CHAPTER 1
Introduction

Background

Before the adoption of the Continuing, Cooperative, and Comprehensive (3C) planning framework in the 1960s, rural communities had little influence in transportation decision-making, even though state and federal governments invested heavily in infrastructure such as farm-to-market roads. Planning was largely centralized within state departments of transportation (DOTs), with limited opportunities for local rural officials or residents to participate. When the 3C process was introduced, attention shifted primarily to urban growth, congestion, and economic development, leaving many rural needs under-addressed. Challenges such as long travel distances, limited transit options, and dependence on freight corridors for economic activity continued to shape mobility in non-metropolitan areas.

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.

Although this policy direction exists, 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 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.

Synthesis Objectives

The objective of this synthesis is to document the current practices of state DOTs in coordinating transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas. It also documents common challenges and obstacles to coordination. Understanding these practices is essential for ensuring meaningful rural participation in the statewide transportation planning process and aligning planning activities with federal expectations.

Synthesis Scope and Approach

This synthesis documents state DOT practices for transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas. Specific topics addressed in this synthesis include the following:

• Roles and responsibilities for surface transportation planning activities in non-metropolitan areas;
• State DOT requirements of RTPOs or RPEs, including planning products and performance measures;
• Types of Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) (e.g., RTPOs and RPEs) that state DOTs work with in transportation planning and project development and delivery;
• Outreach methods used to support consultation and cooperation with local officials;
• Technical assistance provided by state DOTs or other state agencies to RPEs;
• Coordination with federal partners; and
• State-specific statutes governing non-metropolitan transportation planning.

Key methods for obtaining this information include: (1) a review of the literature and publicly available agency documents, (2) a scanning survey of state DOTs, and (3) interviews and development of case examples from selected state DOTs.

Literature Review

A literature review was conducted to document current practices used by state DOTs for transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas. The review examined how state DOTs engage with RPEs, the roles and responsibilities of RTPOs and RPEs, and statutory and regulatory frameworks guiding rural consultation and cooperation.

The literature review covered three primary sources: (1) published research and synthesis reports, (2) federal legislation and planning regulations, and (3) agency guidance documents and online resources. To identify relevant materials, a search was conducted using the Transportation Research Information Database (TRID) and Google Scholar, supplemented by agency websites and professional organization archives. Additional sources included the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), National Association of Development Organizations (NADO), National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), and state DOTs. Key documents reviewed include:

• Relevant National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) synthesis reports on non-metropolitan planning and rural engagement;
• Planning guidance published by FHWA and FTA;
• The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21); the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); MAP-21; the Fixing Americaʼs Surface Transportation (FAST) Act; and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) statutory language related to non-metropolitan planning and consultation requirements;
• State DOT planning manuals and frameworks describing RTPO/RPE roles and responsibilities;
• Technical reports and white papers from national associations such as NADO and NARC; and
• Select academic studies and state-specific research on non-metropolitan transportation planning coordination and performance.

The literature review provides historical and institutional context for this synthesis, highlighting both long-standing and emerging approaches to non-metropolitan transportation planning. The review is organized around the following themes:

• Federal legislation and regulatory guidance on non-metropolitan consultation and cooperation;
• Evolution and definition of RTPOs, RPEs, and other non-metropolitan planning structures; and
• State-level policies and frameworks for engaging non-metropolitan local officials.

Scanning Survey

A questionnaire was developed to gather information on current practices for coordination between state DOTs and non-metropolitan planning organizations or entities in their state. The survey covered topics such as governance models, roles and responsibilities, engagement methods, capacity building, transit integration, and common challenges. Forty state DOTs responded to the survey, with three indicating they had no non-metropolitan areas (Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) and therefore did not proceed beyond the initial routing questions. The states representing the DOTs that responded to this questionnaire are shown in Figure 1. The results from the remaining 37 state DOTs are summarized in Chapter 3. The survey instrument and the compiled responses are included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

Case Example Interviews

Four states were selected from among the survey respondents for follow-up interviews. Selection criteria included geographic variation, presence and type of RPEs [e.g., RTPOs or Councils of Governments (COGs)], state DOT governance structure (centralized, decentralized, or hybrid), and variation in coordination practices and survey responses. The interviews were used to gather richer detail on how coordination is implemented in practice, including

Long Description.

The map presents the United States with individual states either shaded or left unshaded to indicate survey participation. The states shown as having responded to the survey are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. The remaining states including Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, California, Arizona, Alaska, Maryland, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Georgia appear unshaded. A legend to the right clarifies that the shaded states represent those that responsed to the survey.

barriers, successes, and lessons learned. These interviews were used to develop in-depth case examples, which are presented in Chapter 4. The states that participated in the interviews are shown in Figure 2.

Summary of Findings

Key findings of the synthesis were summarized, including observations related to the state of current practice, gaps in knowledge, and suggestions for additional research. This information is provided in Chapter 5.

Long Description.

The map displays the United States with state boundaries and state abbreviations. Four states are marked to indicate the states used in the case examples for this synthesis. These states are Colorado in the Mountain West region, Iowa in the Midwest, Ohio in the Great Lakes region, and Vermont in the Northeast. All other states, including Alaska and Hawaii, are present but not marked as case examples.