This is an article in progress
Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials  Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.
The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users . First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets . Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities .
Typical Design Elements 
- Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals
- Curb extensions
- Bicycle Lanes
- Designated Bus Lanes
- Shared use paths
- Safe and Accessible transit stops
- Bulleted list item
- Promote economic growth "without inviting gentrification of long time residents and businessess"
- Transforming important streets into public spaces for walking, biking, and interaction.
- Inviting people to interact with street furniture, public art, architecture and landscaping to promote the community's brand.
- Sustaining and restoring environments by introducing infrastructure that catches rainwater and cleans runoff.
- Encourage healthy and active transportation such as walking and biking and healthy lifestyles
- Introduce traffic calming measures appropriate to the environment (e.g. in residential areas).
Shared Streets are street layouts in which pedestrian and automobile traffic in integrated. It is a street model that is systemetized and in use in Euruope, Israel, Japan, and Australia .
Transit's role in complete streets
Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual 
Bus Lane Construction
Bus stops with high a frequency of stops and turns are reinforced with concrete pads.
California cyclist are required by law to ride as close to the right side as possible, so when there is not enough width for seperate bus and bicycle lanes, cyclists can use the bus lane. As buses approach as cyclist, the driver can maneuver around the cyclist to pass. Although cyclists can avoid regular vehicular traffic by sharing this type of lane, the cyclists and buses may ultimately have to continuously merge into adjacent lanes to pass (by leap frogging).
Dedicated Bicycle Lane and Bus lane
This street design separates the road into three types of lanes from left to right: regular lane, bicycle lane, and bus lane.
Transit stops should comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and be pedestrian friendly and by providing adequate walkways and furnished with shelter, bench, and trash receptacles, trees, and lighting as needed. Appropriate signage can include real time information and maps of routes. Transit stops can also be adorned with public art and interactive lighting, and play elements to improve user experience.
- Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.
- Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. "Street Design: Part Complete Streets." Public Roads 74.1 (2010)
- Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. "America needs complete streets." ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43
- Bogert, Suzanne. "Living Streets Design Manual." Model Design Manual for Living Streets. LA County Department of Public Health, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
- Ben-Joseph, Eran. "Changing the residential street scene: Adapting the shared street (woonerf) concept to the suburban environment." Journal of the American Planning Association 61.4 (1995): 504-515