A road transforming from city to nature, symbolizing Complete Streets and SmartRoads.

Complete Streets vs. SmartRoads: What Can These Urban Design Philosophies Learn From Each Other?

Lena Voss in Climate & Environment July 2025 • 4 min read.

"Explore how American Complete Streets and Australian SmartRoads are reshaping urban landscapes, and how they can improve by adopting each other's strengths."

For decades, road management in both Australia and America has been primarily focused on easing vehicle flow and reducing traffic jams. However, there's been a shift towards recognizing the important role roads play in our communities. Considerations like road safety, fair access, community integration, and catering to various road users (including public transit, pedestrians, and cyclists) are becoming more important.

Two relatively new methods for designing and managing roads—Complete Streets in the United States and SmartRoads network operations planning in Australia—show this shift. Complete Streets aims to create roads that work for everyone, while SmartRoads focuses on efficient, multi-modal network performance. This article will discuss the Complete Streets movement in America and introduce the SmartRoads management framework, which was created in Victoria, Australia.

We'll compare the scope, focus, and strategies of both frameworks. Although they were developed around the same time, they differ in significant ways. By learning from each other, both approaches can significantly improve how roads are managed and designed in both Australia and the United States.

What Are the Shared Philosophies Behind Complete Streets and SmartRoads?

A road transforming from city to nature, symbolizing Complete Streets and SmartRoads.

Recently, both Australia and the United States have significantly changed their approaches to road planning and traffic management. Previously, road design and traffic management prioritized the efficient movement of motorized vehicles, mainly cars and trucks. However, this focus often came at the expense of public transportation, walking, and cycling infrastructure.

In the mid-2000s, there was a shift in how road space was viewed and managed. In 2005, the National Complete Streets Coalition was launched in the United States, advocating that streets should accommodate all users, regardless of age, physical ability, or mode of transportation. Meanwhile, in 2007, the Victorian state road authority (VicRoads) in Australia introduced the SmartRoads Network Operations Planning (NOP) framework (7), which uses multi-modal level of service (LOS) to manage the competing demands of different road users across the network.

Complete Streets: Aims for safe roadways for all users, addressing decades of underinvestment in infrastructure for active modes and focusing on safety and equity.
SmartRoads: Focuses on improving network efficiency for all road users, balancing general traffic, freight, transit, cycling, and walking through multimodal perspectives.

Complete Streets policies emphasize improving road safety and considering all road users, with a strong equity component to address disparities in pedestrian deaths. While Complete Streets policies mention "all road users," there is a tendency to focus on walking and cycling. In contrast, SmartRoads primarily aims to provide decision-making tools to improve the road network's efficiency for all road users, considering general traffic, freight, transit, cycling, and walking. The key is its multimodal approach with a network-wide perspective.

How Can Complete Streets and SmartRoads Improve Road Management?

Both the SmartRoads and Complete Streets frameworks have the potential to make great improvements in road design. By implementing key pieces such as road safety, consideration of all road users, and network-wide operations. With that said, practitioners in America, Australia, and around the world are dealing with similar challenges to transitioning from a vehicle-focused road to roads for everyone. By combining these approaches we can continue working towards safety, equity, and sustainability in our road systems.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1177/0361198118777379, Alternate LINK

Title: American Complete Streets And Australian Smartroads: What Can We Learn From Each Other?

Subject: Mechanical Engineering

Journal: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

Publisher: SAGE Publications

Authors: Alexa Delbosc, James Reynolds, Wesley Marshall, Andrew Wall

Published: 2018-06-08

Everything You Need To Know

What is the primary goal of Complete Streets, and how does it differ from the initial focus of road management?

Complete Streets primarily aims to create safe roadways for all users, ensuring infrastructure caters to various modes of transportation, including pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit. This contrasts with the historical approach to road management, which predominantly prioritized the efficient flow of motorized vehicles, often neglecting the needs of other road users and compromising safety and equity. The Complete Streets approach addresses the underinvestment in infrastructure for active modes and focuses on safety and equity, a shift from the earlier emphasis on vehicle flow.

How does SmartRoads contribute to urban design and management compared to Complete Streets?

SmartRoads, introduced by VicRoads in Australia, focuses on enhancing network efficiency for all road users through multi-modal perspectives. It provides decision-making tools to improve the road network's performance, considering general traffic, freight, transit, cycling, and walking. This is different from Complete Streets, which emphasizes safe roadways for all users, focusing on walking and cycling. SmartRoads takes a broader view, managing the competing demands of diverse road users across the network to optimize overall efficiency. This framework focuses on network-wide operations, as opposed to the Complete Streets, which are focused on local user infrastructure.

What are the key differences in the approaches of Complete Streets and SmartRoads in addressing road users' needs?

Complete Streets emphasizes the inclusion of all road users with a focus on walking and cycling. It addresses decades of underinvestment in infrastructure for active modes and focuses on safety and equity, specifically aiming to reduce disparities in pedestrian deaths. SmartRoads takes a broader approach, striving to improve network efficiency for all users. This means balancing the needs of general traffic, freight, transit, cycling, and walking through multimodal considerations. SmartRoads utilizes a network-wide perspective, unlike Complete Streets, which, while mentioning all users, sometimes primarily addresses needs related to walking and cycling.

In which ways can Complete Streets and SmartRoads be combined to improve road systems?

Complete Streets and SmartRoads can be combined to improve road systems by integrating their respective strengths. Complete Streets' focus on road safety, equity, and accommodating all users, especially pedestrians and cyclists, can be enhanced by the network efficiency and multi-modal management approach of SmartRoads. Combining these approaches can lead to better urban design and management by addressing various needs of the diverse road users. Integrating the focus of safety and equity from Complete Streets with the network optimization from SmartRoads can lead to enhanced road safety and improved sustainability, and help transition from vehicle-focused roads to roads that benefit everyone.

What was the shift in the road planning and traffic management philosophies, and when did it occur?

In the mid-2000s, both Australia and the United States experienced a notable shift in their road planning and traffic management philosophies. Prior to this period, the primary focus was on ensuring the efficient movement of motorized vehicles. However, there was a growing recognition of the importance of road safety, fair access, community integration, and catering to various road users, including public transit, pedestrians, and cyclists. This shift is evidenced by the launch of the National Complete Streets Coalition in the United States in 2005 and the introduction of the SmartRoads Network Operations Planning (NOP) framework by VicRoads in Australia in 2007. These initiatives reflect a broader move towards designing roads that work for all users, not just vehicles.