Policies v5

Policy Audit Template

Audit your locality's existing policies, plans, procedures, and codes for Complete Streets principals

Updated Mar 8, 2026

11 min read

Created by Steve Gerner

Key Takeaways

Strong Relevance (3 points): The document explicitly addresses concepts strongly aligned with Complete Streets principles (e.g., multi-moda…
Moderate Relevance (2 points): The document implicitly touches on concepts related to Complete Streets. It might mention pedestrians, bicyc…
Weak Relevance (1 point): The document mentions in passing some concepts vaguely related to Complete Streets (e.g., "transportation," "safe…
No Relevance (0 points): The document does not address concepts related to Complete Streets at all. It focuses solely on vehicle traffic or…

On this page

Instructions

This template helps you audit your locality's existing policies, plans, procedures, and codes to understand how they currently address (or fail to address) Complete Streets principles. Since it's unlikely these documents will explicitly mention "Complete Streets," we will focus on identifying related concepts and assessing how well they align with the goals of Complete Streets.

For each document type listed, identify and review the relevant documents in your locality. For each document, answer the questions in each section. Be as specific as possible and provide evidence or examples from the document to support your answers. Use the "Relevance Assessment" guidance to determine the score for each section and document overall.

This is only a guide of common local planning documents and one approach to assessment. You will need to adapt this to your specific situation. {.is-warning}

Make sure to publish your results so others can build on your work! {.is-success}

Relevance Assessment Guidance (Scoring 0-3)

When assessing relevance to Complete Streets, consider the following, even if the term "Complete Streets" is absent:

Strong Relevance (3 points): The document explicitly addresses concepts strongly aligned with Complete Streets principles (e.g., multi-modal transportation, pedestrian and bicycle safety, accessibility for all users). The language is clear and policies are supportive of these concepts. Even if "Complete Streets" isn't used, the intent and mechanisms are clearly present.
Moderate Relevance (2 points): The document implicitly touches on concepts related to Complete Streets. It might mention pedestrians, bicycles, or accessibility, but in a limited or general way. The connection to Complete Streets principles is present but needs to be inferred or further developed. Policies may be partially supportive or neutral.
Weak Relevance (1 point): The document mentions in passing some concepts vaguely related to Complete Streets (e.g., "transportation," "safety" in a very general sense). The connection is weak, and the document largely focuses on other priorities. Policies are likely neutral or weakly supportive.
No Relevance (0 points): The document does not address concepts related to Complete Streets at all. It focuses solely on vehicle traffic or other topics unrelated to multi-modal transportation, pedestrian/bicycle needs, or accessibility. Policies are likely indifferent or potentially contradictory to Complete Streets principles.

Document Types

For each document type below, identify the relevant document(s) in your locality. Then, for each document, answer the questions within that section and assign a relevance score (0-3) for each question and overall for the document type.

General or Comprehensive Plan(s)

Expanded details for this section

Long section

General or Comprehensive Plan(s)

For each General/Comprehensive Plan document reviewed:

Document Name: [Enter Document Name Here]

Date of Adoption/Last Revision: [Enter Date Here]

Relevant Sections (Keywords to look for): "Transportation," "Circulation," "Mobility," "Land Use," "Community Character," "Goals," "Vision," "Elements," "Infrastructure," "Public Realm," "Quality of Life," "Sustainability"

Vision and Goals: Does the plan articulate a vision or goals related to transportation that go beyond just vehicle movement? Does it mention creating a "multi-modal," "connected," or "balanced" transportation system?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Pedestrian and Bicycle Focus: Does the plan specifically address the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists? Are there policies or objectives related to improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, safety, or connectivity?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Accessibility: Does the plan address accessibility for people with disabilities in the transportation system and public realm? Are there policies related to ADA compliance or universal design?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Safety: Does the plan discuss transportation safety in a comprehensive way, including safety for pedestrians and bicyclists? Are there goals or policies to reduce crashes and improve safety for all users?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Equity and Underserved Communities: Does the plan address transportation equity or the needs of underserved communities? Does it acknowledge disparities in transportation access or investment and propose solutions?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]

Overall Relevance Score for General/Comprehensive Plan: [Average of scores for Questions 1-5]

Summary of Relevance: [Briefly summarize how relevant the General/Comprehensive Plan is to Complete Streets principles, noting key strengths and weaknesses.]

Transportation Master Plan/Element

Expanded details for this section

Long section

Transportation Master Plan/Element

Relevant Document(s) in your Locality may include the Transportation Master Plan(s) or Transportation Element within the General Plan

For each Transportation Master Plan/Element document reviewed:

Document Name: [Enter Document Name Here]

Date of Adoption/Last Revision: [Enter Date Here]

Relevant Sections (Keywords to look for): "Multi-modal," "Pedestrian," "Bicycle," "Transit," "Streets," "Roadways," "Sidewalks," "Bike Lanes," "Crosswalks," "Intersections," "Safety," "Accessibility," "Connectivity," "Level of Service (LOS)" (if mentioned, note if it's solely vehicle-focused or multi-modal)

Multi-modal System Focus: Does the plan prioritize or significantly address modes of transportation beyond vehicles (e.g., walking, biking, transit)? Is there a stated goal to create a truly multi-modal system?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Planning: Does the plan include specific plans or strategies for developing pedestrian and bicycle networks? Does it identify priority corridors or areas for pedestrian/bicycle improvements?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Accessibility Standards and Design: Does the plan incorporate accessibility standards (e.g., ADA) in street and sidewalk design? Does it promote universal design principles in transportation infrastructure?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Safety Analysis and Strategies: Does the plan analyze traffic safety for all modes, including pedestrians and bicyclists? Does it propose strategies to improve safety for vulnerable road users (e.g., separated bike lanes, pedestrian safety improvements at intersections)?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Project Prioritization: Does the plan outline a project prioritization process for transportation projects? Does this process consider multi-modal needs, safety, accessibility, or equity in project selection? Or is it solely based on vehicle traffic flow?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]

Overall Relevance Score for Transportation Master Plan/Element: [Average of scores for Questions 1-5] Summary of Relevance: [Briefly summarize how relevant the Transportation Master Plan is to Complete Streets principles, noting key strengths and weaknesses.]

Zoning / Land Use

Expanded details for this section

Long section

Zoning / Land Use

Land Use in particular may already be outlined in your General or Comprehensive Plan, instead of a separate document. For each Zoning Ordinance/Code or Land Use document reviewed:

Document Name: [Enter Document Name Here]

Date of Adoption/Last Revision: [Enter Date Here]

Relevant Sections (Keywords to look for): "Parking," "Setbacks," "Street Frontage," "Building Design," "Pedestrian Access," "Bicycle Parking," "Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)," "Mixed-Use," "Connectivity," "Streetscape," "Public Realm"

Parking Requirements: Are parking requirements minimized or flexible, especially in walkable areas or near transit? Or are parking requirements excessive and auto-centric, potentially discouraging walking and biking?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Pedestrian-Oriented Design: Does the zoning code promote pedestrian-friendly design features, such as building setbacks that create a comfortable pedestrian realm, requirements for sidewalks, street trees, or pedestrian-scale lighting?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Bicycle Parking and Amenities: Does the zoning code require or encourage bicycle parking (short-term and long-term) in commercial, residential, and employment areas?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Mixed-Use: Does the zoning code support Transit-Oriented Development or mixed-use development patterns that reduce car dependency and encourage walking, biking, and transit use?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Connectivity and Block Size: Does the zoning code promote street grid connectivity and smaller block sizes that are more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly? Or does it favor large blocks and cul-de-sacs that are auto-centric?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]

Overall Relevance Score for Zoning Ordinance/Code: [Average of scores for Questions 1-5]

Summary of Relevance: [Briefly summarize how relevant the Zoning Ordinance is to Complete Streets principles, noting key strengths and weaknesses.]

Street Design Standards & Engineering Manuals

Expanded details for this section

Long section

Street Design Standards & Engineering Manuals

Relevant Document(s) in your Locality: Street Design Standards, Engineering Manuals, or Public Works Design Guidelines. These may not be published and may require a public information request and meetings with your Transportation, Planning, and/or Enginerring Departments or their Public Information Officers.

For each Street Design Standards document reviewed:

Document Name: [Enter Document Name Here]

Date of Adoption/Last Revision: [Enter Date Here]

Relevant Sections (Keywords to look for): "Street Design," "Cross-sections," "Right-of-Way," "Roadway Width," "Lane Width," "Sidewalks," "Bike Lanes," "Intersection Design," "Traffic Calming," "Pedestrian Crossings," "Curb Ramps," "Accessibility," "Multi-modal Design"

Multi-modal Design Integration: Do the design standards explicitly address multi-modal design principles? Do they provide guidance and specifications for designing streets for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and people with disabilities, in addition to vehicles?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Sidewalk Standards: Are there clear and comprehensive standards for sidewalk width, materials, accessibility (curb ramps, detectable warnings), and placement? Are sidewalks considered a standard element of all streets?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Bicycle Facility Standards: Do the standards include design guidance for bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes, protected bike lanes, shared-use paths? Are there specifications for width, striping, and separation?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Intersection Design for Pedestrians and Bicycles: Do the standards address intersection design with a focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety and accessibility? Are there guidelines for crosswalk placement, pedestrian signals, refuge islands, traffic calming measures, and bicycle crossings?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Traffic Calming and Speed Management: Do the standards promote or allow for traffic calming measures (e.g., speed humps, raised crosswalks, narrower lanes, roundabouts) to reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]

Overall Relevance Score for Street Design Standards & Engineering Manuals: [Average of scores for Questions 1-5]

Summary of Relevance: [Briefly summarize how relevant the Street Design Standards are to Complete Streets principles, noting key strengths and weaknesses.]

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

Expanded details for this section

Long section

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

Relevant Document(s) in your Locality: may include the published 5 year Capital Improvement Plan(s) and Budget Documents related to transportation infrastructure

For each CIP/Budget document reviewed:

Document Name: [Enter Document Name Here]

Date of Adoption/Last Revision: [Enter Date Here]

Relevant Sections (Keywords to look for): "Transportation Projects," "Capital Projects," "Infrastructure Budget," "Streets," "Roads," "Sidewalks," "Bikeways," "Transit," "Funding Priorities," "Project Selection," "Multi-modal Projects"

Funding for Multi-modal Projects: Does the CIP allocate funding to projects that explicitly improve pedestrian, bicycle, or transit infrastructure? Is there a dedicated budget line item for multi-modal projects?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Balance of Investment: Is there a balance in transportation infrastructure investment across different modes? Or is the vast majority of funding directed towards vehicle-focused projects (road widening, vehicle capacity expansion)?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Project Descriptions and Scope: When describing transportation projects, do the descriptions include elements beyond vehicle traffic, such as sidewalk improvements, bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, or accessibility upgrades?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Prioritization Criteria in CIP: Does the CIP document outline criteria for prioritizing capital projects? Do these criteria include factors related to multi-modal needs, safety, accessibility, or equity, or are they solely focused on vehicle traffic or cost-benefit ratios related to vehicles?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]
Community Input in CIP Process: Is there a process for community input or public participation in the development of the CIP and the selection of transportation projects?
- Evidence/Examples: [Provide specific quotes or references from the plan.]
- Relevance Score (0-3): [Enter Score Here]

Overall Relevance Score for Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) / Budget Documents: [Average of scores for Questions 1-5]

Summary of Relevance: [Briefly summarize how relevant the CIP and Budget documents are to Complete Streets principles, noting key strengths and weaknesses in funding and project prioritization.]

Other Relevant Policies/Procedures (Optional)

For example: Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Sustainability Plan, ADA Transition Plan, Vision Zero Resolution and repeat the question format above as applicable.

Overall Audit Summary & Action Plan

Expanded details for this section

Long section

Overall Audit Summary & Action Plan

Summary Table of Document Relevance Scores:

Document Type	Relevant Document Names (Example)	Overall Relevance Score (Average)	Summary of Relevance (Brief)
General/Comprehensive Plan	[Document Name 1], [Document Name 2]...	[Average Score]	[Brief Summary - Strengths/Weaknesses]
Transportation Master Plan/Element	[Document Name 1], [Document Name 2]...	[Average Score]	[Brief Summary - Strengths/Weaknesses]
Zoning Ordinance/Code	[Document Name 1], [Document Name 2]...	[Average Score]	[Brief Summary - Strengths/Weaknesses]
Street Design Standards/Eng. Manuals	[Document Name 1], [Document Name 2]...	[Average Score]	[Brief Summary - Strengths/Weaknesses]
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)/Budget	[Document Name 1], [Document Name 2]...	[Average Score]	[Brief Summary - Strengths/Weaknesses]
Other (Specify: [Document Type])	[Document Name 1], [Document Name 2]...	[Average Score]	[Brief Summary - Strengths/Weaknesses]

Overall Strengths Across Local Policies (Related to Complete Streets): [Summarize the common strengths you identified across all document types that are supportive of Complete Streets principles. What existing policies or practices can you build upon?]
Overall Gaps and Weaknesses Across Local Policies (Related to Complete Streets): [Summarize the major gaps and weaknesses you identified across all document types in relation to Complete Streets principles. Where are the most significant areas for improvement and policy change needed?]
Key Policy Recommendations for Complete Streets Advocacy: [Based on your comprehensive audit, list your top 3-5 most important policy recommendations that a new Complete Streets policy should address to fill the identified gaps and weaknesses in your locality's existing framework. Be specific and actionable.]