RuralTransportation.org
Rural Consultation Practices
TEA-21: Empowering Rural America in the Decision-Making Process

In 1991, Congress passed groundbreaking legislation that provided local officials in metropolitan areas with an unprecedented voice in the transportation decision-making process. However, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) failed to extend the same rights to rural local elected officials, leaving control of rural transportation investments in the hands of state officials.

While a few states voluntarily established inclusive rural planning processes following the enactment of ISTEA, the vast majority retained the "old school" state controlled process. In 1998, Congress made major strides in correcting the inequity between urban and rural areas as part of the statewide planning provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The new law calls for enhanced consultation with rural local officials and encourages states to use existing regional development organizations to facilitate the participation of elected officials.

The new TEA-21 requirements help ensure rural local officials are represented in the planning process, which is best described as the gateway for accessing federal transportation funds. Like their urban counterparts, rural officials will now help states develop comprehensive plans that use resources more wisely, contribute to the economic growth and reflect the changing needs of a region.

Regional development organizations are proving to be ideal partners for states in the rural transportation planning process. As public entities created by state law or executive order, they allow states to build on an existing network with close ties to local governments, community leaders and the public. These organizations bring years of planning experience to the table, including extensive knowledge of economic development, land use and environmental planning. More importantly, they have experience coordinating the activities of local governments within a region and have decades of experience as the service delivery mechanism for many federal and state programs.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, the remaining states should replicate the successful rural transportation planning practices already implemented in many states. Following are brief case studies of several leading states that are using the existing network of regional development organizations for transportation planning within the rural parts of their states.


Arizona

The Arizona Department of Transportation is a pioneer in using regional development organizations for rural transportation planning. Starting in 1971, the state transportation department initially involved the state's four rural councils of government in data collection activities. Over the years, the partnership between the state and regional entities has evolved to the point where the rural councils are now responsible for a variety of individual tasks in addition to comprehensive planning activities.

Established in 1970 by gubernatorial action, the four rural councils encompass 84 percent of the state's geographic area, or 95,294 square miles, and represent approximately 50 percent of the population. Small urban Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were also designated within the boundaries of two rural councils in the early 1980s.

The four rural councils conduct a range of tasks that are specifically outlined in their contractual work program with the state transportation department. The overall work program includes regional intermodal planning, liaison and coordination, data collection, priority programming and coordination of grant application programs at the regional level. The program for each council is revised and updated annually to reflect changes in priorities and funding levels. Currently, each rural council is funded equally at approximately $80,000 per year through the state planning and research funds.

Specific tasks conducted by each of the rural councils include: The Arizona Department of Transportation is now looking to the rural councils to expand their regional planning functions and to serve as the mechanism for updating the state's long-range transportation plan. Anticipating this expanded role for the regions, the rural councils are also pursuing opportunities to integrate long-range transportation planning with the draft recommendations on regional planning recently made by the state's Growing Smarter Commission.

The rural councils attribute these new opportunities to their strong partnership with the state. According to Joe Brannan, Executive Director of the SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization, "The Arizona Department of Transportation has been, and continues to be, extremely open to considering the transportation needs and desires of Arizona's rural population."

Ken Sweet, Executive Director of the Northern Arizona Council of Governments, believes the new TEA-21 statewide planning requirements have also helped the rural councils in Arizona. Sweet explained, "TEA 21 has brought about a fundamental change in how we do business in Arizona. Rural councils of government have had a good advisory relationship with our transportation department for many years. But now, after passage of TEA 21, we're sharing the decisions, not just advising. Rural Arizona has a seat at the table at last."

Building on past successes and experiences, the four rural councils in Arizona will continue to provide a regional forum for policy and decision-making, coordinate and deliver programs and services, and solicit the opportunity to speak as one voice on issues of regional concern.

For more information on the Arizona process, contact Joe Brannan, Executive Director of the SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization, at (520) 432-5301 or Ken Sweet, Executive Director of the Northern Arizona Council of Governments, at (520) 774-1895.


Kentucky

Following the enactment of the 1991 ISTEA legislation, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet decided to build upon the existing structure and functioning boards of the state's 15 regional development organizations, known as area development districts, for rural transportation planning. In partnership with the transportation cabinet's highway districts and planning division, the area development districts work to ensure the priorities and views of rural officials are incorporated into the statewide plan.

As part of an annual work program, the districts are primarily responsible for identifying, evaluating and prioritizing projects outside the seven urbanized areas of the state, which fall under the jurisdiction of the seven MPOs. The state provides each district with approximately $65,000 each year in state road funds and general funds, based on their number of counties (5-17), to hire staff to perform the required activities. The state also requires a 10 percent local match.

According to Bruce Siria, Director of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's Division of Planning, "The area development districts function as the rural equivalent of the MPOs, and with this process, the entire state is covered from border to border ensuring rural areas have a voice in the statewide transportation planning process."

During the 1999 Kentucky Transportation Conference, former Mayor Bert May of the Kentucky League of Cities strongly endorsed the process and stated it "works better than any other program for finding out what is best at the local level by involving people first, instead of the last." He also urged the state to continue the process and encouraged local officials to continue the excellent track record of "laying aside the local turf battles and working together as a region for what's best for all involved."

Under the work program, each district works in support of the statewide transportation planning long-range element. Specifically, the districts help: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet spokesman John Carr praised the process "as one of the best decisions our Cabinet has made" during the January 1999 conference. He also anticipated the state will use the model for other purposes and proudly claimed "over 92 percent of the Governor's six-year transportation plan came from the area development districts through a collaborative grassroots process."

Jassamine County Judge Neal Cassity, who is Chairman of the Bluegrass Area Development District Transportation Committee, echoed state official satisfaction with the rural planning process. Cassity said the he is "not only sold on the ADDs, but I believe this process is working and gives local citizens the very best among all options of being heard and involved in a dynamic process that accents collaboration, coordination and cooperation."

According to district officials, a major part of the success is attributed to the dedication and commitment of both state and local officials. Henry Hodges, Executive Director of the Purchase Area Development District, explained "The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has been excellent to work with." Hodges further stated, "This has been one of the best programs I have worked on in my 26 years of experience here at the Purchase Area Development District."

For more information on the Kentucky process, contact Henry Hodges, Executive Director of the Purchase Area Development District, at (502) 247-7171


Missouri

Local input is an essential component of the statewide transportation planning process in Missouri. Starting in 1993, the state's transportation department asked each of the 18 regional development organizations to appoint a transportation advisory committee composed of local officials and citizens to help gather general transportation comments and actively work with the department officials.

According to Missouri transportation official Kent Van Landuyt, "The department chose the regional planning organizations because they geographically cover the state and were knowledgeable about planning activities." Van Landuyt also mentioned the experience of regional organizations with federal programs and their desire to be involved in the rural planning process as major factors.

The success of the initial phase led to additional planning activities in 1995 for each of the regional development organizations, known as regional planning organizations (RPOs). Under the expanded agreement, each planning organization was directed to develop an annual work program that identified specific transportation planning activities that each regional entity would conduct for the transportation department. The additional items included an evaluation process of transportation needs, a public involvement process, the development of regional data and a focus on professional staff development.

Under the first phase, each regional organization was reimbursed for approved transportation planning activities. The state only reimbursed up to $5,000 for expenses and required a 20 percent local match. However, the initial phase was an important step in the relationship between the state, regional and local officials.

Building on the first phase, the state set up phase two guidelines to increase the involvement of the regional planning organizations in 1997. The amount of funds available for reimbursement to each regional entity was increased to $21,400 for 1997 and $26,400 for 1998, an amount developed by the department and a team of regional planning organizations. All funds expended required a match of 20 percent local funds.

As part of the second phase, each regional organization had to meet seven additional requirements to receive the extra funding, including:
  1. Each regional planning organization was required to develop a work program in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Transportation districts in their region. The work program consisted of identifying work tasks, explaining what they accomplished in the last year, describing what they wanted to accomplish this year and listing future expectations on each task.
  2. The expectations of the region's transportation advisory committee were expanded as a result of the recommendations made by the department breakthrough team. This included the development of evaluation criteria.
  3. The region was required to submit a progress report with each quarterly billing and an annual report of activities on each work program task.
  4. A work program might include a section entitled "general transportation planning" that would include additional tasks, such as mapping requests, policy ideas and statewide transportation perspectives.
  5. Each region was expected to encourage staff development in transportation planning.
  6. The development of the work program would be the primary responsibility of the region, with the assistance of each of the state transportation districts within the region.
  7. Other regional activities include working with the department on public involvement activities, educating the public on transportation issues, data gathering and assisting local communities in the application process for transportation grants.
All 18 of Missouri regional planning organizations started in phase one and each opted to expand their transportation planning processes to include the phase two guidelines. While the same general outcomes were desired in each region, the process actually varied due to regional characteristics. Recognizing the vast differences in the state, the state transportation department and the regions felt it was important to retain the flexibility necessary to reflect the values and needs of individual regions.

According to Van Landuyt, "The regions have diverse factors that drive their economy, such as tourism, agriculture, urban fringe, government installations, or a combination of these. It is these regional differences which needed to be recognized. Therefore, the idea was to let each region develop its process in terms of the major characteristics of its area."

As this process continues to develop with each RPO, it is the intent of the department to involve the regions in the long-range planning, public involvement, data gathering and local transportation awareness campaigns. The guidelines for these activities will be focused on meeting the federal transportation planning requirements and obtaining meaningful information on all transportation modes. The level of involvement will vary by region due to local characteristics, the state transportation district, staff limitations of regional organizations and available funds.

Regional officials are excited about their future role in the rural program. According to Steve Etcher, Executive Director of the Boonslick Regional Planning Commission, "We are prepared to help orchestrate efforts at the local and regional level and are committed to making Missouri's transportation investments compatible with economic development efforts and land-use planning initiatives, yet also be responsive to the citizen demands." Richard Cavender, Executive Director of the Meramec Regional Planning Commission, added, "In the past, the state transportation department has planned for the rural areas, now we are planning together."

The Missouri Department of Transportation has found this program to be beneficial because it strengthens the department's awareness of local communities through public involvement and allows the department to understand the transportation needs identified by local people. It also builds credibility through a formal structure and guarantees a consistent flow of information throughout the state.

For more information on the Missouri process, contact Richard Cavender, Executive Director of the Meramec Regional Planning Commission, at (573) 265-2993 or Kent Van Landuyt, Planning Division Liaison for the Missouri Department of Transportation, at (573) 751-6775.


Pennsylvania

Rural areas were not afforded the right to participate in the transportation planning process until 1991. However, the six regional development organizations in Pennsylvania, known as local development districts, have been fundamental players in the state's rural planning process.

Following the enactment of the 1991 federal ISTEA legislation, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation initiated a rural transportation planning program with the local development districts to complement the ongoing metropolitan activities. According to Pennsylvania transportation planner Jim Smedley, "The development districts provided an existing and excellent network of local government officials and community leaders who can supply vital knowledge and experience to the planning process."

Under the Pennsylvania process, responsibilities of the districts include research, planning and programming for the rural regions. In fiscal year 1998-99, each district received nearly $70,000 in federal and state funds for transportation planning and programming with a required 10 percent local match.

The state established this program to reach the regions within the state not served by the metropolitan transportation planning organizations. The rural program provides a forum (through technical advisory committees and policy committees) where state, regional and local decision-makers identify issues and opportunities, conduct studies and make informed recommendations regarding the programming and implementation of transportation projects (including highway/bridge, transit, rail, aviation, bicycle and pedestrian projects).

Short and long-range plans are produced in each region, and the local development districts and the department jointly develop, negotiate and approve their rural portions of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP is a federal requirement and is a prioritized list of projects to be implemented over four years.

Amy Kessler, Transportation Planner/GIS Director with the North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission, believes the rural transportation planning program is exceptional. Through this program, Kessler explains, "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has proved to be ahead of its time. Rural communities have a real voice in the transportation planning process in Pennsylvania."

The future for the rural transportation planning process looks bright. The state plans to use the development districts to create rural planning organizations, which will have responsibilities consistent with MPOs for program development.

Currently the districts are under contract with the state transportation department but according to Howard Grossman, Executive Director of the Economic Development Commission of Northeastern Pennsylvania, "The future of the rural transportation process lies with the official designation of the development districts as rural planning organizations." Grossman continued, "With this designation the entire planning process will be strengthened, and there will be more opportunities for districts to set priorities in the rural areas of Pennsylvania."

For more information on the Missouri process, contact Howard Grossman, Executive Director of the EDC of Northeastern Pennsylvania, at (717) 655-5581 or Jim Smedley, Transportation Planner for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, at (717) 772-1772.


Benefits of Involving Local Stakeholders in Rural Transportation Planning


Return to the top
National Association of Development Organizations Research Foundation
400 North Capitol St., NW, Suite 390, Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624-7806 • Fax (202) 624-8813 •info@nado.org
www.nado.org