TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN RURAL AMERICAWashington, DC 20001 202.624.7806 Tel 202.624.8813 Fax [email protected] Nado.org A Scan of Rural Transportation Consultation & Planning 4 Setting

Emerging Models for Local Consultation, Regional Coordination & Rural Planning Organizations

December 2005

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN RURAL AMERICA:

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS (NADO) RESEARCH FOUNDATION

About the NADO Research Foundation

Founded in 1988, the NADO Research Foundation is the non-profit researchaffiliate of the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO).

The NADO Research Foundation identifies, studies and promotes regionalsolutions and approaches to improving local prosperity and services throughthe nationwide network of regional development organizations.

The Research Foundation shares best practices and offers professionaldevelopment training, analyzes the impact of federal policies and programson regional development organizations, and examines the latest develop-ments and trends in small metropolitan and rural America. Most importantly,the Research Foundation is helping bridge the communications gap amongpractitioners, researchers and policy makers.

The Research Foundation’s current portfolio of educational programs andresearch projects covers issues such as community and economic develop-ment, rural transportation planning, homeland security and emergencypreparedness, brownfields redevelopment, environmental stewardship andsmall business development finance. Visit Nado.org to learn more about theNADO Research Foundation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Funded under an agreement with the U.S. Department ofTransportation’s Federal Highway Administration inpartnership with the National Association of Counties.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommenda-tions expressed in this publication are those of the authorand do not necessarily reflect the view of the FederalHighway Administration.

The NADO Research Foundation encourages readers toquote or use material from this report in publications orfor other professional purposes. We ask that all materialbe properly credited, that a copy of any publication inwhich this material is quoted be sent to the NADOResearch Foundation and the Research Foundation beinformed of any other professional use of material fromthis publication.

This special report was a collaborative effort of the NADOResearch Foundation staff and graduate student interns.Special recognition is merited for the work of twooutstanding research interns, Astrid Wood and JonathanKappler. Zanetta Doyle, Communications Manager andLaurie Thompson, Director of Programs, providedresearch, writing and background information on thereport. Matthew Chase, Executive Director, also providedoverall oversight of the project, technical assistance andresearch background on the project. The report designwas conducted by SDYER design.

National Association of Development Organizations(NADO) Research Foundation400 North Capitol Street, N.W.Suite 390Washington, DC 20001202.624.7806 Tel202.624.8813 [email protected]

A Scan of Rural Transportation Consultation & Planning 4

Setting the Stage: Evolution of Rural Transportation Planning 5

Rural Consultation and Planning Practices: Insights, Views andPractices from the Field 8

SNAPSHOTS: Regional Development Organizations ProvidingRural Transportation Planning Services 13

Alabama 13Arizona 14California 14Colorado 15Connecticut 16Florida 16Georgia 16Indiana 17Iowa 17Kentucky 18Maine 19Michigan 20Minnesota 21Missouri 22New Hampshire 22New Mexico 23New York 24North Carolina 25Oregon 26Pennsylvania 27South Carolina 28South Dakota 29Tennessee 30Texas 31Utah 32Vermont 32Virginia 33Washington 34

4 NADO Research Foundation • December 2005

n late 2005, the NADO Research Foundation con-ducted a nationwide scan of the rural transportationplanning and consultation practices of the nation’s 320regional development organizations that primarilyserve small metropolitan and rural regions. The projectconsisted of an online questionnaire for rural transpor-tation planners and executive directors of regionaldevelopment organizations, along with a comprehen-sive review of annual reports, Web sites, work programsand contractual agreements with state transportationagencies.

Transportation Planning in Rural America: EmergingModels for Local Consultation, Regional Coordination andRural Planning Organizations builds on the ResearchFoundation’s nearly ten years of studies into theemerging and evolving partnerships between statetransportation agencies and regional developmentorganizations with respect to facilitating and enhancingthe involvement of rural local government officials instatewide planning, a process best described as the“gateway” for accessing federal surface transportationfunds.

Unlike statewide and metropolitan planning, the fieldof rural transportation planning is still in its infancy.Federal transportation laws have mandated and fundedcomprehensive transportation planning for urban areas,including through the formation and work of Metro-politan Planning Organizations (MPOs), since theearly 1960s. However, the planning and prioritizationof federal-aid eligible transportation investments inrural areas have been under the sole purview of statetransportation officials until the early 1990s when thepassage of the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (ISTEA) set the stage for greater localparticipation.

Under the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury (TEA-21), federal policy makers aimed toelevate the importance of rural official participation instatewide and regional planning and programmingactivities. Even though non-metropolitan areas stilllack a dedicated federal funding set aside and a feder-ally-mandated organizational structure and workprogram like MPOs, the Federal Highway Administra-tion and Federal Transit Administration issued imple-mentation rules for TEA-21 in January 2003 that aregiving a new voice to rural local officials and regionaldevelopment organizations.

A Scan of Rural Transportation Consultation & Planning

This report offers some preliminary insights into theimpact, trends and partnerships being forged as a resultof the new rural planning and consultation rules. Thereport examines why regional development organiza-tions have emerged as a valued and trusted partner forstate transportation officials as they strive to imple-ment the new federal guidelines. More importantly,the report sheds new light on the growing network ofRural Planning Organizations being created and staffedby regional development organizations with the supportof state and local officials, along with case studies thatshowcase the activities and results of these regionalplanning entities.

I

5NADO Research Foundation • December 2005

For nearly four decades, the nation’s metropolitanregions and their local elected officials have beenempowered under various federal laws to draft andpursue strategies for improving the efficiency, coordina-tion and expansion of their transportation systems andservices.

These activities are governed, coordinated and staffedby Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).Most importantly, the responsibilities and fundingresources for MPOs are specifically outlined andmandated under federal surface transportation law.This process has its origins dating back to the early1960s, with significant upgrades enacted under the1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA) and continued through the 2005 SAFETEA-LU law.

In non-metropolitan areas under 50,000 population,the development of plans, programs and projectpriorities for federal-aid eligible transportation invest-ments have historically been dominated by statetransportation officials, with little to no formalinvolvement of local government officials.

Starting with the 1991 ISTEA legislation and evenmore so under the 1998 TEA-21 law, federal policymakers worked to provide a more reasonable balancebetween the traditional roles and functions of statetransportation agencies and the benefits of incorporat-ing the views and needs of rural local officials in thestate planning process.

While leaders of the congressional transportationcommittees understood the value of enhancing theroles of rural local officials, they also wanted to avoid afederal directive requiring states to use a single ap-proach or technique for rural consultation. Theresulting compromise was a general call for states to“enhance” their consultation outreach with rural localofficials, including through the facilitation of regionaldevelopment organizations.

Setting the Stage:Evolution of Rural Transportation Planning

As outlined in the National Academy of PublicAdministration’s pioneering report in May 2000, RuralTransportation Consultation Processes, state transporta-tion officials have historically used nine major methodsto consult with rural local officials. These techniquesrange from basic practices such as state consultationtours, state hearings and the convening of state policy-

making and advisory boards. Typically, local govern-ment officials, along with the general public, areinvited to attend these various events and meetings.

The more advanced practices involve the sub-alloca-tion of transportation funds and responsibilities,partnering with MPOs to consider the needs of areasoutside the metropolitan planning boundaries andestablishing specific processes for the interactiveexchange of views with individual and groups of localofficials.

Over the past 15 years, states have increasingly turnedto the existing network of regional developmentorganizations to facilitate and coordinate the input ofrural officials, in addition to performing a variety ofrural planning tasks.

The work programs of regional development organiza-tions may be as basic as helping market and coordinatethe various state outreach efforts aimed at localofficials, the public and targeted stakeholder groups.

The field of rural transportation planning and consultation continues to evolve and mature since the passage of the1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the accompanying federal rules issued in January2003 for state consultation with non-metropolitan local officials.

Regional Development OrganizationsAre Known by Many Different Names, Depending on the State:

Area Development DistrictsAssociations of GovernmentCouncils of GovernmentEconomic Development DistrictsLocal Development DistrictsPlanning and Development DistrictsPlanning Development CommissionsRegional Councils of Local GovernmentRegional Planning Commissions


Tasks may also involve providing professional technicalassistance to state and local officials on transportationenhancement projects, special transportation studiesand the collection and analysis of transportation datausing geographic information system (GIS) tools.

A growing number of states are tapping into theplanning expertise, grant management skills and local

official networks of regional development organizationsto help form and staff a more formal and locally-drivenconsultation model referred to as Rural PlanningOrganizations or RPOs.

While the definition and meaning of a MetropolitanPlanning Organization is clearly outlined in federaltransportation rules and law, the NADO ResearchFoundation has found that the term Rural PlanningOrganization is used more liberally to reference anentity that provides a forum for local input on transpor-tation issues impacting communities of 50,000 or less.

In 1998, the NADO Research Foundation identified 17state highway agencies with formal contracts orfunding agreements with regional developmentorganizations for RPO-type assistance. By December2005, the number had grown to a minimum of 25states, with several others in various stages of discus-sions about forming new partnerships or pilots.

In isolated cases, such as in Texas, local officials andregional development organizations have formed RPOswithout the financial or staff support of the state. Whenthis occurs it typically involves regions with urbanencroachment of rural communities or in regions wherelocal officials feel left out of the state planning process.

In almost all cases, according to the ResearchFoundation’s scan, RPOs are either a program of anexisting regional development organization or created

In January 2003, the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued anew rule to guide the consultation process between statetransportation officials and non-metropolitan local officials.The new rule implements the congressional intent of the1998 TEA-21 law to enhance the participation of rural localelected and appointed officials in the statewide transporta-tion planning and decision-making processes. Highlights ofthe rule include:

• Each state must have developed and implemented adocumented process for local official input into statewidetransportation plans and investment programs by February2004.

• By February 2006 and at least every five years afterwards,states must seek feedback from local officials regarding theconsultation process. States are also directed to seekcomments and input from state associations of counties,municipal officials, regional development organizations andother non-metropolitan officials.

• The consultation process must be “separate and discrete”from state processes to obtain input from the generalpublic, giving more weight to local government officials inrecognition of their significant transportation responsibili-ties, including ownership of roads, bridges and transitsystems.

• The rule modified the definition of “consultation” to requirestates to confer with local officials before taking actions,consider the officials’ views and periodically inform themabout actions taken. In addition, the rule clarifies that thedefinition of “non-metropolitan local official” includeselected and appointed officials.

• States that choose not to follow recommendations providedby local officials during the comment period are required tomake the reasons for their decisions public.

Source: Federal Register, January 23, 2003; Technical Corrections February 14, 2003.

FHWA-FTA Rules:State Consultation with Rural Officials

“The consultation process must be‘separate and discrete’ from state processes

to obtain input from the general public,giving more weight to local government officialsin recognition of their significant transportationresponsibilities, including ownership of roads,

bridges and transit systems.”


as a separate non-profit entity that is governed by aseparate policy board but housed and staffed by theregional planning agency.

While MPOs, especially those serving urban areasabove 200,000 population, have more autonomy andcontrol of their planning and project selection pro-cesses, the work of RPOs is generally more advisory innature and subject to state oversight and control.

Like MPOs, most RPOs operate policy and technicalcommittees. They develop lists of project priorities,sometimes fiscally constrained and other times a fullwish list, within their region for consideration by statedecision makers. They conduct various data collectionand analysis activities including the use of GIS. Alimited but increasing number of RPOs are tasked withdeveloping more detailed long-range plans and visionsfor their regions.

Most notably, RPOs serve as a link between stateDOTs, local officials and citizens in ensuring there isformal and continuous input from rural leaders into thestatewide transportation planning and decision-makingprocess.

RPOs are working to integrate the needs of the varioustransportation modes into the planning process, withan increasing awareness of the needs of public transpor-tation providers. As emphasized in the 2005SAFETEA-LU law, RPOs will also be tasked withreaching out to freight, business and natural resourceorganizations to better incorporate their input intoregional and rural plans.

If the past 15 years is any evidence, the work of RPOsand regional development organizations will continueto mature and progress with time.

Benefits of InvolvingLocal Stakeholders inRural Transportation Planning• Increased trust in government. This benefit is greatest when

the consultation process is viewed as fair, open, inclusive,timely and legitimate.

• Better plans and programs. Consultation frequentlyidentifies new needs and better ideas for meeting needs,especially from ideas outside the transportation field itself.Such ideas may be key to helping transportation programscontribute most effectively to economic development, landuse, livability and other goals of state and local govern-ments.

• Stronger support for implementing plans and programs.Often, developing plans and programs is the easy part.Getting them implemented is harder. Local official involve-ment in the planning and programming process frequentlyhelps to improve the implementation record.

• Improved performance of transportation systems and betteroutcomes for people. Feedback from local officials can helpkeep track of the performance of the transportation systemin addition to its contributions to improving the outcomesfor people in terms of accessibility, social justice, livability,safety and economic vitality and opportunity in ruralAmerica — the kinds of outcome goals set forth in the U.S.Department of Transportation’s own strategic plan.

Source: Rural Transportation Consultation Processes,National Academy of Public Administration (May 2000)


State Partnerships with Regions for RuralTransportation Planning and Consultation ServicesBy the end of 2005, the number of state transportationagencies with contractual agreements or partnershipswith the nation’s regional development organizationshad grown to at least 25 states.

In addition, several states are conducting or exploringoptions for pilot programs or targeted services for ruralregions. This is up from 17 states in August 1998 and23 states in December 2003. Of the respondents, nearly20 percent also administer and staff a MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO) for their urban areas.

Among the more notable developments in the past twoyears is the creation of 12 new Rural TransportationPlanning Organizations in Tennessee under a newpartnership agreement between the Tennessee Depart-ment of Transportation and the state’s nine regionaldevelopment organizations.

In Alabama, the state funded and launched a two-yearRPO pilot in the western portion of the state. TheWest Alabama Regional Commission, which alsoserves as the MPO for the Tuscaloosa metropolitanarea, administered and staffed this successful effort. Asa result of the pilot, the state is now planning to bringthe RPO concept statewide in the fall of 2006.

In Missouri, the state worked with the MPOs, ruralregions and other key stakeholders to a launch anenhanced planning framework that is focused on increas-ing the participation and input of local officials and thepublic. While the state already had a strong track recordin rural consultation, state officials decided to increasetheir financial support of the rural planning regions.

The state of North Carolina chartered 20 new RPOsacross the state, mostly in partnership with the existingnetwork of regional development organizations. Withfunding between $80,000 and $100,000 each, theRPOs are functioning in a similar role as the MPOs.

The regions in Kentucky continue to play a central rolein the state’s planning and project selection process.Known as Area Development Districts, the regionsupdated and digitized all of the centerlines of publicroadways under a contract with the state. The statenow funds a full-time staff position for each ADD toimplement regional highway safety programs.

While Florida is covered mostly by MPOs, there areseveral rural regions in the central and western portionsof the state. Two regional planning commissions in thenorthwest corner recently signed agreements to serve asliaisons between the state and the rural areas of theregion not served by an MPO.

Under the five-year contract, the regions will conductmeetings with county staff and elected officials to assistin the distribution of information and to gather inputon the state’s five year work program and otheractivities.

Overall, the working relationship and partnerships instates that use regional development organizations forrural planning and consultation assistance are positiveand continue to mature. According to respondentsfrom these states, 68 percent rated the state’s consulta-tion process as very good or good and the remaining 32percent rated it as somewhat good.

In states with very limited or no partnerships betweenstate transportation officials and the regions therespondents either had little knowledge of the state’sconsultation process or held a lower opinion of thetechniques being used to engage rural local officials.

In isolated cases, regional development organizations inportions of a state, such as Texas, have formed andfunded their own rural transportation planningprograms or organizations. While they are operatingwithout financial support from the state, they areestablishing better communications with regional anddistrict staff of the state transportation departments.

Rural Consultation and Planning Practices:Insights, Views and Practices from the Field

The NADO Research Foundation conducted a national scan of 320 regional development organizations in late 2005to determine their involvement in facilitating the involvement of rural local officials in the statewide transportationplanning process. The scan examined the various partnerships and contractual agreements between statetransportation agencies and these regional planning entities to promote and foster regional approaches totransportation planning and development in rural areas. The following results are based on responses from 126organizations to an online questionnaire, phone interviews and a comprehensive review of the Web sites, annualreports and work programs of regional development organizations.


State Funding Support for RegionsState transportation agencies provide a range offunding to regional development organizations for ruralconsultation and planning services, from a low of$10,000 to a high of more than $240,000 annually.The most common increments are between $50,000 -$75,000, followed by $25,000 - $50,000 and $100,000or more on an annual basis.

According to scan respondents, the state DOT typicallyuses either federal statewide planning and research(SPR) funds, state transportation funds or a mix offederal and state funds to support the partnerships.

In addition, most states require a local match, mostly acash contribution from counties and municipalities or amix of cash and in-kind contributions. The mostcommon rate was a 20 percent local match, with a 10percent match a distant second. Nearly 15 percentindicated that the state does not require a local match.

By comparison, according to the Association ofMetropolitan Planning Organizations, the nation’s 385Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) receive a1.25 percent funding takedown from the core highwayprograms and another allocation from the transitaccount. Federal planning funding for MPOs is nearly$300 million each year. Budgets for individual MPOsrange from a high of nearly $9 million annually for thelargest MPO to a low of nearly $100,000 for thesmallest MPOs.

Governance and Leadership CommitteesRegional development organizations with ruraltransportation programs typically operate with theassistance and leadership of a policy and technicaladvisory committees.

Policy committees generally consist of county andmunicipal elected officials as the primary members,along with state transportation officials. More thanone-third of respondents indicated that public citizens

and transit officials also serve on the policy committee.In select states and cases, some regions expanded theircommittee membership to include state legislators andrepresentatives of other modal interests such as freight,trucking, aviation and ports.

The primary role of the policy committee is to reviewand adopt recommendations for state consideration,including applications for transportation enhancementprojects and regional priorities for federal-aid highwayprojects.

Technical advisory committees are focused more on thenuts and bolts of the planning process. They generallyconsist of local public works staff, state transportationofficials and transit providers, along with the region’splanning staff.

Nearly one-fourth of respondents reported that publiccitizens, civic interest groups and bike/pedestrianrepresentatives also serve on the technical panels. Inselected cases, the committees have representativesfrom the trucking industry, regional and local airportauthorities, the Army Corps of Engineers, regional andlocal water authorities and local government land useplanners.

Further illustrating the evolution RPOs, a small butgrowing number also have a safety committee and acommittee for transportation enhancement projects,compared to previous research.

“State transportation agencies providea range of funding to regional development

organizations for rural consultation and planningservices, from a low of $10,000 to a high

of more than $240,000 annually.The most common increments are between

$50,000 - $75,000, followed by$25,000 - $50,000 and $100,000

or more on an annual basis.”


Functions and Work ProgramsRegional development organizations perform a varietyof functions across the country. The most commonwork elements include facilitating and assisting withthe public involvement process for state transportationagencies, along with fostering the input of rural localofficials into statewide and regional planning processes.

The vast majority of regions also provide professionaltechnical assistance to local governments, especiallywith transportation enhancement applications andprojects, corridor studies and GIS data collection andanalysis.

The more advanced regions with RPO-type workprograms develop regional priorities for considerationand adoption into the statewide transportationimprovement program (STIP) and nearly 50 percent ofrespondents reported they are now assisting withcrafting statewide and regional long-range plans forrural parts of the state.

Between one-third and 50 percent of respondents alsoreported that they are involved in issues such as landuse planning coordinated with transportation, trafficcount studies, transit planning, pedestrian and bicyclesafety, corridor studies and intermodal planning.

In a few cases, scan participants noted that they areinvolved with travel demand forecasting and air qualitymonitoring, although these groups are more advancedand likely to also serve as an MPO. Several groups alsohighlighted their involvement in the deployment andplanning of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)services, scenic byway planning, parking studies andindustrial site access road development.

Modal Coverage of Planning EffortsRPOs are charged with assuring local transportationstakeholders - elected and appointed officials, residents,civic groups and others - are consulted throughout theplanning process.

As they gather information about local needs, it isfiltered up to the state level where rural concerns andneeds are considered throughout the statewide plan-ning process. But how information is gathered at thelocal level is often determined by the state governancemodel and culture.

As expected, the most common focus of rural planningefforts concerns the upkeep and improvements ofhighways and bridges. Nearly 70 percent of regions alsoreported incorporating rural public transportationservices, greenway and bicycle / pedestrian projects intotheir planning efforts and more than 50 percent addressaviation, intermodal facilities and railway issues.

A select few also reported that they include barge andriver transportation, private transit providers, militarybase access and freight needs into their planningprogram.

Impact of Federal Rural Consultation Rules and OtherState MethodsThe impact of the January 2003 federal transportationrules for state consultation with rural local officials ishaving a positive effect, according to scan participants.More than one-third reported that the new federalrules have improved the state’s consultation processwhile another one-third indicated that their existingprocess was solid so the rules did not change the state-rural official relationship.

Nearly 25 percent felt the new FHWA-FTA rules havenot been implemented fully in their state. None of therespondents reported that the new rules harmed thestate consultation process.

In addition to using regional development organiza-tions as the facilitators of rural input, scan participantsindicated that a common technique used by states is toinvite rural public officials to various hearings, forumsand committee meetings. Nearly half reported thatstate officials have direct formal communications withrural local governments in addition to informaldialogue and information exchanges. Only a fewrespondents indicated that their state sub-allocatesfunds to rural governments.

“Regional development organizationsperform a variety of functions across the country.

The most common work elementsinclude facilitating and assisting with

the public involvement processfor state transportation agencies,

along with fostering the input ofrural local officials into statewide and regional

planning processes.”


Pressing Transportation Needs of Rural RegionsThe most pressing transportation need in ruralAmerica, according to 80 percent of scan participants,is the upgrading and maintenance of existing highwayand bridge systems. More than 50 percent placed amajor priority on developing transportation corridorsfor economic development and nearly one-thirdmentioned the need to establish or enhance publictransportation services in their rural regions.

In targeted areas, participants reported concerns aboutpreserving or attracting regular air service to regionaland rural airports, preserving access to the nationalrailway network for businesses and the importance ofstrengthening intermodal connectors for both freightand passengers.

Some scan participants placed the highest priority oncoordinating with public land management agencies,complying with new federal air quality rules andmanaging land use changes. There was also mention ofmaintaining funding equity for rural areas in thestatewide investment process.

In response to an inquiry about the rural activitiesrelated to Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)deployment, most participants reported that they werenot yet involved. Several groups indicated they arestarting to use ITS technology, especially for regionaltransit coordination and traffic information near touristattractions. They also noted that ITS is often used bythe states in the rural fringes near metropolitan areasand on the Interstates.

Benefits of UsingExisting Regional PlanningEntities To FacilitateRural TransportationConsultationBy working with regional development organizations,according to findings of the NADO Research Foundationscan, state transportation officials can better coordinate theparticipation of local elected officials and the public in therural transportation planning and project investmentprocess.

These regional entities are ideal partners for state transporta-tion agencies because they are:

• Recognized and established under state law or executiveorder.

• Experienced with economic development, land use andenvironmental planning.

• Owned and governed by local government officials and havestrong links to community leaders.

• Service providers and coordinators for a variety of federaleconomic development, community development andhuman service programs.

• Experienced with fostering regional collaborations anddialogue among local government officials within a regionand state.

• Known by local government and community leaders ascredible and professional organizations.

• Accountable organizations with strong fiscal and grantmanagement experience.


Regional Development Organizations Conducting RuralTransportation Planning

NOTE: Information is based on phone interviews, responses to an online questionnaire and a comprehensive scan of the work programs, contracts, annualreports and Web sites of regional development organizations and state transportation departments. As noted in the comment section, some of the regionsprovide very limited or specific services rather than serving as a full-service rural transportation planning organization. Unlike the federal definition of aMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs), there is no official federal definition for a Rural Planning Organization.

State Annual Funding from Number of Regions Comments/NotesFederal & State Sources Involved in Rural Planning

Alabama $60,000 1 Two-year pilot; expanding statewide in fall2006

Arizona $80,000 - $125,000 4 Each region also receives an extra $15,000for rural transit planning

California $77,000 - $220,000 26 Formula funding from state DOT

Colorado $6,000 - $15,000 10 10 RPOs plus 5 MPOs serve smallmetropolitan and major urban areas

Connecticut $60,000 4 Regions conduct transit planning

Florida $25,000 2 New program for most rural portions of state

Georgia $50,000 - $90,000 15 Public outreach, GIS and technicalassistance

Indiana $40,000 6 Implementing new fundingformula

Iowa $20,000 baseline 18 Statewide STP funding available-$1.6million

Kentucky $80,00 - $105,000 15 Includes separate funds for safety activities

Maine $55,000 10 Consultation process revised in 2005

Massachusetts $160,000 3

Michigan $40,000 14 Mostly public outreach and roadwayinventory

Minnesota $50,0009 Regions provide assistance to areapartnerships

Missouri $44,000 - $55,000 17 RPO process since 1990s; Revised 2005

New Hampshire $130,000 6 Operating based on MPO model

New Mexico $65,000 7 2005 was first year with all COGs involved

North Carolina $80,000 - $100,000 20 Formula funding from state DOT

Oregon $50,000 6 Six of 11 regional transportationcommissions staffed by regional councils

Pennsylvania $90,000 - $140,000 6 State also funds 5 individual counties

South Carolina $75,000 10 Incorporating regional transit planning

South Dakota $77,000 4 GIS road data collection project only

Tennessee $60,000 12 Plus $1,500 per county in region

Texas $0 At least 4 Regions self-finance programs

Utah $40,000 2 Two regional councils administer two countyRPOs as pilots with state

Vermont $150,000 - $240,000 11 Full service rural transportation planners

Virginia $48,000 baseline 12 Regions eligible to apply for additionalcompetitive planning funds

Washington $30,000 baseline 16 States provide bet. $55,000 - $77,000 morebased on formula and work scope

Wisconsin $50,000 - $75,000 9 Limited to technical assistance for locals


ALABAMA

The West Alabama Regional Commission was selectedin late 2004 by the Alabama Department of Transpor-tation (ALDOT) to conduct a two-year planning andconsultation pilot project for a seven-county regionthat includes both rural and metropolitan areas.ALDOT is now planning to take the Rural PlanningOrganization (RPO) process statewide with the state’sother 11 regional development organizations (knownlocally as regional councils of government) by late2006.

The West Alabama Regional Commission, which alsoserves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization forthe Tuscalossa urban area, was responsible for establish-ing and staffing the West Alabama RPO. The RPOconsists of three primary committees: Policy Commit-tee, Technical Coordinating Committee and theCitizens Transportation Advisory Committee. Thestate provided $120,000 for the two-year effort andrequired a 20 percent local match.

The primary function of the RPO is to provide rurallocal officials and local citizens with increased dialogueand input with state policy officials and staff, inaddition to offering a formal framework to develop,prioritize and pursue transportation and safety improve-ments within the region.

One of the main products of the RPO planning effort isthe development of an integrated transportationinvestment plan that addresses the multi-modal needsof the region. The group identifies and shares ideas forlow-cost safety improvements with state districtengineers, county engineers and other relevantpartners. The RPO also develops a regional long-rangetransportation plan that sets goals and identifiesspecific project priorities for each county within theregion.

SNAPSHOTS:Regional Development Organizations Providing Rural Transportation Planning Services

Following are brief snapshots of the organizational structures, work programs and partnership models being usedby state transportation agencies and regional development organizations (RDOs) across the nation. These casestudies only represent a small sample of the emerging and innovative efforts of RDOs to foster informationexchanges, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rural transportation services and involve rural localofficials in statewide and regional planning initiatives.

“We are enthusiastic about this pilot project.We see the RPO as a link between the local communities and

the Alabama Department of Transportation to promotebetter communications and to improve the dissemination

of information regarding the transportation planning process,”Robert Lake, Executive Director

West Alabama Regional Commission


ARIZONA

The Arizona Department of Transportation hasfostered a meaningful dialogue and partnership withlocal officials by funding and supporting the activitiesof the state’s four regional development organizationsserving rural portions of the state. As entities governedby local elected officials, each regional developmentorganization (known locally as regional councils ofgovernment) has a full-time rural transportation staff toprepare and implement a comprehensive transportationwork program. Each region receives between $80,000and $125,000 each year, along with a 20 percent localmatch, to carry out the elements of the work program.

With the active participation of both elected andappointed local officials, each COG engages inintermodal planning, serves as a liaison between stateand local officials, and coordinates the developmentand implementation of a five year constructionprogram for federal-aid eligible projects.

Each region collects andanalyzes transportation datafor state and local agencies,reviews Section 5311 ruraltransit applications forconsistency with theregional plan, and coordi-nates the application andprioritization process fortransportation enhancementprojects and the Section5310 rural transit programfor the elderly and disabled.More recently, the regionshave also begun assisting

with the development of the state’s long-range trans-portation plan.

The rural COGs have joined together with the foursmall MPOs in the state to host an annual professionaldevelopment conference for elected officials, membersof the technical committees and other rural transporta-tion stakeholders.

The annual event, along with periodic trainingworkshops, helps enhance the technical understandingof local officials, provides a forum for peer networkingand information sharing, and allows the rural regions ofthe state to speak with a more unified voice. Inaddition, the rural coalition raises enough fundsannually through dues assessments and conference feesto support a full-time rural transportation liaison at thestate capital.

CALIFORNIA

The state of California uses a network of RegionalTransportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) that aresimilar in structure and responsibility to MPOs. The 44RTPAs (of which 18 are also MPOs) are typicallystaffed and housed within a council of government,cover a single county and are charged with preparingregional transportation plans and improvementprograms.

Like MPOs, the RTPAs have significant involvementand control of local elected and appointed officials inboth the planning and project investment processes.The state provides between $77,000 and $220,000 eachyear in federal and state planning funds to the RTPAsbased on a funding formula and the overall workprogram of each RTPA.

Each RTPA is tasked with implementing an annualwork program, developing a regional transportationplan and selecting projects for implementation. Theplans are focused on developing a coordinated andbalanced regional multimodal transportation system,including a significant emphasis on incorporatingpublic transportation services into the process.

For more specifics on the regional planning process,download the California Department ofTransportation’s Regional Planning Guidebook atwww.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/2003_Regional_Planning_Handbook.pdf.

“The Arizona rural consultation process has been successfulbecause it gets local officials involved, but we are also

focused on making sure that the state receives quality inputfrom local officials and the regions. In the end, the planning

and prioritization exercises of our rural officialsmust be reflected in the statewide process if we want

to maintain a high level of rural involvement.”Chris Fetzer, Transportation Director

Northern Arizona COG


COLORADO

Since 1991, Colorado state law has required a coopera-tive planning process for all parts of the state. Thestate DOT created 15 transportation planning regionsto help develop regional transportation plans forinclusion in the statewide plan. They focus heavily oninvolving the public, local leaders and other civicinterests in the planning process and crafting of a long-range vision for each region and the state.

Of the 15 regions, five are urban and served by Metro-politan Planning Organizations. The remaining tenregions are rural and are typically assisted by a regionaldevelopment organization (referred to as regionalplanning commissions in Colorado).

In establishing the rural planning process, eachregional commission was given the opportunity to use aconsultant or in-house planning staff to implement therequired work program.

officials and other key transportation stakeholders todiscuss transportation issues and identify priorities foreach region.

As outlined in the state DOT’s Regional TransportationPlanning Guidebook, “The vision for transportation andthe resulting transportation projects from each of theTransportation Planning Regions form the basis forColorado’s statewide transportation plan. Onlyprojects contained in or consistent with the regionaltransportation plans are eligible for inclusion in thestatewide plan. Consequently, only these projects areeligible for state and federal funding though theStatewide Transportation Improvement Program(STIP) process.”

For many years, two of Colorado’s communities,Mancos (pop. 1200) and Bayfield (pop. 1800)experienced an increase in accidents and fatalitiesdue to the lack of traffic signals. This resulted in thereconstruction and addition of traffic signals to twointersections in both of these communities. Thestate funded these projects at about $5-6 million. Thetown’s interest in treating the bypass as a local streetconflicted with the state’s need to have thesehighways serve their intended function as principalarterials. The region’s RPO helped set priorities forhow the money would be spent for these improve-ment projects and assisted with engineering analy-ses. Numerous focus groups and public meetingswere held. The final outcome was the installation ofadditional traffic signals and the addition of pedes-trian crossings, improved access to the mainhighway, enhancement grants for bike trails andsignificant safety improvements for vehicles andpedestrian crossings at these intersections.

According to Irene Merrifield of the Colorado Depart-ment of Transportation, “The state’s rural transporta-tion planning process is very much a grassroots effort.Our goal is to ensure that everyone has equal input inthe planning process.”

In addition, a representative of each region serves on astatewide transportation advisory committee. Thecommittee meets monthly and is attended by theRPCs, MPOs, state officials and federal highwayrepresentatives. Its purpose is to bring together local


CONNECTICUT

Four rural planning agencies, along with the elevenMPOs, play an active role in the state’s planning andprogramming process. Each rural agency has an annualplanning budget of $60,000, including $50,000 infederal funds, $5,000 in state money and $5,000 inlocal matching funds. The state also provides eachregion with an extra $20,000 to plan and implementrural transit services for the elderly and disabled.

The regional planning agencies are responsible forconducting rural planning activities. They assistmunicipalities with planning and administrativeservices and provide a forum for information exchangeswith state officials and neighboring communities.They provide input into the statewide plan andinvestment programs. In addition, they monitor,analyze and report on regional transportation data,assist with the public involvement process and performcorridor studies.

For more information about regional planning agenciesin Connecticut, visit www.opm.state.ct.us/igp/rpos/rpo.htm.

FLORIDA

Florida is covered mostly by MPOs, however there areseveral rural regions in the central and northwestportions of the state. Two regional planning commis-sions in the northwest corner signed funding agree-ments in late 2005 to serve as liaisons between one ofthe state district planning offices and the rural countiesof the region not served by an MPO. Under the five-year contract, the regional commissions will coordinatemeetings with county staff and local elected officials toassist in the distribution of information and help gathertimely input on the state’s five year work program andother activities. The process is viewed as an enhance-ment to the overall statewide rural consultationprocess.

For more information, visit the Apalachee RegionalPlanning Council Web site at www.thearpc.com.

GEORGIA

The 16 regional development organizations (knownlocally as regional development centers) in Georgiahave forged new partnerships with the state DOT thatare aimed at improving the statewide and rural trans-portation systems. The state provides between $50,000and $91,000 with a 20 percent local match.

While the state still directs the rural consultationprogram, the regional commissions have been assistingwith public outreach campaigns since the early 2000s.They also provide assistance and information to localofficials about the state’s scenic byway program, conductbicycle and pedestrian planning and help promote thestate’s transportation enhancement program.

More notably, each regional organization has imple-mented a program to use advanced satellite technology(GPS) to map road centerlines within one meter. Asan end result, the state DOT and the public now haveaccess to a powerful GIS database that includesdetailed and accurate information about each road andtransportation facility.

The regional organizations have proven to be valuableresources for the state DOT on historic preservation,natural resource and land use issues. In addition toassisting the state in evaluating the potential impact oftransportation projects on historic sites, the regionalorganizations are helping state transportation officialsreach out to individuals with an interest in historicpreservation during environmental reviews.

Several regions also collect and forward data to the stateon local development approvals, amendments to localdevelopment codes and comprehensive plans, and landthat may be available for environmental mitigation.

For more information on the members of the GeorgiaAssociation of Regional Development Centers, visitwww.gardc.net.


INDIANA

The Indiana Department of Transportation launchedthe Small Urban and Rural Transportation PlanningProgram in 2001 with five regional developmentorganizations (known locally as regional planningcommissions) and four MPOs. Starting in 2005, theprogram was expanded to 11 regional and small urbanplanning partners, including seven RPOs, two RPOsthat also serve as MPOs and two MPOs.

The planning activities of the groups are aimed atsupporting the state’s headquarters and district officestaff with public outreach, technical assistance to localofficials and the collection of transportation-relateddata. The program is reviewed and modified each yearand each organization is evaluated and renewed basedon its performance.

Typically, the state provides each planning partner with$40,000 and requires a 20 percent local match. InFY2006, the state is restructuring the program to makeit more accountable and focused on a traffic countprogram and implementation of the state’s HighwayPerformance Monitoring System (HPMS).

According to Lisa Gehlhausen, Executive Director ofthe Indiana 15 Regional Planning Commission, “Theproject has been instrumental in improving our use ofGIS technology. It has taken awhile to build the staffcapacity and organizational support to accomplish whatwe have thus far, but it has helped us and in turn it hashelped our local communities.”

The Indiana 15 RPC has expanded its transportationprogram to create maps that outline improvements tostreets in various communities. In addition, the groupis engaged in discussions with the state and countyhighway engineers about collecting more accurate dataon traffic volumes at rail crossings. The issue of railwaycrossings is an issue of growing concern in the region.

For more information, visit the Indiana Association ofRegional Council at www.iarconline.org.

IOWA

When the Intermodal Surface Transportation EquityAct (ISTEA) became law in 1991, regional transporta-tion became a focal point. In response, the IowaTransportation Commission designated regionaltransit-planning regions where local officials weregiven ownership over the new process from thebeginning. This was achieved by giving local leadersthe opportunity to indicate their preference to remainin their current transit planning region, join another,or form a new partnership with other counties as aregional planning affiliation (RPA).

Currently there are 18 RPAs, most are associated witha regional development organization (known locally ascouncils of government), which allocate about $20,000in state funding with a 20 percent local match. It isimportant to note that the policy boards of each RPAmay opt to increase its funding of planning activitiesfrom its regional surface transportation programallocation.


Each RPA has established a transportation planningprocess aimed at the adoption of a regional transporta-tion plan and the implementation of an annual workprogram. The plans must include both long-term andshort-term strategies and actions that lead to thedevelopment of an integrated, intermodal transporta-tion system.

The board of the Southeast Iowa Regional PlanningCommission has placed a high priority on regionaltransportation planning within its rural region. Thefour-county region receives about $2.08 million infederal surface transportation program (STP) fundsfrom the state, with $196,000 reserved for enhance-ment projects. The board now sets aside five percent,or $104,000, of the STP funds for planning activities.

Mike Norris, Transportation Director for the SoutheastIowa RPC said of the process, “In a rural setting,maximizing resources and coordinated decision makingare the most important factors in rural transportationplanning and they can only be accomplished throughregional dialogue.”

A technical advisory committee made up of profes-sional staff, including engineers and planners frommember towns and counties, works with the policyboard constituted of local elected officials, to guidegrant spending as well as the planning and program-ming process for the region.

Norris added, “Our regional organization is made up oflocal governments who all want to succeed. It is our jobas staff to work with the board and the members tothink regionally so that projects that are developed willbenefit the region as a whole, not just one community.”

The benefits of the new process in Southeast Iowa,according to Norris, is that it encourages regionalprojects, allows top priority projects to be developedfirst and funding is spent in a timely manner. Inaddition, it provides a forum for regional cooperationand coordination.

For more information, visit the Iowa Association ofRegional Councils at www.aircog.com or visit theSoutheast Iowa Regional Planning Commission atwww.seirpc.com.

KENTUCKY

The involvement oflocal officials is central tothe implementation of Kentucky’s statewide planningprocess. Fifteen regional development organizations(known locally as area development districts) receivebetween $80,000 and $105,000 annually from theKentucky Transportation Cabinet to perform transpor-tation and safety planning services.

Each region operates through a rural transportationcommittee consisting of local and county officials,representatives of various interest groups and privatecitizens. In addition, the planning efforts are requiredto cover all modes of transportation, including publicand specialized transportation services in rural areas.

The rural work program focuses mainly on the analysis,identification and evaluation of needs in each region,and the subsequent evaluation and ranking of projectsfor possible inclusion in the state’s six-year highwayplan. The rural planning groups also coordinate publicinput, coordinate transportation planning activitieswith other plans and provide technical assistance tolocal government officials.

Among the moreuncommon RPO-type activities, theADDs are taskedwith maintainingan inventory ofmultimodalfacilities withintheir region,including airports,railways,intermodalfacilities,riverports, transitsystems, greenwayprojects and highways.

They maintain listings of all facilities which generatesignificant peak or continuous traffic and congestion ineach region. They provide an inventory to the state onlocal land use plans, the approval dates and the


appropriate contact information. In the past five years,the state DOT also contracted with the regions tocreate a new GIS database of all of the public roadwaysin the state.

Since 2001, the state has partnered with the 15 ADDsto implement a rural highway safety program. Theprogram is focused on the four “E’s”: engineering,enforcement, emergency response and education.

The state provides enough funding for each ADD tosupport a full-time highway safety liaison whose role isto promote actions aimed at reducing fatalities, injuriesand economic losses due to traffic accidents, especiallyon two-lane rural roads.

The ADDs work through safety committees composedof state and local law enforcement, transportationagencies, private sector business leaders, school officialsand local safety advocates. They collect data fromemergency response personnel about crash scenes andenvironmental conditions. They host and sponsor avariety of highway safety programs at schools, fairs andother community events, including mock crashsimulations. These are just a few examples of the broadarray of safety activities conducted by the ADDs.

MAINE

Maine’s commitment to mean-ingful inclusion of rural commu-nities into the transportationplanning process is noteworthy.In 2005, the Maine Departmentof Transportation (MaineDOT)recognized that the system forgathering input from localofficials and the public was notsufficient, so the state turned tothe six existing regional develop-ment organizations for help.

The regional planning agencieswere selected because of theirconnections to local govern-ments and their planningbackgrounds in land use plan-ning and economic develop-ment. This is particularlyrelevant in Maine because of a state law requiring everymunicipality to maintain a comprehensive plan that isconsistent with state transportation goals and law andanother law based on a statewide referendum thatrequires early public involvement in the statewidetransportation planning process.

An example of the new state-regional partnerships isthe revised work program of the Androscoggin ValleyCouncil of Governments (AVCOG). The COG willdevelop a regional six-year plan that includes a fiscallyconstrained list of projects that are more comprehen-sive than just highway and bridge reconstructionprojects. The process involves the hands-on participa-tion of elected and appointed municipal officials,representatives of regional environmental, business andalternative transportation entities and other interestedparties.

The COG is tasked with identifying and prioritizingpotential multi-modal projects in previously targetedcorridors and they will help the state DOT update thestandard format for communities to use in the develop-ment of their comprehensive plans. In addition, theCOG will provide technical assistance to local commu-nities and governments, provide access management

“The transportation needs of the state far exceed our abilityto fund them. Thus, a broad based regional support

is necessary in order to highlight the need for the project.The projects that are supported on a regional basis generally

will have more impact in relation to the cost.Counties and municipalities that band together to support

a project will likely have more success in moving those projectsforward than those who fight among themselves for funding.”

Daryl Greer, Director, Division of PlanningKentucky Transportation Cabinet


training and sponsor regional forums for state officialsto meet with municipal officials and regional transpor-tation stakeholders.

Organizations such as AVCOG receive about $55,000each year to perform the needs assessment and othertasks related to land use and transportation planning atthe local and regional level.

Robert Thompson, Executive Director at AVCOGstated that, “It’s an open table. Our transportationcommittee was formed to discuss ideas and encouragethe exchange of information. Anyone is welcome.Projects and ideas that come from the committee areoften folded into our regional work program andparticipants are encouraged to discuss more opportuni-ties with our legislators.”

Interestingly, Maine’s regional approach to transporta-tion planning is increasingly viewed in the context ofeconomic development. Thompson describes it as a“strategic investment tool that communities in theregion and the state are using to leverage for a strongereconomy.”

MICHIGAN

The 14 regional development organizations (knownlocally as regional councils of government) in Michi-gan have partnered with the state Department ofTransportation (MDOT) for regional transportationplanning for over 30 years.

They have worked in partnership with MDOT to assistin fulfilling federal planning requirements and thestate’s Highway Performance Monitoring System(HPMS). Starting in 2002, the regions were asked topartner in the state’s Transportation Asset Manage-ment Program.

The asset management program is a joint effort of thestate DOT, county road commissions, municipalitiesand the regional councils. The 14 regions are providedapproximately $1 million each year to conduct aninventory of all public roadways in the state, including39,000 miles of federal-aid eligible highways. Thisamount is in addition to the $500,000 funding alloca-tion for the regional transportation planning activitiesfor the rural areas of the state.

Since the inventory data is used in the distribution ofstate and local project dollars, the inventories areperformed by a joint inspection team that must includea state DOT, road commission and regional councilrepresentative. The involvement of municipalities isoptional.

The teams travel in state vans with laptops equippedwith Roadsoft software and GPS technology. Thecrews rate the conditions of each roadway based on aPaser rating between 1 and 10. The process helps stateand local officials make funding decisions based on theneeds and conditions of the transportation system,rather than politics. It is also an innovative partner-ship model between state, regional and local agencies.

As explained by Sean Dey, Executive Director of theWest Michigan Shoreline RDC, “Transportation is aregional issue. Whether it is metropolitan or rural, weneed a regional approach.”

To learn more about the Michigan Association ofRegional Councils, visit www.miregions.org.


MINNESOTA

Before 1969, there was little input by local officials inthe transportation process in Minnesota. With theRegional Development Act and an Executive Order bythe Governor things changed. The Act and ExecutiveOrder facilitate intergovernmental cooperation andensure coordination of federal, state and local compre-hensive planning and development programs.

The state further enhanced and decentralized itsplanning and decision-making process after theenactment of the 1991 ISTEA legislation. The statelaunched the Area Transportation Partnership (ATP)program to help broaden input into the projectselection process.

The state’s 11 regional development organizations(known locally as regional development commissions)are key partners and technical assistance providers tothe ATPs around the state. The regional commissionsreceive $50,000 each year from the state DOT, alongwith a 15 percent local match, to help state and localofficials implement ATP work programs.

The membership of each Area Transportation Partner-ship typically includes state DOT officials, county andmunicipal leaders, state natural resource and economicdevelopment officials, Tribal communities, transporta-tion modal interests and private citizens.

Each of the regional partnerships has its own processand work program. Most solicit projects for federalfunding, evaluate projects and seek to integrate thepriorities and needs of the membership. The groupsalso conduct public outreach, forward a list of regionalpriorities to the state and review and comment on thestate’s improvement and project program.

Annette Bair, Physical Development Director at theSouthwest RDC explains, “It is important for us tohave local elected officials involved in the transporta-tion committees because they are the decision makers,and we are confident that their recommendations aresound.”

Bair added, “The focus on a regional approach gives anew perspective to local officials who begin to thinkabout what is best for the region, not just their commu-nity. Having a consistent plan with elected officials inthe driver seat is good for the region.”

The Arrowhead Regional Development Commission,which also serves as the MPO coordinator for theDuluth urban area, has expanded its regional transpor-tation program to include an In-kind TransportationPlanning Grant Program. This program providestransportation planning to small communities inMinnesota that lack resources for planning.

The Arrowhead RDC uses a state transportation-planning grant to support the in-kind planning servicesthat its regional transportation advisory committeeawards to small communities based on a competitiveprocess. The planning time can be used to developtransportation enhancements, parking studies, regionalinfrastructure plans and other related services.

Visit the Minnesota Regional Development Organiza-tions Web site at www.mrdo.org or the ArrowheadRDC Web site at www.ardc.org for more details.


MISSOURI

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)has outlined a framework that will bring about im-provements in the state’s transportation planning anddecision-making process. Working with the state’sMPOs, regional planning commissions (RPCs), publicofficials, special interest groups and citizens, MoDOT isable to determine and refine a statewide transportationvision in the long-range transportation plan whichincludes policies and goals and a fiscally constrainedstrategy to achieve the highest-priority components ofthe plan.

One of the main goals of the new planning frameworkis to ensure that the general public and local officialsactively participate in the process. MoDOT has beenable to achieve this with its MPO and RPO planningpartners. “Through the planning framework process,there has been a greater influence by the local officialsand the general public in the transportation decision-making process. This process has provided MoDOTwith the local input needed to make responsibletransportation decisions,” said Bill Stone, TechnicalSupport Engineer, MoDOT.

MoDOT works closely with the regional commissionsto develop regional transportation plans that includelong-term goals, needs identification and publicoutreach. These plans must be approved by theregional commission’s board of directors, which arecomprised of local officials. The regional plans are thenforwarded to the sate for consideration in the develop-ment of the state’s transportation plan.

“Missourians depend on MoDOT and their localofficials to work together to make the best use oflimited transportation funds. Local officials have aunique understanding of the needs and desires of theircommunities at a grassroots level,” said Kent VanLanduyt, Federal Liaison, MoDOT.

Local officials’ involvement is MoDOT’s primary focusof the improved planning process. Officials who areelected by the general public are members of the MPOsand RPCs boards. The framework identifies opportuni-ties throughout the planning process for involvementof local officials. The general public participates atevery stage of the planning process including electingthe local officials who represent them on RPC andMPO boards of directors and by having direct contactwith MoDOT, MPOs, RPCs or local officials.

Missouri’s main project focus in the state’s transporta-tion planning process is highway and road improve-ments. Each rural regional planning commissionreceives between $44,000 - $54,000 in federal state-wide planning and research funds with a 20 percentlocal match. The state also encourages the ruraltransportation planners to attend professional develop-ment courses, participate in peer learning groups andnational trade associations.

Learn more about the members of the Missouri Associa-tion of Regional Councils at macog.mo-acte.org/.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The rural transportation consultation process in NewHampshire is written into state law and is driven byextraordinary opportunities for local officials, as well asthe public, to guide transportation planning for theirregion.

Since the early 1990’s the state’s nine regional develop-ment organizations (known locally as regional planningcommissions), six of which are rural, have contractedwith the state to perform valuable technical assistanceand help develop the state’s 10-year transportationimprovement plan. In order to carry out the requiredwork program, each rural region is given $130,000 witha ten percent local match requirement.

Among the key activities of the regional developmentorganizations is to host community planning meetingsas part of the biennial update of the state’s plan. Localgovernment officials are invited to the public meetings,in addition to serving on advisory committees used bythe regions to identify and prioritize regional transpor-tation needs.

“Missourians depend on MoDOT and their local officialsto work together to make the best use

of limited transportation funds. Local officials havea unique understanding of the needs and desires

of their communities at a grassroots level,”Kent Van Landuyt, Federal Liaison

MoDOT


Local official input, in concert with the public inputphase, is also sought during the periodic review of theplan by the governor’s office and by the state legislaturebefore its final approval.

Regions such as the North Country Council have alsoexpanded their local planning services in recent yearsto include traffic data collection, physical road inven-tory, GIS mapping and community-level transportationplanning. Each of the rural regions receives up to$130,000 to implement their rural work program.

Visit the New Hampshire Association of RegionalPlanning Commission’s Web site at www.nharpc.org formore information.

NEW MEXICO

The rural transportation planning process in NewMexico faces some unique challenges. Having aninternational border and several Tribal governments inthe state adds to the complexity of the process.However, this situation has only confirmed the needfor a regional approach to rural transportation in NewMexico.

2005 is the first year that all of the state’s sevenregional development organizations (known locally asregional councils of government) are providing theadministrative and staffing support for the state’s RuralPlanning Organizations. The state generally providesaround $65,000 each year for the regions to operateand carry out the work programs of the RPOs. Thestate has used the RPO process since the early 1990s toconduct outreach to local officials.

Like many COGs and RPOs, the Northwest NewMexico COG receives state funding of around $65,000with a local match requirement of about 17 percent.Typical of COGs in the state, Northwest New MexicoCOG staffs a regional technical committee composedof public works, planning and transportation profes-sionals from each of the member governments, with exofficio staffing involvement by NMDOT and otherstate and federal agencies.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation andthe Mid-Region Council of Governments havepartnered to bring commuter rail service to the state.Service between the rural communities of Belen andBernalillo and through Albuquerque will begin inSpring 2006.

The Rail Runner will operate on existing railroadtracks currently owned by the Burlington NorthernSanta Fe Railway. The express commuter trains willextend service through even more rural communitiesand into Santa Fe by 2008. The rail service isintended to help improve mobility, address clean airissues and spur new economic development oppor-tunities. It will also improve regional access toschools, jobs, medical services, shopping and othercommunity services.

During its monthly meetings, the technical committeeis involved in a plethora of activities, includingvetting and making recommendations on transit,scenic byway and other special projects for statefunding. Staff provides technical assistance to mem-bers on project development and the committee helpsprioritize projects and needs into a regional transporta-tion improvement plan.

All policy level actions are then taken to the RPOPolicy Committee, which is also referred to as the“COG-plus” board. The “COG-plus” board derives itsname from the fact that it is made up of the COG’sBoard of Directors plus representatives from each offour Tribal governments in their region.


Local officials and communities are kept engaged in thestatewide and regional processes through their involve-ment in the COG board as well as RPO process. JeffKiely, Deputy Director of the Northwest New MexicoCOG stated, “The regional approach allows for theefficient use of existing regional planning staff. We arenow better serving the planning needs of multiplecommunities across our region and the state, and theCOG/RPO process creates a stronger voice for ruraland small-town communities.”

Visit www.epcog.org/index.htm to learn more about themembers of the New Mexico Association of RegionalCouncils.

NEW YORK

The nine regional development organizations in thestate (known locally as regional planning and develop-ment boards) have no formal contracts or partnershipswith the state to foster the participation of rural localofficials in the statewide planning process. However,regional development organizations along the state’ssouthern tier have provided valuable leadership inpursuing the designation and upgrading of key ruralhighway corridors to Interstate status.

The regions in New York have a long history in theareas of regional aviation planning and technicalassistance to local airports. Both the Federal AviationAdministration and New York State DOT haveprovided ongoing financial support for these efforts.

Activities have included economic impact studies,business plans, land use analysis, operations andrevenue analysis, GIS mapping, strategic plan develop-ment, development needs studies and opportunities.The aviation staff of each region also participates instate and regional aviation conferences to shareexperiences and gather information on new trends,federal development financing and other areas relevantto local airports across the state.

In addition, the Southern Tier West Regional Planningand Development Board has played a vital leadershiprole in preventing the abandonment of a 145-mile railstretch connecting six counties in New York andPennsylvania. The group spearheaded the revitaliza-tion of this essential freight line by piecing together$24.9 million in new investments. The retention ofthe regional rail line has helped to create 805 new jobsin this rural region in addition to generating anadditional $4 million investment by three privateshipping firms. Most notably, the group has increasedthe mileage and usage from 75 carloads on 40 miles oftrack to 54,000 carloads annually on 145 miles ofrailways.


NORTH CAROLINA

Since 2002, the North Carolina Department ofTransportation has implemented a major re-engineer-ing of its consultation process with rural local officials.The change was mandated under a new state lawpassed in July 2000 that required the establishment ofRural Planning Organizations to work cooperativelywith the state to plan rural transportation systems andto advise the department on rural transportation policy.(Senate Bill 1195. Covered under Article 17 GeneralStatue 136-210 through 213.)

State officials worked with local officials and theexisting network of regional development organizations(known locally as regional councils of government) tocreate 20 RPOs that serve all counties outside of theexisting 17 Metropolitan Planning Organizations(MPOs). Under the law, RPOs were required to servecontiguous areas of 3-15 counties and must have acombined minimum population of 50,000. MPOscannot be a member of RPOs. In forming the RPOs,not all of the municipalities in the region were requiredto join but each of the counties must be a member.

Funded by the state at $80,000 to $100,000 each yearand with a 20 percent local match, each RPO has fivecore functions:

• Coordinate, assist and develop local and regionalplans.

• Provide a forum for public participation in thetransportation planning and implementation process.

• Develop and prioritize projects the organizationbelieves should be included in the state transporta-tion improvement program.

• Provide transportation related information to localgovernments.

• Coordinate regional issues between contiguousMPOs, RPOs and other regional organizations.

The new process has provided local officials with anenhanced and formal framework to participate in thestatewide and regional planning processes. It has alsoprovided a forum for state and local officials to discussand address issues requiring regional solutions.


As the state works with its rural and urban planningpartners to develop a more seamless intermodal system,they have identified six key issues. These includedocumenting the clear roles and duties of each plan-ning partner, delivering targeted training programs andeducating new local officials. It also involves address-ing boundary issues, developing a more clear andconsistent communications protocol for participantsand improving the coordination and sharing of GISdata.

To learn more, visit the North Carolina Association ofRural Planning Organizations at www.kerrtarcog.org/rpo/NCARPO.php or the North Carolina DOT atwww.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/planning.

OREGON

Recognizing a need to better incorporate all of thestakeholders in transportation issues, the OregonTransportation Commission established a process in thelate 1990’s to bring together state and local partners intransportation planning, programming and develop-ment.

Regional advisory committees, known as Area Com-missions on Transportation (ACTs), were created forlocal officials and other key stakeholders to provideinput on long range transportation issues, recommen-dations on priorities for capital investments and adviceto the state on regional and local issues.

Each ACT is expected to address the diverse aspects oftransportation such as surface, marine, air and transpor-tation safety with their focus on the state’s transporta-tion improvement plan. The 11 commissions arestaffed by a variety of models, including by the stateDOT only, in partnership between the state andestablished regional development organizations (knownlocally as councils of governments and/or economicdevelopment districts) or by a coalition of several state,regional and local organizations.

Regardless of the staff model, the commissions arefocused on soliciting participation and representationfrom city and county governments, tribal councils, portand transit authorities, as well as private industry. TheACTs play a key advisory role in the development of

the state’s project investment and project prioritizationprograms, as well as the pursuit of a seamless and multi-modal transportation system.

Because the Oregon Cascades West COG was alreadyengaged in metropolitan transportation planning,incorporating the ACT under its umbrella made sense.Bill Wagner, Executive Director of the Oregon Cas-cades West COG reports, “There simply isn’t enoughmoney to do everything. Our ACT provides the forumto look at regional and local issues and projects, andcome to a consensus regarding the priority of statefunded projects to be placed in the State Transporta-tion Improvement Program.”

Making Public Transportation Efficient

The Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC)recently launched a much-anticipated and greatlyneeded medical ride program, dubbed Cascades EastRide Center. The Ride Center provides no-costtransportation to medical appointments for Medicaidclients with no other transportation.

The COIC worked with the Oregon Department ofHuman Services, which reimburses COIC per ride, andother community partners to secure transportationproviders and to set up the program.

Rides are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.Due to the benefit for citizens and the cost-savings theprogram is providing to the state, the service is rapidlyexpanding to additional counties in the region. Theprogram currently costs $1 million annually to operate,but its success is fueling growth and improvedservices.


To get the diverse range of local officials involved,COG’s such as the Cascades West COG host ACTswith representatives from all local governments whoare interested in participating. As Wagner put it, “Thestate transportation commission has given us theopportunity to establish rural regional transportationplanning structures. These structures can be as fullyfunctioning as our urban MPO agencies. The effective-ness of these structures is dependent to a great degreeon the willingness and interest of local leaders to fullytake advantage of the opportunity.”

Cascades West has also made a concerted effort toinvolve state legislators, representatives from neighbor-ing regions, chairs of regional social service agenciesand representatives of special interest groups such ashousing, economic development and law enforcementagencies.

For more information about Oregon’s Area Commis-sions on Transportation, visit the state DOT Web siteat www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/act_main.shtml.

PENNSYLVANIA

Since 1992, the Pennsylvania Department of Transpor-tation has used a forward-thinking and robust programto reach the regions of the state that are not served byMetropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Thestate partners with and funds the state’s six regionaldevelopment organizations (known locally as localdevelopment districts), along with five rural indepen-dent counties, to conduct rural transportation planningactivities.

The state DOT awards each region between $90,000and $140,000 in state and federal planning funds,which is matched 10 percent with local funds. Most

notably, the state provides the regional Rural PlanningOrganizations (RPOs) with the same status as MPOs.

State, regional and local decision-makers participate inthe transportation planning programs of the six regionsvia technical advisory and policy committees. EachRPO is responsible for identifying and prioritizingtransportation issues and opportunities within theirregions.

They conduct transportation studies and make recom-mendations regarding the planning and implementa-tion of transportation projects. In addition, the RPO’sprovide geographic information system (GIS) servicesto state and local agencies and provide technicalassistance to transit, emergency responders and othertransportation stakeholders.

The rural program provides a forum where state,regional and local officials identify issues and opportu-nities, conduct studies and make informed recommen-dations regarding the programming and implementa-tion of transportation investments. Short and long-range plans are produced in each region, and the sixregional organizations and the department jointlydevelop, negotiate and approve the rural portions ofthe Statewide Transportation Improvement Program(STIP).

According to both state and local officials, the processhas helped build professional capacity at the local level,bring attention to the long-range planning needs ofrural areas and generate plans more closely aligned tocommunity interests. It has also raised awareness oflocal economic development activities and improvedthe coordination between statewide plans and regionalinitiatives.


With funding support from the state and other sources,each region is engaged in a wide range of specialprojects and studies. SEDA-COG, for example, hasconducted a comprehensive multi-modal freighttransfer center feasibility study for the Williamsportarea. They have examined the intermodal opportuni-ties within its region and studied areas needingimprovements or upgrades at major interchanges.

SEDA-COG also formed a Joint Rail Authority in1983 to bring about public ownership of rail lines thatConrail abandoned. This preservation effort wasessential to rail-dependent industries within the region,which employed more than 3,000 workers in coal,lumber, steel and grain businesses.

The SEDA-COG rail authority first purchased 82 milesof Conrail lines serving 22 industries in 1984. Fundingwas leveraged from the U.S. Economic DevelopmentAdministration, Federal Railroad Administration,Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Centre CountyCommission, Columbia County Industrial Develop-ment Authority and various rail dependent industries.

By 2005, the railroads served 85 industries with over29,000 carloads annually. There have been environ-mental benefits as well as improved rail service toregional industries, increased property values, newbusiness growth and enhanced opportunities forcommercial development. By maintaining the railservice, the group has also lowered the maintenancecosts for local and state highways and bridges withinthe region.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Following the passage of the 1991 ISTEA law, theSouth Carolina Department of Transportation(SCDOT) started partnering with the state’s 10regional development organizations (known locally ascouncils of government) to identify and prioritizehighway needs statewide.

The process focuses on generating input from publicofficials and the general public, and the evaluation ofprojects on the basis of travel needs and economicdevelopment opportunities.

The SCDOT Planning Office provides each COGwith a list of potential highway construction needs thathave been identified based on travel, congestion andaccidents for its region. The COGs use these lists togenerate feedback from local officials, economicdevelopment groups and legislators. Additionalconstruction projects may be identified through thisconsultation.

Each COG maintains a committee that reviews theproject list and data. Project priorities are thenrecommended to the COG board, which consists oflocal government officials, state legislators and citizenrepresentatives.

Once adopted by the board, the list is then recom-mended to the SCDOT Transportation Commission.Project lists from all ten COGs are ultimately used todevelop a draft STIP which is presented to theSCDOT Transportation Commission. Once theCommission gives its approval of the STIP, it is givento the COGs for the public review period. Followingthis exercise, the Commission adopts the STIP andawaits approval by FHWA and FTA.


Several of the COGs incorporate freight transportationinto their planning efforts. The Lowcountry COG isplanning to conduct an analysis of existing rail andtruck volumes and movements within its region. Thegroup is also appraising the impact of existing andproposed ports and international airports upon freightand economic development in the Lowcountry regionand surrounding regions.

Under a pilot program, five of the ten South CarolinaCOGs have also been conducting rural and regionalpublic transportation planning. This includes theidentification and central coordination of publictransportation providers within the region. The state isexpected to include public transportation elements intoall ten planning contracts in 2006.

SOUTH DAKOTA

The regional development organizations (knownlocally as councils of government) in South Dakota arenot directly engaged in the state’s rural consultationefforts with local governments. However, four of theregional groups are under contract with the state DOTto perform road data inventories.

This includes collecting road centerline locations,point locations representing a variety of rural andurban points of cultural significance and databaseinformation for the 66 counties of South Dakota.These entities also perform map and database edits tothe global positioning system (GPS) data, which mustbe approved by the state.

Moving People Around the Region

With an assist from the Lower Savannah Council ofGovernments and the Lowcountry Regional Transpor-tation Authority, the Allendale County Scooter waslaunched in 2004. The Scooter was a direct responseto an urgent need for public transportation servicesthroughout the county. For a minimal fee of $1.50per 10 miles, almost 75 regular riders use the systemdaily for work, medical care and general business.Local agencies and businesses purchase Scootertickets for their patients and customers, and over6,613 passenger trips have been made since August2004.

Rather than purchase new vehicles, the programcoordinated with the Disability and Special NeedsBoard, the County Office on Aging and the LowCountry Health Center to use existing vehicles. Theprogram is funded by the South Carolina Departmentof Transportation, the James Clyburn TransportationCenter at the South Carolina State University, Sistersof Charity and Allendale Alive.

First District Association of Local Governments

South Dakota Department of Transportation

South Eastern Council of Governments

Planning and Development District III

Northeastern Council of Governments


TENNESSEE

The Tennessee Department of Transportation, inpartnership with the state’s nine regional developmentorganizations, formed 12 new Rural TransportationPlanning Organizations (RTPOs) in late 2005 tocomplement the 11 existing Metropolitan PlanningOrganizations.

Prompted by the January 2003 federal rules on ruralconsultation, the state established these entities toserve as a formal mechanism to gather local officialinput for statewide and regional plans. The statestructured the RPOs based on the MPO model.

Before deciding to use the RPO model, the state DOTworked with organizations like the Tennessee CountyServices Association, Municipal League, TennesseeDepartment of Economic and Community Develop-ment and the Tennessee Development District Asso-ciation over an 18-month timeframe to establishregional working groups. These groups discussed waysto improve local and regional transportation infrastruc-ture in rural parts of the state.

Today, the regional working groups have been replacedwith 12 RTPOs that are tasked with facilitating theinput and involvement of local elected and appointedofficials in the state’s planning and decision-makingprocesses. The regional development organizations inTennessee (known as development districts), inconjunction with the state DOT, largely organized andformed the RTPOs. For the first year, the state isproviding a base level of $60,000 for each RTPO plusan additional $1,500 per county in the region. Severalof the regional planning groups are staffing two RTPOswithin their regions.

According to state documents, “The RTPOs willconsider multi-modal transportation needs as well as


short term funding priorities and will make recommen-dations to TDOT.” Each RTPO must adopt organiza-tional bylaws, operate an executive board and technicalcommittees, and provide proactive input to the stateDOT on transportation investments based on land useand strategic planning efforts.

While the Tennessee Department of Transportation isstill ultimately responsible for statewide transportationplanning, the RTPO process is intended to serve as theprimary tool to increase local input and to pursue amore comprehensive approach to multi-modal plan-ning in the state.

The executive committee of each RTO consists ofcounty and municipal representatives, along with thestate legislators who serve on the board of the regionaldevelopment organization. The leadership committeesalso include non-voting representatives from county,state and federal highway agencies, rural public transitofficials, state economic development officials and anappointee of neighboring RTPOs.

The technical committees are appointed by the boardsof each regional development organization and theyconsist of representatives from public transit, aviation,trucking, rail, water ports and bike and pedestrianentities within the region. In addition, state and localofficials from transportation and economic develop-ment agencies, representatives from neighboring MPOsand RPOs and FHWA division staff serve as non-voting members of the committees.

To view sample materials from the Tennessee RuralTransportation Planning Organizations, visit the SouthCentral Tennessee Development District Web site atwww.sctdd.org/RTPO/index.htm.

TEXAS

In Texas, several regional development organizations(known locally as councils of government) in the statehave voluntarily formed and operate Rural PlanningOrganizations to help address the rural transportationneeds of their multi-county regions.

The RPOs in Texas are not currently operating underany set guidelines or responsibility and they do notreceive any planning funds from the state. They areself-financed and governed by local officials. However,the RPOs are providing a valuable forum for enhancedcommunications between state transportation officialsand rural local government officials.

The Capital Area Rural Transportation PlanningOrganization (CARTPO), operated by the CapitalArea COG, is focused on bridging the communicationsand planning gap with the urban and rural countieswithin its region. The membership of the RPO consistsof representatives from both urban and rural counties.

CARTPO is not intended to duplicate the work of theMPO serving the three urban counties within itsregion, according to the organization’s Web site.“Rather, it recognizes the strong interconnectivitybetween urban and rural areas within the region andthe importance of incorporating urban plans into aregion-wide focus on transportation.”


The Capital Area RPO operates three separate com-mittees. The Planning and Project DevelopmentCommittee focuses on long-range planning, regionalcooperation, project development and organizationalstructure. This committee has been helpful to the statein reaching consensus on the transportation invest-ment priorities of local officials from the rural portionof the region.

The Legislation and Policy Initiative Committee worksto build regional support for legislation and policiesthat will increase mobility, traffic safety and funding fortransportation improvements. The RPO also has anAlternative Transportation Committee that is respon-sible for supporting the development of and planningfor transportation modes that serve as alternatives tosingle-occupancy vehicles.

Visit the Capital Area RTPO at www.capcog.org/Committees/CARTPO for more details.

UTAH

In Utah, the state is working with two regionaldevelopment organizations (known locally as associa-tions of government) to test the RPO model in tworural counties, Tooele and Wasatch.

Under the pilot program, for example, the stateprovides $40,000 each year for the MountainlandAssociation of Governments (AOG) to act as the leadagency in coordinating the work program of theWasatch County Rural Planning Organization.

The primary activities include coordinating the localand regional transportation needs and solutionsbetween the municipalities, county, transit agencies,state and others in this growing region. The state doesnot currently have plans to bring the RPO processstatewide, however there are tentative plans to add athird single county RPO pilot in 2006.

The Wasatch County RPO provides a clear descriptionof the group’s mission. “Rural transportation planningis the process of examining travel and transportationissues and needs in non-metropolitan areas. It includesa demographic analysis of the community, as well as anexamination of travel patterns and trends.”

“The planning process includes an analysis of alterna-tives to meet projected future demands, and forproviding a safe and efficient transportation systemthat meets mobility goals while avoiding adverseimpacts to the environment. In metropolitan areasover 50,000 population the responsibility for transpor-tation planning lies with designated MetropolitanPlanning Organizations (MPO); in small communitiesand rural areas there is no federally designated body toprovide transportation planning.”

Visit the Mountainland AOG’s Web site atwww.mountainland.org for more information on theUtah RPO pilot program.

VERMONT

In 1992, the Vermont Agency on Transportationlaunched a new rural planning initiative that wasspecifically designed to move the state transportationplanning process to the local and regional levels. Thisinvolved creating expanded opportunities for citizeninput as well as a forum for local officials to affect stateplanning and investment decisions.

The state transportation agency partnered and con-tracted with the state’s 11 regional planning commis-sions (RPC) to implement the new program, sincethese regional groups already had years of economicdevelopment planning experience and establishedcredibility with local officials and the public.

The RPC process was also set up to help the agencycomply with both the 1991 ISTEA law and a state law(Act 250) enacted in the late 1980s that requires stateagencies to conduct extensive public outreach oninfrastructure projects with land use implications.

As part of the annual work program, the RPCs operatetransportation advisory committees composed ofcommunity officials, public transportation providers,interest groups and individual citizens. They preparelong-range transportation plans that identify the goalsand objectives for all forms of transportation for up to a20-year horizon. They identify and prioritize projectsfor implementation as part of the STIP, plus theyconduct studies on specific transportation problems andissues as needed.


As part of the planning process, the RPCs worktogether on projects that cross jurisdictional bound-aries, such as ski country, regional rail and snowmobileissues. They are helping the state work with localcommunities to develop multi-modal projects andsolutions, with the goal of establishing more intermodalconnections in the future.

More importantly, the RPCs are facilitating improveddialogues and communications between the state andlocal communities, which in the end may be one oftheir most valuable contributions.

The Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commissionoffers a typical example for the state. The groupprovides leadership and staff support for public trans-portation and town planning, and works with state,local and private sector officials on regional and stateinitiatives.

They conduct asset management functions such asculvert and small bridge inventories, traffic counts, GISand GPS mapping services and capital budgetingassistance. The group places a major emphasis onfostering public involvement and civic engagement intransportation design and planning. Most importantly,they help towns, nonprofit groups and governmentalagencies implement projects and studies, from rail totrail feasibility studies to park and ride reviews to safetyand traffic calming projects.

For more information on members of the VermontAssociation of Planning and Development Agencies,visit www.vapda.org.

VIRGINIA

Virginia has implemented a Rural TransportationPlanning Program (RTPP) to address the needs of non-metropolitan areas of the state. The program is imple-mented in partnership with the 12 of the state’s 20regional development organizations (known locally asplanning development commissions) that serve ruralportions of the state.

Under the two-part program, the regional commissionstypically receive a baseline of $48,000 each year toserve as liaisons with local governments, assist with thedevelopment of the statewide multi-modal plan andthe state highway plan and develop bicycle andpedestrian plans.

The regional commissions conduct studies, preparetransportation enhancement grant applications,conduct GIS services, develop rural transit plans andprepare the transportation elements of regionalcomprehensive plans. The regions are also eligible toapply for additional rural planning and implementationfunds through a competitive grant process.

The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission,which also serves as an MPO, is enhancing its ruralwork program in the current year to include a prelimi-nary analysis of transportation safety issues.

As part of its safety conscious planning initiative, theregional commission is forming a new committee ofvarious community representatives to act as a commu-nity leader and clearinghouse for transportation safetyinformation and best practices. The committee willinclude local law enforcement agencies, municipaltraffic engineers and planners and representatives fromthe various modes.

Visit the Virginia Association of Planning Develop-ment Commissions Web site at www.vapdc.org formore information.


WASHINGTON

In 1990, the Washington state legislature passed theGrowth Management Act (ESHB 2929) authorizingthe Regional Transportation Planning Program. Thisprogram allowed for the creation of regional transporta-tion planning organizations (RTPO) in both urban andrural regions of the state.

While the federally-mandated MPOs serve as theRTPOs for metropolitan areas, the state also supportsand helps fund regional planning entities for ruralregions. Several of the RTPOs are staffed and adminis-tered by regional development organizations (knownlocally as councils of government), including thosewho also serve as MPOs. The remaining RTPOs arestand-alone entities, staffed by the county or managedwith assistance from the state DOT.

The RTPOs are voluntary organizations composed oflocal governments whose purpose is to coordinatetransportation planning on a regional basis, and todevelop a regional transportation plan, according tothe state’s RTPO Transportation Planning Guidebook(June 1998). The state provides annual financialsupport to help the regional groups implement theirwork programs.

The primary functions of RTPOs are to developregional plans and policies for transportation, growthmanagement, environmental quality and other topicsdetermined by the RTPO. They provide data andanalysis to support local and regional decision making.

They also work to build community consensus onregional issues through information and citizeninvolvement. The RTPOs pursue intergovernmentalconsensus on regional plans, policies and issues, andadvocate local implementation. In addition, the RTOsprovide planning and technical services on a contrac-tual basis.

For more information, visit the Washington Depart-ment of Transportation Web site at www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/planning/rtpomap.htm.


For more information, visit RURALTRANSPORTATION.org

National Association of Development Organizations(NADO) Research Foundation400 North Capitol Street, N.W.Suite 390Washington, DC 20001202.624.7806 Tel202.624.8813 [email protected]

Documents

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN RURAL AMERICAWashington, DC 20001 202.624.7806 Tel 202.624.8813 Fax [email protected] Nado.org A Scan of Rural Transportation Consultation & Planning 4 Setting