Transportation Planning in Non-Metropolitan/Rural Areas (2026)
Chapter: Appendix B: Survey Responses
APPENDIX B
Survey Responses
Appendix B summarizes individual state DOT responses to the questionnaire provided in Appendix A. Each question is listed below. State DOTs participating in the survey and interview are identified with an “X” in the “Participating Agencies” table here.
(continued on next page)
Long Description.
The table has 52 rows and 4 columns. The column headers in Row 1 are Abbreviation; State; Survey; Interview. Row 2: AL; Alabama; X; blank. Row 3: AK; Alaska; blank; blank. Row 4: AZ; Arizona; blank; blank. Row 5: AR; Arkansas; X; blank. Row 6: CA; California; blank; blank. Row 7: CO; Colorado; X; X. Row 8: CT; Connecticut; blank; blank. Row 9: DE; Delaware; X; blank. Row 10: DC; District of Columbia; X; blank. Row 11: FL; Florida; X; blank. Row 12: GA; Georgia; blank; blank. Row 13: HI; Hawaii; X; blank. Row 14: ID; Idaho; X; blank. Row 15: IL; Illinois; X; blank. Row 16: IN; Indiana; X; blank. Row 17: IA; Iowa; X; X. Row 18: KS; Kansas; X; blank. Row 19: KY; Kentucky; X; blank. Row 20: LA; Louisiana; blank; blank. Row 21: ME; Maine; X; blank. Row 22: MD; Maryland; blank; blank. Row 23: MA; Massachusetts; X; blank. Row 24: MI; Michigan; X; blank. Row 25: MN; Minnesota; X; blank. Row 26: MS; Mississippi; X; blank. Row 27: MO; Missouri; X; blank. Row 28: MT; Montana; blank; blank. Row 29: NE; Nebraska; blank; blank. Row 30: NV; Nevada; X; blank. Row 31: NH; New Hampshire; X; blank. Row 32: NJ; New Jersey; X; blank. Row 33: NM; New Mexico; X; blank. Row 34: NY; New York; X; blank. Row 35: NC; North Carolina; X; blank. Row 36: ND; North Dakota; blank; blank. Row 37: OH; Ohio; X; X. Row 38: OK; Oklahoma; X; blank.
Long Description.
The table has 52 rows and 4 columns. The column headers in Row 1 are Abbreviation; State; Survey; Interview. Row 39: OR; Oregon; X; blank. Row 40: PA; Pennsylvania; X; blank. Row 41: RI; Rhode Island; X; blank. Row 42: SC; South Carolina; X; blank. Row 43: SD; South Dakota; X; blank. Row 44: TN; Tennessee; X; blank. Row 45: TX; Texas; X; blank. Row 46: UT; Utah; X; blank. Row 47: VT; Vermont; X; X. Row 48: VA; Virginia; X; blank. Row 49: WA; Washington; X; blank. Row 50: WV; West Virginia; X; blank. Row 51: WI; Wisconsin; blank; blank. Row 52: WY; Wyoming; X; blank.
Q1. Does your state have any areas not covered by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) (i.e., non-metropolitan areas)?
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 40. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories No and Yes. The No category appears at the left near positions 0 through 3 and has a value of 3. The Yes category spans the remaining portion of the chart from approximately positions 3 through 40 and has a value of 37. A legend below the chart identifies the two response categories as No and Yes.
Responses: 40
| Yes: | |||||||||||
AL | AR | CO | DC | FL | HI | ID | IL | IN | IA | KS | KY |
ME | MA | MI | MN | MS | MO | NV | NH | NM | NY | NC | OH |
OK | OR | PA | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VA | WA | WV |
WY | |||||||||||
| No: | |||||||||||
DE | NJ | RI | |||||||||
Q2. Select the response that best describes the governance structure of your DOT for planning purposes.
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 36. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories Centralized and Decentralized. The Centralized category appears on the left portion of the chart and extends from 0 through 18, with a total count of 18. The Decentralized category occupies the remaining portion of the chart from 18 through 37, with a total count of 19. A legend below the chart identifies the two response categories as Centralized and Decentralized.
Responses: 34
| Centralized: | |||||||||||
AL | AR | DC | IL | KS | MA | MN | MS | NV | NH | NM | NC |
SC | SD | UT | VT | WV | WY | ||||||
| Decentralized: | |||||||||||
CO | FL | HI | IA | ID | IN | KY | ME | MI | MO | NY | OH |
OK | OR | PA | TN | TX | VA | WA | |||||
Q2.a.[If the survey participant selected “Decentralized” in Question 2, they were shown Question 2.a.] Which offices have planning responsibilities relative to coordination with Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs), regional or rural planning entities (RPEs), or non-metropolitan local officials?
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 19. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing four categories: Central, District, Both, and No Response. The Central category appears at the far left near positions 0 through 3 and has a count of 3. The District category follows near positions 3 through 6 and has a count of 3. The Both category spans the largest portion of the chart from approximately positions 6 through 18 and has a count of 12. The No Response category appears at the far right near positions 18 through 19 and has a count of 1. A legend below the chart identifies the four response categories as Central, District, Both, and No Response.
Responses: 18
| Central: | |||||||||||
HI | ME | OK | |||||||||
| District: | |||||||||||
MO | TX | VA | |||||||||
Both: | |||||||||||
CO | FL | IA | IN | KY | MI | NY | OH | OR | PA | TN | WA |
Q3. Does your state have any urban areas with populations smaller than 50,000 that carry out planning and programming activities through a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO), regional or rural planning entity (RPE), or equivalent organization?
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 36. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories No and Yes. The No category appears on the left side of the chart near positions 0 through 10 and has a count of 10. The Yes category occupies the remaining portion of the chart from approximately positions 10 through 36 and has a count of 26. A legend below the chart identifies the two response categories as No and Yes.
Responses: 36
| Yes: | |||||||||||
AL | CO | HI | IN | IA | KY | ME | MA | MI | MN | MO | NH |
NM | NY | NC | OH | OK | OR | PA | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT |
VT | WA | ||||||||||
| No: | |||||||||||
AR | DC | FL | IL | KS | MS | NV | VA | WV | WY | ||
Q4. What type of non-metropolitan planning organizations (e.g., RTPOs, RPEs, other entities) does your state cooperate with for transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas? (Select all that apply and input the number of each entity in the box provided).
Long Description.
The table has 28 rows and 8 columns. The column headers in Row 1 are State; COG; RPC; RTPO; Rural transit providers; MPO that extends to non metro; Rural economic development agencies; and Other. Row 2: AL; X; X; blank; X; blank; blank; blank. Row 3: CO; X; X; blank; X; X; blank; blank. Row 4: HI; blank; blank; blank; X; blank; blank; X. Row 5: IN; X; X; blank; blank; X; blank; blank. Row 6: IA; blank; blank; X; X; blank; blank; blank. Row 7: KY; blank; blank; blank; blank; blank; blank; X. Row 8: MA; X; X; X; X; blank; X; blank. Row 9: ME; X; X; blank; blank; blank; X; blank. Row 10: MI; X; blank; blank; X; blank; X; blank. Row 11: MN; blank; X; blank; blank; blank; blank; X. Row 12: MO; blank; X; blank; blank; X; blank; blank. Row 13: NH; blank; X; blank; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 14: NM; X; blank; X; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 15: NY; blank; X; blank; blank; X; blank; blank. Row 16: NC; X; blank; X; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 17: OH; blank; blank; X; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 18: OK; X; blank; X; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 19: OR; X; X; blank; X; X; X; X. Row 20: PA; X; X; X; blank; X; X; X. Row 21: SC; X; blank; blank; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 22: SD; X; blank; blank; X; X; blank; blank. Row 23: TN; X; blank; blank; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 24: TX; X; X; X; X; X; X; blank. Row 25: UT; X; blank; X; X; blank; blank; blank. Row 26: VT; blank; X; blank; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 27: WA; blank; blank; X; blank; blank; blank; blank. Row 28: Total; 16; 13; 10; 10; 8; 6; 5.
Responses: 26
Note: survey responses may reflect respondents’ interpretations of “formal designation” and may not align with federal or NADO definitions of RTPOs
Q4.a.[If the survey participant selected “RTPO” in Question 4, they were shown Question 4.a.] Are the RTPOs formally designated per federal rule pursuant to 23 CFR 450.210(d)?
Responses: 10
| Yes: | |||||||||||
MA | OH | PA | WA | TX | |||||||
| No: | |||||||||||
NC | NM | UT | IA | OK | |||||||
Q4.b.[If the survey participant selected “RTPO” in Question 4, they were shown Question 4.b.] Are the RTPOs formally designated in state statute to carry out non-metropolitan area transportation planning activities including coordination with the state DOT?
Responses: 10
| Yes: | |||||||||||
NC | IA | MA | WA | TX | |||||||
| No: | |||||||||||
NM | UT | OK | OH | PA | |||||||
Q4.c.[If the survey participant selected “Councils of Governments (COGs)”in Question 4, they were shown Question 4.c.] Are the Councils of Governments (COGs) formally designated in state statute to carry out non-metropolitan area transportation planning activities including coordination with the state DOT?
Responses: 16
| Yes: | |||||||||||
AL | MI | OR | ME | PA | NC | MA | |||||
| No: | |||||||||||
SC | SD | CO | IN | TN | NM | UT | OK | TX | |||
Q4.d.[If the survey participant selected “Regional Planning Commissions” in Question 4, they were shown Question 4.d.] Are the Regional Planning Commissions or equivalent formally designated in state statute to carry out non-metropolitan area transportation planning activities including coordination with the state DOT?
Responses: 13
| Yes: | |||||||||||
MN | NH | VT | MO | CO | IN | AL | OR | ME | PA | MA | |
| No: | |||||||||||
NY | TX | ||||||||||
Q4.e.[If the survey participant selected “Rural Transit Providers “in Question 4, they were shown Question 4.e.] Are the Rural Transit Providers formally designated in state statute to carry out non-metropolitan area transportation planning activities including coordination with the state DOT?
Responses: 10
| Yes: | |||||||||||
HI | IA | CO | AL | TX | OR | MA | |||||
| No: | |||||||||||
SD | UT | MI | |||||||||
Q4.f.[If the survey participant selected “Rural economic development agencies” in Question 4, they were shown Question 4.f.] Are the rural economic development agencies formally designated in state statute to carry out non-metropolitan area transportation planning activities including coordination with the state DOT?
Responses: 6
| Yes: | |||||||||||
OR | PA | MA | |||||||||
| No: | |||||||||||
MI | TX | ME | |||||||||
Q4.g. [If the survey participant selected “Other” in Question 4, they were shown Question 4.g.] You selected ‘other’ to the question, “What type of non-metropolitan planning organizations (e.g., RTPOs, RPEs, other entities) does your state cooperate with for transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas?” Please provide the name of this entity/organization and how many are in your state.
Responses: 5
HI | Kauai Public Works, Kauai Transportation Agency, Kauai Long Range Planning, Hawaii Public Works, Hawaii Mass Transit, Hawaii Long Range Planning, and Maui County |
OR | Area Commissions on Transportation (ACT) - advisory committees used for feedback in planning on a regular basis. There are 12 ACTs in Oregon who advise the Oregon State Transportation Commission. |
KY | Area Development Districts 15 total |
PA | PA has 1 independent county, Wayne County - The DOT provides the planning for this county |
MN | Regional Non-Profit Foundation -1 (West Central Initiative) |
Q5. Are there any RTPOs or equivalent non-metropolitan planning organizations in your state that cover more than one state?
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 26. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories No and Yes. The No category spans positions 0 through 24 and has a count of 24. The Yes category appears at the far right near positions 24 through 26 and has a count of 2. A legend below the chart identifies the two response categories as No and Yes.
Responses: 26
| Yes: | |||||||||||
TX | OR | ||||||||||
| No: | |||||||||||
OH | WA | SC | TN | NM | OK | NC | NY | NH | VT | MO | IN |
ME | SD | UT | MI | IA | CO | AL | MA | HI | KY | PA | MN |
Q5.a.[If the survey participant selected “Yes” in Question 5, they were given the following prompt.] You indicated that your state has an RTPO or equivalent non-metropolitan planning organizations that cover more than one state. Which other state/s? (press CTRL and right click your mouse to select more than one) [Survey participants were presented with a drop-down menu with all of the states]
Responses: 2
TX | Arkansas |
OR | Idaho and Washington |
Q5.b.[If the survey participant selected “Yes” in Question 5, they were given the following prompt.] Is your state’s DOT the primary DOT for this cooperative planning process? [Survey participants were shown only the states they selected in Question 5.a. and have an opportunity to select yes or no next to their chosen state.]
Responses: 0
Q6. Are rural planning organizations (e.g., RTPOs, RPEs, other similar entities) in your state required to develop specific plans? (Mark all that are required of the rural planning organizations in your state)
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 14 and a vertical list of transportation planning document categories on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. For RTPs or LRTPs, the bar extends from 0 through 12, representing the highest count. Public involvement plans extend from 0 through 11. TIPs extend from 0 through 7. Not applicable also extends from 0 through 7. Other extends from 0 through 6. Technical reports and studies extend from 0 through 4. Community development or subarea plans extend from 0 through 3. Air quality or environmental resource plans extend from 0 through 1. Intermodal plans extend from 0 through 1. Bicycle and pedestrian plans extend from 0 through 1. Safety plans extend from 0 through 1. Corridor plans extend from 0 through 1. Freight plans appears as a listed category with no bar shown, indicating zero responses.
Responses: 26
| Regional transportation plans (RTPs) or long range transportation plans (LRTPs): | |||||||||||
OH | WA | SC | NM | OK | VT | MO | IA | CO | MA | PA | OR |
| Transportation improvement programs (TIPS): | |||||||||||
OH | WA | SC | NM | IA | MA | PA | |||||
| Public involvement plans: | |||||||||||
OH | NM | OK | NC | NH | MO | IA | MA | HI | KY | PA | |
| Technical reports and studies: | |||||||||||
SC | ME | HI | KY | ||||||||
| Bicycle and pedestrian plans: | |||||||||||
SC | |||||||||||
| Safety plans: | |||||||||||
HI | |||||||||||
| Freight plans: | |||||||||||
not selected | |||||||||||
| Intermodal plans: | |||||||||||
IA | |||||||||||
| Corridor plans: | |||||||||||
ME | |||||||||||
| Air quality or environmental resource plans: | |||||||||||
MA | |||||||||||
| Community development or subarea plans: | |||||||||||
HI | ME | VT | |||||||||
| Other (Please specify): | |||||||||||
WA | TN | NC | MO | SD | MA | ||||||
WA | Human Services Transportation Plans |
TN | Not “required” to do these plans, but are permitted to do these plans, and TDOT writes Rural Regional Transportation Plans with the RPOs |
NC | Title VI Plan |
MO | Coordinated Human Services Plan |
SD | Counties and municipalities have required comprehensive plans that include a transportation section which are often maintained by the COGs (but not required to use the COG) |
MA | Just a note: The RTPOs produce many of these reports (safety plans, corridor plans, etc.) but they are not required to by law. The ones checked are those they are required to complete. |
Q7. Do rural planning organizations (e.g., RTPOs, RPEs, other entities) in your state develop transportation performance measures?
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 26. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories No and Yes. The No category spans positions 0 through 25 and has a count of 25. The Yes category appears at the far right near positions 25 through 26 and has a count of 1. A legend below the chart identifies the two response categories as No and Yes.
Responses: 26
| Yes: | |||||||||||
MA | |||||||||||
| No: | |||||||||||
AL | CO | HI | IA | IN | KY | ME | MI | MN | MO | NC | NH |
NM | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT |
WA | |||||||||||
Q7.a.[If the survey participant selected “Yes” in Question 7, they were shown question 7.a.] Are these transportation performance measures aligned with state and federal performance measurement requirements?
Responses: 1
Yes:
MA
Q8. Does your state DOT use any of the following mechanisms to cooperate with RTPOs, RPEs, or non-metropolitan local officials? (Select all that apply)
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 36 and a vertical list of coordination and communication methods on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Email communications extend from 0 through 36, representing the highest count. In person meetings extend from 0 through 35. Virtual meetings extend from 0 through 34. Phone calls extend from 0 through 34. Informal discussions or ad hoc consultations extend from 0 through 32. Statewide plans or planning activities extend from 0 through 29. Shared funding or grant programs extend from 0 through 29. Coordination through regional or statewide associations extends from 0 through 26. Public workshops or forums extend from 0 through 25. Data sharing platforms or systems extend from 0 through 24. Surveys or questionnaires extend from 0 through 23. Joint task forces or working groups extend from 0 through 19. Memorandums of Understanding, MOUs, extend from 0 through 19. Other extends from 0 through 5.
Responses: 34
| Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs): | |||||||||||
AL | CO | DC | KS | MA | MS | NC | NH | OH | OK | OR | PA |
SC | SD | TN | UT | VA | WA | WV | |||||
| Joint task forces or working groups: | |||||||||||
CO | DC | FL | IA | KS | KY | MI | MN | MS | NC | NY | OK |
OR | PA | SD | TN | VT | WA | WV | |||||
| Shared funding or grant programs: | |||||||||||
CO | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KS | KY | ME | MN | MO | MS |
NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SC | SD | TN |
VA | VT | WA | WV | WV | |||||||
| Data-sharing platforms or systems: | |||||||||||
CO | DC | FL | HI | IN | KS | KY | MI | MO | MS | NC | NH |
NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SC | TN | UT | VT | WA | WV |
| Coordination through regional or statewide associations: | |||||||||||
CO | DC | FL | IA | IL | IN | KS | KY | MA | MI | MN | MO |
MS | NC | NH | NY | OH | OR | PA | SD | TX | UT | VA | VT |
WA | WV | ||||||||||
| Statewide plans/planning activities: | |||||||||||
AL | CO | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KS | KY | MA | ME | MN |
MO | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SD | TN |
TX | UT | VT | WA | WV | |||||||
| Informal discussions or ad-hoc consultations: | |||||||||||
AL | CO | DC | FL | IL | IN | KS | KY | MA | ME | MN | MO |
MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SC | SD |
TN | TX | UT | VA | VT | WA | WV | WY | ||||
| In-person meetings: | |||||||||||
AR | AL | CO | DC | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KS | KY | MA |
ME | MI | MN | MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK |
OR | PA | SC | TN | TX | UT | VA | VT | WA | WV | WY | |
| Virtual meetings: | |||||||||||
AR | AL | CO | DC | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KS | KY | MA |
ME | MI | MN | MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK |
OR | PA | SC | TN | TX | UT | VA | VT | WA | WV | ||
| Email communications: | |||||||||||
AR | AL | CO | DC | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KS | KY | MA |
ME | MI | MN | MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK |
OR | PA | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VA | VT | WA | WV | WY |
| Phone calls: | |||||||||||
AR | AL | CO | DC | FL | HI | IL | IN | KS | KY | MA | ME |
MI | MN | MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR |
PA | SC | TN | TX | UT | VA | VT | WA | WV | WY | ||
| Public workshops or forums: | |||||||||||
AL | CO | DC | FL | IA | IL | KS | KY | ME | MI | MN | MS |
NC | NH | NV | NY | OK | OR | PA | TN | TX | UT | VT | WA |
WV | |||||||||||
| Surveys or questionnaires: | |||||||||||
CO | DC | FL | HI | IA | IL | KS | KY | MA | ME | MN | MS |
NC | NH | NM | OK | OR | PA | TN | VA | VT | WA | WV | |
| Other: | |||||||||||
AL | ME | MI | NV | PA | |||||||
Q9. Does your agency cooperate with RTPOs, RPEs, or non-metropolitan local officials using the same mechanisms, processes, and/or procedures across the state?
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 36. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories No, Yes, and Partly. The No category appears at the far left near positions 0 through 2 and has a count of 2. The Yes category spans the central portion of the chart from approximately positions 2 through 30 and has a count of 28. The Partly category appears at the far right near positions 30 through 36 and has a count of 6. A legend below the chart identifies the three response categories as No, Yes, and Partly.
Responses: 36
| Yes: | |||||||||||
AR | AL | DC | HI | IA | IL | KS | KY | ME | MI | MN | MO |
MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | PA | SC | TX | VA |
VT | WA | WV | WY | ||||||||
| No (Please Explain): | |||||||||||
SD | UT | ||||||||||
SD | Varies by county and municipality |
UT | Different RPOs have different desires in terms of how much communication and contact that want/need from the state DOT. |
| Partly (Please explain): | |||||||||||
CO | FL | IN | MA | OR | TN | ||||||
CO | I don’t understand this question |
FL | One of our districts works with regional planning councils to develop regional rural transportation plans and provide extended outreach to non-metropolitan local governments. Another district holds rural transportation planning workshops. |
IN | We have Planning Procedures Guides and our LPA Team coordinates with locals and in some cases RPOs |
MA | MassDOT serves as Chair for Franklin TPO but not Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket RTPOs |
OR | Tailored to the needs of each |
TN | Yes from the HQ perspective, varied communication between the regional office staff and RPOs within a given region |
Q10. Are your agency’s cooperative practices the same for RTPOs, RPEs, or non-metropolitan local officials as they are for MPOs? Examples of “cooperative practices” for this question include preparing a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), using State Planning and Research (SPR) funds, programming (Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program flexible funds in rural transportation improvement program (TIPs), long-range planning, etc.
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 36. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories No, Yes, and Partly. The No category spans positions 0 through 11 and has a count of 11. The Yes category follows from positions 11 through 18 and has a count of 7. The Partly category occupies the remaining portion of the chart from positions 18 through 36 and has a count of 18. A legend below the chart identifies the three response categories as No, Yes, and Partly.
Responses: 36
| Yes: | |||||||||||
KS | VA | OR | NC | NH | SC | WA | |||||
| Partly (Please explain): | |||||||||||
FL | AR | DC | IL | MS | SD | MA | AL | IA | ME | MI | MO |
NM | NY | OH | OK | PA | VT | ||||||
FL | I don’t believe there are UPWPs for the non-metropolitan local governments. The Dept. does use SPR funds to assist non-metro local officials with transportation planning. |
AR | UPWP not required for NON MPOs. TAP funds available for both. |
DC | Non-metropolitan area cooperative practices are mostly included in our SPR program |
IL | local officials can provide input into programming |
MS | Only MPOs have UPWPs and TIPs. MDOT provides a portion of its STP Funds to those cities with a population greater than 5,000 and less than 50,000, as well as for rural areas of less than 5,000 population through its Office of State Aid Road Construction. Local officials are included in the development of the STIP and Long Range Plan, as are the MPOs. |
SD | SECOG runs the Sioux Falls MPO, so that one COG is similar. |
MA | Everything is the same with respect to distribution of financials and guidance. The only difference is related to chairing (see above) |
AL | Work Program |
IA | RPAs create TIPs, TPWPs, LRTPs, and Passenger Transportation plans like an MPO. RPAs do not perform congestion mitigation or performance measures work. |
ME | We do outreach and engagement in a similar manner, but our RPOs/RPCs do not have a UPWP; rather we contract with them to perform planning functions as an extension of the state DOT in their regions. |
MI | Project selection is done by Rural task forces including Couty road commission, cities and villages under 5000 and rural transit agencies. STBG funding is allocated to each rural task force. Each ACUB that is 5000 to 50000 pop is also allocated STBG funds and is allowed to choose projects. MDFOT contracts with the Regional economic development agencies to facilitate public involvement, coordination with non-Metro local officials and to facilitate the RTF and small Urban program. We refer to those as work programs but they are developed by MDOT, not by RPAs. |
MO | RPCs don’t develop TIPs |
NM | MPOs have some statutory requirements that aren’t applicable to the RTPOs (e.g. performance measures) |
NY | Not those examples specifically but with program and planning – notified of opportunities and projects on the TIP. |
OH | In most ways, we have the same requirements for RTPOs are we do for our MPOs. The difference would be that capital funds are completely discretionary and not guaranteed, and none of our air quality conformity procedures apply to RTPOs. |
OK | RTPOs develop a PWP. Only receive SPR funds. Don’t create an RTIP, but we lean on MPO as the model for most things but with a “state-wide” spin |
PA | They are the same, but certification reviews are reserved for TMAs |
VT | The federal requirements for MPO’;s is far more prescriptive for MPO duties/responsibilities than the state statutes specific to Non-MPO’s. Also, the funding for MPO’s allows them to drive much more deeply into transportation planning needs than the non-MPO’s. For comparison sack the MPO (we have only) receives about $5M in federal funding annually while the non-RPCs share a portion of a $2.7 M pot of SPR (Statewide Planning and Research) federal funding. So, although the level of cooperation is similar, the sphere of influence for non-MPO’s is less. |
| No (Please explain): | |||||||||||
NV | WV | WY | UT | CO | IN | TN | HI | KY | MN | TX | |
NV | NDOT meets more w/MPOs than rurals; SPR is built without input from rurals; Rurals can apply for TAP to do planning activities. |
WY | Our two MPOs are funded through the consolidated planning grant (PL and FTA planning funds). Non-metropolitans are assisted with their planning efforts through requested grants for planning studies using PL and SPR funds. |
UT | RPOs typically don’t do the same activities to the same extent that the MPOs do. |
TN | They do have RPO Work Programs, but no funding for transportation projects flows through our RPOs. |
HI | We don’t have a UPWP for the Counties |
KY | Programs are managed separately with different tasks for the Area Development Districts versus the MPOs. They have different work programs. |
TX | See earlier response about required planning documents. |
Q11. Does your state have specific statutes or legal requirements that outline roles and responsibilities for transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas? (Select all that apply)
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 34 and a vertical list of transportation planning responsibilities on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Transportation project programming extends from 0 through 16. Statewide long range transportation planning extends from 0 through 13. Not applicable extends from 0 through 10. Other extends from 0 through 7. Air quality planning extends from 0 through 5. Mode specific planning extends from 0 through 3. Corridor planning extends from 0 through 2.
Responses: 35
| Statewide long range transportation planning: | ||||||||||||
AR | CO | FL | HI | IA | MA | MI | MO | MS | NV | PA | VT | WA |
| Transportation project programming: | ||||||||||||
FL | HI | IA | KS | KY | MA | MI | MS | NC | NV | NY | ||
OR | PA | TX | VT | WA | ||||||||
| Corridor planning: | ||||||||||||
AR | HI | |||||||||||
| Air quality planning: | ||||||||||||
CO | DC | MA | MI | NC | ||||||||
| Mode specific planning: | ||||||||||||
IA | VT | NY | ||||||||||
| Not applicable: | ||||||||||||
IL | IN | MN | NH | OH | OK | SD | UT | WV | WY | |||
| Other (Please specify): | ||||||||||||
AL | ME | MS | NM | PA | TN | VA | ||||||
AL | By agreement |
ME | comprehensive planning, public outreach |
MS | Public Participation Process and Plan, Local Consultation Process and Plan, STIP |
NM | NMDOT Planning Procedures Manual |
PA | All of our partners (MPOs and RPOs) sign an MOU to perform planning and programming for their respective regions. |
TN | We outline roles/responsibilities in these documents, but there are not specific statutes or legal requirements tied to them for RPOs |
VA | Code of VA, Section 15.2-4207 |
Q12. Are there any unique state policies or programs that facilitate transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas?
Responses: 35
| Yes (Please specify): | |||||||||||
CO | FL | IA | IL | KS | KY | ME | MI | MO | MS | NC | |
NM | NV | OH | OR | PA | SD | TN | TX | UT | VA | VT | |
WY | |||||||||||
CO | Transportation Planning Regions (TPRs) were formed to assist in the statewide planning process. Each TPR is responsible for preparing a long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to identify goals and future needs for their communities. They were established in 1992 after the Colorado General Assembly enacted legislation in 1991 that directed CDOT to provide strategic statewide transportation planning. The term TPR is inclusive of these types: non-MPO TPRs, MPO TPRs, and TPRs with both MPO and non-MPO areas. There are 10 rural TPRs in Colorado. |
FL | Several state-funded grant programs for rural and/or non-metropolitan communities. Match waivers for certain eligible communities. |
IA | The RPAs were created by state statute. Iowa in general has been viewed as a gold standard for regional transportation planning. |
IL | Specific Human Services Transportation Planning Regions to carry out coordinated planning for FTA 5310/5311 funding. |
KS | Statewide “Local Consultation” process for project selection. |
KY | We fund a transportation planner at each Area Development District to carry out assigned tasks. |
ME | MaineDOT Cooperative Planning Process for Non-Metropolitan Local Officials |
MI | The rural task force program selects local projects for area outside of the MPOs. |
MO | Regional Planning Commissions coordinate through the Missouri Association of Councils of Governments |
MS | Local Consultation Process and Plan |
NC | Strategic Transportation Investment Law for developing our STIP |
NM | NMDOT Planning Procedures Manual |
NV | Formal rural consultations |
OH | In the last to state budgeting periods, the legislature has committed dedicated capital improvement funds to our 8 RTPOs. |
OR | Area Commissions |
PA | Our PROs are a subset of the Local Development Districts enacted by congress in the 1960s |
SD | SPR for Locals Program |
TN | Any policies we have for RPO area transportation planning are TDOT-specific policies, not officially in law (to my knowledge). But we have an RPO program in Tennessee that is managed by the TDOT Planning Division, with a number of policies for how our RPOs operate. |
TX | [Texas Administrative Code: Title 43 Part 1 §16.102. Rural Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).] |
UT | We have ongoing funding to help high growth areas outside of MPOs with planning studies, resources, tools, etc. |
VA | Rural transportation planning program through an agreement with SP&R funds. |
VT | Our cooperative relationship with the non-MPOs (entitled the Transportation Planning Initiative) is spelled out in state statute. |
WY | WYDOT administers the STP_U urban program that allocates approximately $5.7 million annually to communities over 5000 population. It requires the formation of an Urban System Advisory Committee to undertake planning activities and administer construction projects |
| No: | |||||||||||
AR | AL | DC | HI | IN | MA | MN | NH | NY | OK | WA | WV |
Q13. What types of technical assistance does the state DOT provide to RTPOs, RPEs, or non-metropolitan local officials to build their planning capacity? (Select all that apply)
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 34 and a vertical list of techical assistance categories on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Access to data or datasets that can assist in their transportation planning efforts extends from 0 through 32, representing the highest count. Financial support extends from 0 through 27. Training extends from 0 through 24. Software or tools extend from 0 through 20. Staff support extends from 0 through 16. Other extends from 0 through 5.
Responses: 35
| Training: | ||||||||||
CO | FL | HI | IA | IL | KS | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN |
MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | TN |
VT | WA | |||||||||
| Staffing support: | ||||||||||
CO | IN | KY | ME | MI | MN | MO | NC | NH | NM | OH |
OK | OR | PA | VT | WA | ||||||
| Access to data or datasets that can assist in their transportation planning efforts: | ||||||||||
AR | CO | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KS | KY | ME | MI |
MN | MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR |
PA | SD | TN | TX | UT | VA | VT | WA | WV | WY | |
| Financial support: | ||||||||||
AL | CO | DC | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KY | ME | MN |
MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SD |
TN | UT | VA | VT | WA | ||||||
| Software or tools: | ||||||||||
CO | DC | FL | HI | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN | MO | NC |
NH | NM | OH | OR | PA | TN | UT | VA | VT | ||
| Other (Please specify): | ||||||||||
FL | MA | MS | TN | WV | ||||||
FL | Funding for planning support |
MA | Funding focused on technical assistance for planning studies and completing federal grant applications |
MS | local planning studies |
TN | We fund the RPO program through SPR with our development districts paying a 10% match to house the programs at their offices. We provide the RPO staff with an annual conference, access to our data, access to tools such as MetroQuest and Social Pinpoint, and whatever support they need from TDOT. |
WV | Letters of support |
Q14. Does your state DOT coordinate with the RTPOs, RPEs, or non-metropolitan local officials to provide or develop any of the following training opportunities? (Select all that apply)
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 34 and a vertical list of training and guidance resource categories on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Guidance documents extend from 0 through 29, representing the highest count. In person training programs or conferences extend from 0 through 24. Online training extends from 0 through 23. Not applicable extends from 0 through 4. Other extends from 0 through 1.
Responses: 34
| In-person training programs/conferences: | ||||||||||
AR | CO | FL | HI | IA | IL | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN |
MO | MS | NC | NH | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SD |
TN | VT | |||||||||
| Online training: | ||||||||||
AR | CO | FL | HI | IA | IL | KY | ME | MI | MN | NC |
NH | NM | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SD | TN | VA | VT |
WA | ||||||||||
| Guidance documents: | ||||||||||
AR | CO | FL | HI | IA | IN | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN |
MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA |
SD | TN | UT | VA | VT | WA | WV | ||||
| Not applicable | ||||||||||
AL | DC | KS | WY | |||||||
| Other (Please specify): | ||||||||||
TN | ||||||||||
TN | We maintain a Transportation Funding Database on our website, as well as a SharePoint site full of resources for the RPO staff, which also includes a training calendar of free transportation webinars and upcoming transportation conferences. |
Q14.a.[If the survey participant selected anything other than “Not applicable” to Questions 14, they were shown question 14.a.] What topics for training/tech assistance were provided?
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 28 and a vertical list of transportation topics for training or technical assistance on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Transportation funding or finance extends from 0 through 20, representing the highest count. Policy and regulations extend from 0 through 18. Complete streets and access management extend from 0 through 17. Transportation programming extends from 0 through 17. Multimodal planning extends from 0 through 17. Long range transportation planning extends from 0 through 16. Public participation extends from 0 through 15. GIS extends from 0 through 13. Title VI or EJ extends from 0 through 13. Performance measurement or management extends from 0 through 12. Data usage extends from 0 through 11. MPO administrative functions extend from 0 through 10. TSMO extends from 0 through 9. Transportation technology extends from 0 through 9. Environmental planning or NEPA extends from 0 through 7. Transportation modeling extends from 0 through 7. Air quality extends from 0 through 6. Land use planning extends from 0 through 5. Economic development planning extends from 0 through 5. Congestion management extends from 0 through 4. Scenario planning extends from 0 through 3. Other extends from 0 through 2.
Responses: 28
| GIS (Geographic Information Systems): | ||||||||||
HI | IA | KY | ME | MO | NC | NH | NM | OR | PA | TN |
VA | VT | |||||||||
| Public participation: | ||||||||||
FL | IA | KY | ME | MI | MS | NC | NH | NM | OH | OK |
OR | PA | TN | VT | |||||||
| Title VI/EJ (Environmental Justice): | ||||||||||
HI | IA | KY | ME | MO | NC | NH | NM | OH | OR | PA |
VT | WA | |||||||||
| Complete streets and access management: | ||||||||||
FL | HI | IL | IN | KY | MA | ME | MN | NC | NH | NV |
OR | PA | SD | TN | VT | WA | |||||
| Long range transportation planning: | ||||||||||
CO | FL | HI | IA | ME | MN | MO | MS | NC | NH | NM |
NV | OR | PA | TN | VT | ||||||
| Transportation modeling: | ||||||||||
FL | ME | NC | OH | OR | TN | VT | ||||
| Transportation funding/finance: | ||||||||||
CO | FL | IA | IN | ME | MI | MN | MO | MS | NC | NH |
NM | NV | NY | OH | OR | PA | TN | VT | WA | ||
| Data usage (for example, data collection, analysis, and formatting): | ||||||||||
FL | IA | ME | MI | MO | NC | NH | OR | PA | TN | VT |
| Transportation programming: | ||||||||||
FL | HI | IA | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN | MS | NC | NH |
NY | OH | OR | PA | VA | VT | |||||
| Scenario planning: | ||||||||||
IL | OR | VT | ||||||||
| Air quality: | ||||||||||
CO | MA | MI | NC | OR | PA | |||||
| Policy and regulations: | ||||||||||
CO | FL | HI | IA | IN | KY | ME | MI | MN | MS | NC |
NH | OR | PA | SD | TN | VA | VT | ||||
| Environmental planning/NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act): | ||||||||||
FL | HI | ME | MI | OR | SD | VT | ||||
| Economic development planning: | ||||||||||
ME | OR | PA | TN | VT | ||||||
| Multimodal planning: | ||||||||||
CO | FL | HI | IA | IL | ME | MI | MO | MS | NM | NV |
NY | OR | PA | TN | VA | VT | |||||
| Land use planning: | ||||||||||
FL | OR | TN | VT | WA | ||||||
| Performance measurement/management: | ||||||||||
FL | HI | IL | MA | ME | MI | NC | NH | NV | OR | PA |
VT | ||||||||||
| Congestion management: | ||||||||||
ME | OR | PA | VT | |||||||
| Transportation technology (for example, ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems), autonomous vehicles, connected vehicles, electric vehicles): | ||||||||||
AR | IA | ME | NC | NH | OR | PA | TN | VT | ||
| TSMO (Transportation Systems Management and Operation): | ||||||||||
FL | IA | KY | MA | ME | NH | OR | TN | VT | ||
| MPO administrative functions (for example, invoicing, procurement, HR, DBE (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise) requirements): | ||||||||||
CO | HI | IA | ME | NH | OR | PA | TN | VT | WA | |
| Other: | ||||||||||
AR | VA | |||||||||
Q15. How does your state DOT coordinate with RTPOs, RPEs, or non-metropolitan local officials on training opportunities? (Select all that apply)
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 34 and a vertical list of coordination method categories on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Discussions at statewide or regional association meetings extend from 0 through 29, representing the highest count. Discussions at individual RTPO or RPE meetings extend from 0 through 21. Emailing all RTPOs or RPEs using a listserv, SharePoint, or similar platform extends from 0 through 21. Steering Committees extend from 0 through 10. Statewide polling extends from 0 through 8. Other extends from 0 through 5. Not applicable extends from 0 through 5.
Responses: 35
| Steering committees: | ||||||||||
CO | FL | MN | MS | NC | NH | OR | PA | TN | VT | |
| Statewide polling: | ||||||||||
CO | MN | MS | NH | OR | PA | TN | VT | |||
| Discussions at statewide or regional association meetings: | ||||||||||
AR | AL | CO | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KY | MA | ME |
MI | MN | MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NY | OH | OK | OR |
PA | SD | TN | TX | VA | VT | WA | ||||
| Discussions at individual RTPO or RPE meetings: | ||||||||||
AR | CO | IA | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN | MO | NC | NH |
NM | NV | OH | OK | OR | PA | TN | TX | VA | VT | |
| Email all RTPOs or RPEs, use a listserv, SharePoint, or similar platform:: | ||||||||||
AL | CO | IA | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN | MO | NC | NH |
NM | NV | OH | OK | OR | PA | TN | VA | VT | WA | |
| Not applicable: | ||||||||||
DC | KS | UT | WV | WY | ||||||
| Other (Please specify): | ||||||||||
FL | NV | SD | TX | VT | ||||||
FL | Specific outreach to non-metropolitan communities. |
NV | Through the NVLTAP program |
SD | LTAP |
TX | ad hoc individual discussions |
VT | Each non-MPO RPC has a transportation advisory committee that we regularly coordinate with on all transportation planning issues. |
Q16. Does the state DOT have any responsibilities for rural transit planning?
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 32. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories No and Yes. The No category appears on the left side near positions 0 through 8 and has a count of 8. The Yes category occupies the remaining portion of the chart from approximately positions 8 through 33 and has a count of 25. A legend below the chart identifies the two response categories as No and Yes.
Responses: 33
| Yes (Please specify): | ||||||||||
AL | CO | FL | IA | IL | IN | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN |
MO | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | OH | OR | PA | SD | TN |
VT | WA | WY | ||||||||
AL | Human Service Coordinated Transportation Plan |
CO | CDOT has a Transit and Rail Advisory Committee |
FL | Rural NTD; AM -Transit Asset Management Plan for rural agencies |
IA | Oversees the development of Passenger Transportation Plans, which are conducted by RPAs and rural transit agencies. |
IL | Yes, HSTP Coordinators for FTA Title 5310/5311 funding |
IN | Federal Section 5311 Program |
KY | The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has responsibilities for rural transit planning. KYTC through the Office of Transportation Delivery oversees rural transit planning activities. |
MA | MassDOT Rail & Transit Division administers FTA 5311 funds to RTAs in the state. |
MI | Our office of passenger transportation assists the rural transit agencies in developing their plans and submitting projects |
MN | Regional Transit Coordinating Councils, Marketing, and education |
MS | MDOT consults with local officials that may be affected by proposed projects, works closely with local officials in selecting projects for the STIP, and includes members of MAS, MML, and local officials on advisory teams for all statewide plans. |
NM | ask NMDOT Transit Bureau |
NV | FTA funding for rural transit |
OH | ODOT plans for the rural counties that currently are not covered by either an MPO or RTPO (currently 8 of Ohio’s 88 counties). |
OR | Coordinated plans and rural transit routes (The Point) |
PA | Yes, as long as it aligns with Urban Transit Systems |
SD | SDDOT manages the application and distribution of rural transit planning funding. |
TN | The state DOT funds rural transit across the state, mostly through Human Resource Agencies, sometimes through development districts |
WA | Intercity Bus Plan |
WY | Upon request from 43 Local Transit Authorities, administration of transit planning studies through FTA Transit planning pass-through funding. |
| No: | ||||||||||
AR | DC | HI | KS | NY | OK | UT | VA | |||
Q16.a.[If the survey participant selected “Yes” to Question 16, they were shown Question 16.a.] Is rural transit planning integrated with state DOT’s, RTPOs, or RPEs processes in non-metropolitan planning efforts?
Long Description.
The horizontal chart is marked from 0 through 24. Responses are arranged along the chart in a single row representing the categories No and Yes. The No category appears at the far left near positions 0 through 3 and has a count of 3. The Yes category occupies the remaining portion of the chart from approximately positions 3 through 25 and has a count of 22. A legend below the chart identifies the two response categories as No and Yes.
Responses: 25
| Yes: | ||||||||||
AL | CO | FL | IA | KY | MA | ME | MI | MN | MO | MS |
NC | NH | NM | NV | OH | OR | PA | SD | TN | VT | WA |
| No: | ||||||||||
IL | IN | WY | ||||||||
Q16.b.[If the survey participant selected “Yes” to Question 16.a., they were also shown Question 16.b.] How is rural transit planning integrated with state DOT’s, RTPOs, or RPEs processes in non-metropolitan planning efforts?
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 22 and a vertical list of coordination activity categories on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Coordinated meetings extend from 0 through 17, representing the highest count. Shared funding sources extend from 0 through 13. Joint training opportunities extend from 0 through 11. Joint project development extends from 0 through 11. Other extends from 0 through 7.
Responses: 22
| Coordinated meetings: | ||||||||||
AL | CO | FL | IA | KY | ME | MI | MN | MO | MS | NC |
NH | OH | OR | PA | TN | VT | |||||
| Joint project development: | ||||||||||
AL | CO | IA | ME | MS | NC | NH | NM | OR | SD | VT |
| Shared funding sources: | ||||||||||
AL | CO | IA | MA | MI | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | OH |
OR | PA | |||||||||
| Joint training opportunities: | ||||||||||
AL | CO | FL | IA | MI | MN | MS | NH | OR | SD | TN |
| Other (Please specify): | ||||||||||
FL | NM | NV | SD | TN | VT | WA | ||||
FL | Technical assistance and coordinate with them on their TAM Targets |
NM | Ask NMDOT Transit Bureau |
NV | NDOT doesn’t help with planning, only funding |
SD | Inter-city Bus Plan, Human Coordinated Services Plan |
TN | Including rural transit providers at RPO meetings, giving opportunities to them to present on their services and needs |
VT | Many Non-MPO’s have seats on Boards of Directors of Public Transit Agency providers |
WA | As needed coordination |
Q17. How are multimodal transportation options (e.g., transit, bicycle, pedestrian) incorporated into non-metropolitan transportation planning and project development?
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 34. A vertical list of approaches to incorporating multimodal transportation appears on the left of the chart. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Considered in project development extends from 0 through 29, representing the highest count. Funded through specific programs extends from 0 through 28. Included in long range plans extends from 0 through 22. Other extends from 0 through 5.
Responses: 34
| Included in long-range plans: | ||||||||||
CO | FL | HI | IA | MA | MI | MN | MO | MS | NC | NH |
NM | NV | OH | OK | OR | PA | TN | TX | UT | VT | WA |
| Considered in project development: | ||||||||||
AL | CO | DC | FL | HI | IA | IL | IN | KS | MA | ME |
MI | MN | MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR |
PA | TN | TX | UT | VT | WA | WY | ||||
| Funded through specific programs: | ||||||||||
AR | AL | CO | DC | HI | IA | IL | IN | KS | ME | MN |
MS | NC | NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | SD |
TN | UT | VA | VT | WA | WY | |||||
| Other (Please specify): | ||||||||||
AL | IN | KY | ME | TN | ||||||
AL | Statewide Plan |
IN | Special state grant and initiatives |
KY | Various Statewide Rural Transit Programs/Plans |
ME | Comprehensive Plan reviews |
TN | Our Active Transportation Office analyzes our annual resurfacing projects to determine what multimodal improvements could be made and the Office of Community Transportation shares local planning documents with TDOT project managers to consider potential multimodal improvements as described in their plans. We also have a Transportation Planning Grant, though which rural communities can have a bike/ped plan, corridor study, community mobility plan, etc. |
Q18. Which of the following presents challenges or barriers to cooperation/communication, planning, or funding projects in non-metropolitan areas in your state. (Select all that apply and feel free to discuss any elements further in the box provided)
Long Description.
The horizontal bar chart has the horizontal axis ranging from 0 through 24 and a vertical list of challenge categories on the left. The following options and the number of responses for each are shown. Limited number of RTPO, RPE, or other non metropolitan agency staff dedicated to non metropolitan planning activities extends from 0 through 23, representing the highest count. Federal grant requirements for matching funds from state or local sources extend from 0 through 21. Funding limitations for transportation projects in non metropolitan areas extend from 0 through 20. Limited number of DOT staff dedicated to non metropolitan planning activities extends from 0 through 19. Limited funding for cooperation or communication activities extends from 0 through 16. Limited time for frequent, consistent cooperation or communication extends from 0 through 15. Miscommunication or lack of clarity on roles, responsibilities, or goals extends from 0 through 11. Bureaucratic or procedural differences, such as differing internal processes, regulatory requirements, or approval timelines that can slow down coordination, extend from 0 through 11. Difficulties with public engagement and or stakeholder engagement extend from 0 through 11. Administrative processes or business protocols of the state extend from 0 through 8. Reluctance, resistance, or unwillingness to cooperate or communicate extend from 0 through 7. Administrative processes or business protocols of RTPOs, RPEs, or non metropolitan planning entities extend from 0 through 6. Oversight of regulatory compliance, such as complicated and or overlapping rules and guidelines that govern transportation planning extend from 0 through 5. Difficulties providing technical assistance to RTPOs, RPEs, or non metropolitan entities extend from 0 through 3. Something that is not listed here extends from 0 through 4.
Responses: 33
| Limited number of DOT staff dedicated to non-metropolitan planning activities: | ||||||||||
AR | CO | DC | HI | IL | KS | ME | MI | MO | NH | NM |
NV | NY | SD | TN | UT | VA | WA | WY | |||
| Limited number of RTPO, RPE, or other non-metropolitan agency staff dedicated to non-metropolitan planning activities: | ||||||||||
AR | AL | CO | HI | IA | IL | KY | ME | MN | MS | NC |
NH | NM | NV | NY | OH | OK | OR | PA | TN | VA | WA |
WY | ||||||||||
| Limited time for frequent, consistent cooperation/communication: | ||||||||||
AR | AL | HI | IA | IL | KS | ME | MI | NC | NH | NM |
NY | OR | SD | WY | |||||||
| Limited funding for cooperation/communication activities: | ||||||||||
AR | AL | DC | HI | KS | KY | ME | MI | MN | NC | NH |
NY | OK | OR | SD | WA | ||||||
| Difficulties with public engagement and/or stakeholder engagement: | ||||||||||
DC | IA | KY | ME | MN | MS | NC | OK | PA | TN | UT |
| Funding limitations for transportation projects in non-metropolitan areas: | ||||||||||
AR | CO | HI | IA | IN | ME | MI | MN | MO | NC | NH |
NM | NV | NY | OK | OR | PA | TN | UT | VT | ||
| Federal grant requirements for matching funds from state or local sources: | ||||||||||
AL | FL | IA | IN | KS | KY | ME | MI | MN | MO | NC |
NH | NM | NV | NY | OK | OR | SD | TN | VT | WY | |
| Oversight of regulatory compliance (i.e., complicated and/or overlapping rules and guidelines that govern transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas): | ||||||||||
DC | IL | NH | NM | PA | ||||||
| Administrative processes/business protocols of the state: | ||||||||||
CO | IL | ME | MN | NH | NM | TN | WA | |||
| Administrative processes/business protocols of RTPOs, RPEs, or non-metropolitan planning entities: | ||||||||||
ME | MN | MS | NH | TN | VT | |||||
| Bureaucratic or procedural differences (i.e., coordinating agencies each have their own internal processes, regulatory requirements, or approval timelines that can slow down coordination): | ||||||||||
CO | FL | IN | ME | MS | NH | NM | NY | PA | SD | TN |
| Miscommunication or lack of clarity on roles, responsibilities, or goals: | ||||||||||
AL | DC | HI | IN | KY | ME | NC | NV | OK | OR | TN |
| Reluctance, resistance, or unwillingness to cooperate/communicate (this could be due to lack of trust, a history of tension between the state DOT and rural agencies, political or institutional factors, or a perceived lack of benefit): | ||||||||||
DC | KY | ME | MI | NV | OR | SD | ||||
| Difficulties providing technical assistance to RTPOs, RPEs, or non-metropolitan: | ||||||||||
IA | NM | NV | ||||||||
| Something that isn’t listed here: | ||||||||||
AL | FL | MA | SD | |||||||
This page intentionally left blank.
Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: | |
A4A | Airlines for America |
AAAE | American Association of Airport Executives |
AASHO | American Association of State Highway Officials |
AASHTO | American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials |
ACI–NA | Airports Council International–North America |
ACRP | Airport Cooperative Research Program |
ADA | Americans with Disabilities Act |
APTA | American Public Transportation Association |
ASCE | American Society of Civil Engineers |
ASME | American Society of Mechanical Engineers |
ASTM | American Society for Testing and Materials |
ATA | American Trucking Associations |
CTAA | Community Transportation Association of America |
CTBSSP | Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program |
DHS | Department of Homeland Security |
DOE | Department of Energy |
EPA | Environmental Protection Agency |
FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
FAST | Fixing Americaʼs Surface Transportation Act (2015) |
FHWA | Federal Highway Administration |
FMCSA | Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration |
FRA | Federal Railroad Administration |
FTA | Federal Transit Administration |
GHSA | Governors Highway Safety Association |
HMCRP | Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program |
IEEE | Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers |
ISTEA | Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 |
ITE | Institute of Transportation Engineers |
MAP-21 | Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) |
NASA | National Aeronautics and Space Administration |
NASAO | National Association of State Aviation Officials |
NCFRP | National Cooperative Freight Research Program |
NCHRP | National Cooperative Highway Research Program |
NHTSA | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |
NTSB | National Transportation Safety Board |
PHMSA | Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration |
RITA | Research and Innovative Technology Administration |
SAE | Society of Automotive Engineers |
SAFETEA-LU | Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) |
TCRP | Transit Cooperative Research Program |
TEA-21 | Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) |
TRB | Transportation Research Board |
TSA | Transportation Security Administration |
U.S. DOT | United States Department of Transportation |
Transportation Research Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
