets requirements if they fall in incorporated 

city boundaries or population centers with active transportation 

gaps. The DOT is also funding a project on sidewalk data 

standards in correlation with their ADA Transition Plan, including 

an ADA self-assessment.

Does your DOT have Complete 

Streets performance measures?

Yes, has performance measures

No, does not have performance measures

Notable practice:

N:

70%

Y: 

30%

of DOTs use funds other than 

safety or active transportation 

sources for Complete Streets 71%projects or elements

Community Connectivity Grant Program (CCGP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program (CMAQ), Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP), Multimodal Transportation Fund (MTF), Multi-Year Programs (MYP), National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), State Highway Operation & Protection Program (SHOPP), Safe Routes to School (SRTS), Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG), Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

Y

N
Has your DOT had engagements or 

projects focused on Complete Streets 

in rural communities and small towns?

Only 9% of DOTs measure success in mode neutral 

ways (by measuring people movements rather than 

vehicle movements)

Illinois: measures mode 

neutral movements with a 

travel-demand modeling 

and population forecasting 

software.

Vermont: has a grant program available to municipalities for bicycle 

and pedestrian improvements. It is not an adopted Complete Streets 

program, but it does improve conditions for walking and bicycling. 

Hawaii: collaborated with high school students in a Native 

Hawaiian community to receive feedback and suggestions regarding 

its Complete Streets projects. This was in correspondence with public 

engagement efforts, specifically with underserved communities.

Notable practices:

N: 

16%

Y: 

84%

Notable practice:

Yes, has incorporated Complete Streets

No, has not incorporated Complete Streets

Y

N
31%of DOTs have programmatic 

changes underway to require 

Complete Streets as the default 

approach for project scoping

Puerto Rico: was restructured to better incorporate Complete Streets 

concepts in their new and redevelopment design process.

Utah: is institutionalizing an Active Transportation tool (“AT-FIT”) to better 

scope transit accessibility within its projects.

63% of DOTs in the United States have either a 

Complete Streets or equivalent policy, though

the age, quality, and scope vary

Almost all states today report using a Complete Streets approach in their practice. However, the age of the policy, the breadth of its application, and the extent to which it is part 

of their standard procedures varies greatly. Most states report wanting guidance on 

ways to design for, or measure the performance of, the transportation system on different users of the system. While FHWA has encouraged the adoption of Complete 

Streets as the default approach to roadway planning and design, there is a need to provide additional guidance and tools to fully implement this intent. FHWA is assessing 

transferable lessons from each DOT and is assessing what materials can be shared 

and what new resources need to be generated. 

Although many states may have adopted Complete Streets policies, the level of implementation varies so widely that a transportation planner or engineer from one state 

would struggle to work in many others on Complete Streets projects. Whether or not 

they had a policy, only twenty states reported having an implementation program for 

Complete Streets, of which just eight states claimed it as an effective program. This is 

in contrast to the six states who report that they simply do not or even cannot implement 

their Complete Streets policy. FHWA is committed to celebrating the innovative policy 

implementation and the development of unique tools that have occurred at various 

DOTs. FHWA is also committed to aiding those who can make greater progress in the 

adoption, implementation, and performance monitoring of Complete Streets.

National Complete Streets Baseline Assessment 

completed in 2023, with support from AECOM and 

the National Complete Streets Coalition.

Notable practice: