SUMMARY
Transportation Planning in Non-Metropolitan/Rural Areas

Historical and Policy Context

Prior to the 1960s, rural communities had limited influence in transportation planning, even as state and federal governments invested heavily in infrastructure such as farm-to-market roads. Early planning by state departments of transportation (DOTs) was largely centralized, with little opportunity for rural officials or residents to influence decisions. The introduction of the Continuing, Cooperative, and Comprehensive (3C) planning framework in the 1960s and 1970s marked a turning point, as federal law began emphasizing cooperative and comprehensive approaches. However, much of this effort was directed at urban issues (e.g., population growth, congestion, and economic development), leaving many rural needs under-addressed, including long travel distances, limited transit service, and reliance on freight corridors for economic activity.

Over time, federal policy, including the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and subsequent legislation, began to place greater emphasis on rural participation, encouraging state DOTs to adopt more inclusive, cooperative approaches to planning in non-metropolitan regions. Early initiatives focused on improving consultation with rural officials and establishing regional planning entities (RPEs) as intermediaries. These efforts were further institutionalized with the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which included statutory language enabling the designation of Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) to carry out transportation planning activities in non-metropolitan areas of the country. MAP-21 also elevated the expectation of interaction between state DOTs and rural communities from “consultation” to “cooperation,” signaling a federal imperative for more collaborative and engaged planning in non-metropolitan areas.

Despite this policy direction, the number of federally designated RTPOs remains limited. However, many state DOTs coordinate with RPEs, or similar organizations that carry out RTPO-like functions, even if they are not formally designated under federal law. These entities have become increasingly important partners in rural planning, but their structures, responsibilities, and relationships with state DOTs vary significantly across the country.

The objective of this synthesis is to document the current practices of state DOTs in coordinating transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas.

The synthesis draws on multiple sources of information, including a literature review, a national survey distributed to state DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected states to develop in-depth case examples. The literature review, discussed in Chapter 2, summarizes academic studies, federal regulations, state planning guidance, and existing surveys conducted by organizations such as the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO).

The survey, detailed in Chapter 3, was completed by 40 state DOTs (39 states and the District of Columbia), resulting in a 78% response rate. It is important to note that not all 40 state DOTs responded to every question; therefore, survey results reflect the percentage of respondents for that question. Chapter 4 includes case examples from Vermont, Ohio, Colorado, and Iowa to illustrate geographic variety and institutional arrangements, as well as innovative practices, in non-metropolitan transportation planning.

A variety of findings were documented for this synthesis. The findings include those described below.

Key Findings

Structure and Role of Regional Planning Entities (RPEs)

RPEs serve as intermediaries between local communities and state DOTs, functioning similarly to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) but tailored for non-urban areas. They vary widely in scope; some focus exclusively on transportation, while others integrate economic development, land use, and environmental planning. Many provide long-range planning, technical assistance, and coordination across disciplines, resulting in varying institutional structures and roles. For this reason, RPEs are best understood not by their titles but by the functions they perform.

State DOT Coordination Models

Among the 37 states with non-metropolitan areas, state DOT planning coordination structures were nearly evenly split between centralized and decentralized models. In a centralized model, agency functions and decisions are carried out primarily by staff in a single statewide office (often called headquarters). In a decentralized model, these functions are distributed across offices located in different parts of the state (sometimes referred to as districts, regions, or satellite offices), allowing for more localized decision-making.

Twenty-six states reported collaboration with planning organizations such as RTPOs, Councils of Governments (COGs), or other RPEs. These entities were often designated through a mix of federal, state, or local authority, with some spanning multiple states.

In centralized states like Nevada, state DOT staff work directly with county and city officials to integrate rural priorities into statewide planning efforts. In contrast, decentralized models, such as Californiaʼs, leverage state DOT district liaisons and independent RPEs to carry out transportation planning and coordination at the regional level.

Many states employ hybrid approaches, balancing direct engagement with local officials and partnerships with RPEs. Coloradoʼs Transportation Planning Regions (TPRs) coordinate with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) staff across multiple program areas, balancing centralized guidance with regional autonomy. Iowa DOT blends direct engagement with regional autonomy through Regional Planning Affiliation (RPA)-led planning supported by flexible funding policies.

Communication and Engagement Practices

Most state DOTs use consistent coordination methods statewide, but tailor practices regionally. Communication methods include in-person meetings, virtual engagement, and participation in planning activities. Seven states reported using the same coordination processes for MPOs and non-metropolitan planning organizations, but most cited differences in resources, planning capacity, and federal requirements as reasons for divergence.

Planning Responsibilities and Products

Of the 26 states with active RPEs, 19 require them to produce planning products such as long-range transportation plans (LRTPs), public involvement plans, or transportation improvement programs (TIPs). Some states showcase innovative practices, such as Iowaʼs RPAsʼ development of comprehensive regional plans and Ohioʼs allocation of capital funds to support project delivery. Vermont illustrates integration of transportation planning with land use and economic development priorities. Performance-based planning remains limited, with Massachusetts the only state reporting RPE-developed performance measures aligned with state and federal frameworks.

Support for Rural Planning Capacity

State DOTs support rural planning through access to data, financial assistance, staff support, and training. Popular training topics include multimodal planning, long-range planning, policy, and funding. States use a mix of delivery formats, such as guidance documents, in-person events, and online platforms, while relying on listservs, regional meetings, or SharePoint systems for coordination.

Integration of Transit and Multimodal Planning

Twenty-five states reported involvement in rural transit planning, often in connection with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 programs. Of those, 22 said they integrate rural transit with broader planning through coordinated meetings, shared funding, or joint development of projects and plans.

Many state DOTs also incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and other multimodal elements into rural plans and project development, as seen in Vermontʼs integration of transit and active transportation planning into regional strategies.

Common Challenges to Coordination

The most commonly cited challenges to non-metropolitan planning coordination were limited staffing and funding at non-metropolitan planning organizations, lack of local/state matching funds for federal grants, and insufficient state DOT resources for planning or engagement. Other barriers included procedural inconsistencies, difficulty maintaining ongoing coordination, unclear roles among agencies, and challenges with rural public engagement.

Observed Practices That May Support Effective Coordination

In documenting these practices, the synthesis also highlights several approaches that may offer value to peer agencies seeking to strengthen coordination with non-metropolitan partners. These include:

• Clearly Defined and Mutually Understood Roles: Foundational documents such as interagency agreements and planning guidance can help clarify expectations and responsibilities. Examples from Ohio, Colorado, and Vermont illustrate how formalized roles support alignment and accountability.
• Year-Round Communication Channels: Continuous engagement beyond statutory deadlines—such as recurring workshops, liaison meetings, and regular updates—can foster trust and responsiveness. Nevada and Vermont offer examples of structured, ongoing dialogue.

• Access to Financial, Technical, and Staffing Resources: Programs in California, Ohio, and Vermont demonstrate how targeted support can enable non-metropolitan entities to participate meaningfully in planning processes, reducing financial strain and bridging capacity gaps.
• Coordination Embedded Across Planning Processes: States such as Colorado and Vermont incorporate rural input into multiple program areas, including corridor studies, freight planning, and safety initiatives, creating repeated opportunities for engagement.
• Flexible Processes and Targeted Capacity Building: Several states have developed tailored strategies to address persistent barriers, including staffing shortages and funding limitations. These approaches reflect an effort to adapt coordination practices to local contexts.