CHAPTER 4
Case Examples

This chapter presents four case examples that illustrate, in more detail, strategies for coordination between state departments of transportation (DOTs), non-metropolitan transportation planning agencies, and rural officials. The case examples demonstrate how these partnerships support more effective planning and programming processes in non-metropolitan areas. These case examples have been developed from interviews with agencies that confirmed their willingness to participate and include several of the more notable practices identified through the national survey.

Together, the four selected states (Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, and Vermont) represent a cross-section of geographic regions, governance structures, types and numbers of RPEs, and coordination mechanisms. These case examples offer context-specific insights into how different institutional arrangements and planning relationships influence rural transportation planning and implementation. Figure 29 geographically depicts the four states selected for these case examples.

Long Description.

The map depicts the United States with states highlighted to indicate those selected for case examples. The states identified as participating in the case example interviews are Colorado, Iowa, Vermont, and Ohio. All other states are shown without selection. A legend on the map identifies the highlighted states as case examples.

Vermont Agency of Transportation

Governance

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) is the centralized state department responsible for managing the planning, development, and maintenance of the stateʼs transportation system. Within VTrans, the Policy, Planning, and Research Bureau oversees coordination with local and regional partners, including Vermontʼs 10 Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) serving non-metropolitan areas, and the stateʼs only metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) (see Figure 30). Within the Policy, Planning, and Research Bureau, planning coordinators serve as dedicated liaisons to the RPCs, providing direct support and maintaining regular communication with regional partners.

The RPCs are formally designated in state statute and serve as the primary intermediaries between municipal governments and the state. Vermont does not have county governments, so RPCs play a critical role in linking local affairs with state-level decision-making across multiple policy areas. RPCs are political subdivisions of the state created by their member municipalities to provide technical assistance and support in areas such as land use, housing, economic development, environmental quality, and transportation. Their responsibilities, outlined in Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated (24 VSA) § 4345a, include promoting intermunicipal

Long Description.

The map depicts the state of Vermont divided into regional planning commission boundaries with town boundaries and VTrans district boundaries also shown. Each regional planning commission area is labeled by name, including NRPC Northwest Planning Commission, LCPC Lamoille County Planning Commission, NVDA Northeastern Vermont Development Association, CCRPC Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, CVRPC Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, ACRPC Addison County Regional Planning Commission, TRORC Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission, RRPC Rutland Regional Planning Commission, MARC Mount Ascutney Regional Commission, BCRC Bennington County Regional Commission, and WRC Windham Regional Commission. Town boundaries appear within each region, and VTrans district boundaries outline broader transportation districts across the state. The map includes adjacent state borders for New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Canada. A legend identifies regional planning commission boundaries, town boundaries, and VTrans district boundaries. The map is attributed to the Vermont Agency of Transportation Policy, Planning, and Intermodal Development Division and notes an update date of April 30, 2025. Source: Vermont DOT website VTrans, 2025.

cooperation, preparing regional plans, confirming municipal planning efforts, and advising on state capital expenditures and public utilities. RPCs also support local emergency preparedness, energy planning, clean water initiatives, and economic resilience [National Association of Development Organizations (NADO), 2025b]. Municipal input into transportation planning is further structured through regional Transportation Advisory Committees (TACs), which are convened by each RPC and composed of local officials and other regional stakeholders.

In 1992, VTrans established the Transportation Planning Initiative (TPI) in an effort to build strong partnerships with their local officials and RPCs, while meeting federal requirements [i.e., the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and the Fixing Americaʼs Surface Transportation (FAST) Act] and the state mandates of Vermontʼs Growth Management Act, commonly known as “Act 200.” Enacted in 1988, Act 200 provides a framework of land use goals and encourages coordination among local, regional, and state levels of government. It calls for public investments, including transportation infrastructure, to support Vermontʼs historic settlement pattern of compact centers surrounded by rural countryside. It also emphasizes the development of safe, efficient, multimodal transportation systems that respect the natural environment (VTrans, 2023).

Each RPC carries out its responsibilities under the TPI through an annual work plan, jointly developed with VTrans and approved by both the agency and member municipalities. This process ensures alignment with local needs and statewide policy directives. Funding for transportation planning is shared between VTrans and the RPCs, with federal funds matched by state and local contributions, reflecting the collaborative governance structure underlying the TPI.

Key Coordination Mechanisms

The Transportation Planning Initiative (TPI)

VTrans employs a variety of coordination mechanisms to foster strong working relationships with non-metropolitan RPCs and local officials. Chief among these is the TPI, a structured framework that guides collaboration between the state and its regional partners. The TPI supports a consistent and inclusive process for engaging local officials and citizens in transportation policy, planning, and project development, while ensuring regional activities are aligned with state and federal transportation goals.

Through the TPI, VTrans provides funding to RPCs to carry out a broad range of transportation planning and outreach activities. These include facilitating public engagement, identifying local transportation needs, supporting project prioritization, and integrating transportation with land use and environmental planning. Importantly, the TPI also supports the development and maintenance of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and the execution of annual work plans. VTrans updates the TPI guidance document each year, using input from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies (VAPDA), VTrans leadership, and internal agency task owners, such as staff who request specific tasks like traffic counts or project development support. This guidance outlines statewide priorities as well as state-required and federally required planning tasks.

RTPs and Work Plans

Each RPC develops an RTP as part of its broader regional plan (which covers a range of planning subjects, including land use, economic development, natural resource management, housing, public health, and more), incorporating state priorities while addressing local needs. These plans are typically updated every 8 years and serve as strategic documents that align regional transportation visions and priorities with broader state goals. VTrans reviews these plans to ensure

consistency with statewide transportation policy and integration of key focus areas such as resilience, safety, and land use coordination.

In addition to long-range planning, RPCs also produce annual work plans that operationalize the goals of the TPI. These work plans are based on the annually updated TPI guidance document provided by VTrans and include both required tasks and region-specific initiatives. Core activities outlined in the work plans typically fall into several categories: administration of the TPI program, public outreach and engagement, general planning efforts, data collection (e.g., traffic counts), project development assistance, and support for clean water efforts. Some work plans also include support for special initiatives like the state operated rail-trail program.

Once finalized, work plans are incorporated into grant agreements between VTrans and the individual RPCs. These agreements not only serve as the foundation for funding but also define the scope of work for the year. Progress is monitored through regular communication between RPC staff and VTrans planning coordinators, including monthly check-ins, midyear reviews, and ongoing collaboration to ensure task completion and compliance with state and federal requirements.

Planning Coordinators

VTrans assigns planning coordinators to specific geographic regions. These staff members serve as the primary point of contact between VTrans and each RPC. This structure is intended to provide consistent and direct communication channels and enable more tailored coordination. The planning coordinators maintain regular communication with RPCs through in-person meetings, virtual meetings, emails, and phone calls. They also conduct monthly check-ins with RPC transportation planners and participate in midyear reviews to ensure compliance with federal and state statutes and progress on tasks outlined in the TPI guidance document and work plans. Additionally, planning coordinators assist in onboarding new transportation planners at RPCs, providing guidance on agency processes, project prioritization, and other transportation planning activities.

Monthly TPI Meetings

A core coordination mechanism used by VTrans is monthly TPI meetings, which involve representatives from all RPCs, including the CCRPC (as both an RPC and MPO), and relevant VTrans staff. These meetings are used to exchange updates, facilitate roundtable discussions, and address ongoing planning and programming efforts. In addition to their formal content, the meetings provide an opportunity for interaction among participants from across regions. Each month, one of the RPCs hosts the TPI meeting in coordination with their assigned planning coordinator, developing an agenda that includes region-specific topics while also incorporating items of statewide interest. This approach ensures that the meetings are relevant and responsive to local needs while also incorporating state-level priorities. Vermont balances in-person and virtual meetings based on weather and convenience. In-person meetings during good-weather months foster informal networking, while virtual meetings during winter months accommodate logistical challenges.

Transportation Advisory Committees (TACs)

Each RPC convenes a TAC composed primarily of municipal officials and a range of regional and modal stakeholders, as required by state law (Title 19 VSA § 10l). These representatives, often nominated by their local boards, commonly include board members, public works officials, town road foremen, and municipal managers or administrators. In addition to municipal representatives, TAC membership may also include individuals from public transit agencies, bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups, the disability community, economic development organizations,

and local health departments or hospitals. In some instances, state legislators, particularly those serving on transportation-related committees, also participate in TAC meetings.

TACs serve as conduits for municipal input into transportation planning and are tasked with identifying and ranking regional priorities. Their recommendations inform RPC planning activities and provide input into VTrans decision-making. Through their advisory role, TACs offer VTrans a structured mechanism to obtain local and regional perspectives on statewide transportation issues, including project prioritization, modal plans, and project development.

Coordination between VTrans and the TACs is facilitated through the RPC transportation planners, who act as intermediaries. VTrans supports this relationship by providing guidance and resources to RPC staff and encouraging the use of TAC meetings as opportunities for public engagement and education. Agenda development for TAC meetings is often a collaborative effort between RPC planners and VTrans planning coordinators, ensuring that both local and state priorities are addressed. Additionally, information shared at the monthly TPI meetings with RPCs is frequently relayed back to TAC members, creating a feedback loop that supports more integrated and informed planning across and between jurisdictions and levels of government.

The Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies (VAPDA)

The VAPDA serves as the statewide association for Vermontʼs RPCs. The VAPDA is composed of the executive directors of each RPC and supports municipalities through technical assistance, training, grant administration, and resource development on a wide range of issues including transportation, land use, environmental quality, housing, and economic and community development. The VAPDA facilitates communication between the RPCs and VTrans and serves as a unified voice on regional planning issues. One of its primary functions is providing coordinated feedback on the annual TPI guidance document, helping to ensure that statewide transportation priorities reflect the varying needs and perspectives of Vermontʼs regions.

Support for RPC and Local Officials

Training and Staff Support

VTrans acknowledges that many municipalities in Vermont have small populations, often fewer than 1,000 residents, and limited staff capacity. In this context, RPCs frequently function as an extension of municipal staff, providing planning services and technical expertise. VTrans supports RPCs by providing training, mentoring, and guidance to new transportation planners, particularly in times of high staff turnover. This includes instruction on agency procedures, project prioritization processes, and planning best practices. VTrans also offers ongoing guidance to RPC transportation planners to assist them in facilitating discussions with local stakeholders and navigating complex planning requirements.

Access to Data and Datasets

RPCs play an active role in data collection activities, including traffic counts and infrastructure inventories. These data are shared with VTrans for processing and analysis. In turn, VTrans provides RPCs with access to relevant datasets and analytical resources to support local and regional transportation planning.

Financial Support

Funding for regional transportation planning is primarily administered through the TPI using federal State Planning and Research (SPR) program funds. Approximately $2.5 million is distributed annually across the 10 non-metropolitan RPCs. The funding formula allocates 50% of

the total equally among all RPCs, while the remaining 50% is distributed unweighted based on population, number of towns served, and total road mileage. This funding is structured with an 80-10-10 match requirement: 80% federal funds, 10% matched by VTrans, and 10% by the RPCs. Notably, the 10% state match provided by VTrans is not common practice in all states. This contribution helps reduce the financial burden on RPCs and municipalities and enables more consistent access to federal funding by ensuring that RPCs are not solely responsible for meeting the full non-federal match requirement.

Barriers and Challenges

Funding Limitations

Smaller RPCs, particularly those serving rural areas with fewer municipalities, receive smaller funding allocations based on the existing formula. This restricts their ability to conduct in-depth studies or hire consultants for specialized tasks. Additionally, some RPCs leave money on the table, not because they lack matching funds, but because they lack the staff capacity to spend the funds effectively or experience staff turnover midyear.

Staffing Constraints

Many municipalities in Vermont are small, with populations under 1,000. These towns often have minimal staff (e.g., a three-member select board and a single road foreman). This creates a limited pool of people available to engage in transportation planning. RPCs often act as the “staffing arm” for these municipalities, but even RPCs face staffing challenges, including turnover among transportation planners. At the time of the interview, Vermont was experiencing a wave of turnover, with 50% to 75% of transportation planners leaving or transitioning to other jobs. Increasing complexity in federal and state administrative processes places a significant strain on RPCs and municipalities. These processes require more expertise, training, and staff time, which smaller RPCs and towns often lack. Additionally, administrative procedures are becoming more staff-intensive, making it harder for RPCs to meet requirements while managing their workload.

Public Participation

The interviewee from VTrans noted that participation in TACs has declined slightly, reflecting broader trends of reduced public engagement in meetings and committees. The reasons given include busy schedules and competing priorities for municipal officials, a lack of perceived agency influence in decision-making processes, and difficulty in generating engaging topics for TAC meetings. RPCs have had to adapt by shifting meeting schedules (e.g., holding meetings during the day instead of evenings) and incorporating educational elements to keep members engaged.

Ohio Department of Transportation

Governance

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) operates under a primarily centralized governance structure, with key administrative, policy, financial, and planning decisions made at the agencyʼs central office in Columbus. This office is responsible for setting statewide transportation policy, managing fund distribution, overseeing coordination with federal agencies, and collaborating with regional planning organizations such as MPOs and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs).

Complementing this centralized decision-making, ODOT maintains a network of 12 district offices distributed throughout the state. These district offices carry out a range of operational and technical functions, including project engineering oversight, road maintenance, and local

stakeholder engagement. While districts do not hold primary transportation planning decision-making authority, their staff serve as critical local experts who manage on-the-ground project delivery and provide technical input that informs state-level planning and project prioritization.

There are eight federally designated RTPOs responsible for transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas of Ohio (see Figure 31). ODOT administers the RTPO Program under the 2022 Ohio RTPO Administration Manual. RTPOs develop key planning documents such as long-range transportation plans (LRTPs), transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and annual work programs. RTPOs are governed by policy boards that include representatives from the counties and major communities within their regions. These boards typically consist of county commissioners or mayors, designees such as county engineers or planning commission staff, and representatives from ODOT district offices.

Each RTPO is hosted by a designated agency, such as a county, city, council of governments (COG), or RPC, that acts as the fiscal agent. The host agency employs RTPO staff and is responsible for managing administrative functions, including cost allocation and indirect expenses. In some cases, agencies that previously functioned solely as RPCs now serve as the designated RTPO for their region. Some RTPOs are staffed by MPOs, with overlapping personnel handling both MPO and RTPO responsibilities.

Key Coordination Mechanisms

The RTPO Program

ODOTʼs RTPO Program, administered through the Office of Statewide Planning and Research, provides a framework that supports non-metropolitan transportation planning while meeting federal requirements under Title 23 of the United States Code (USC) § 135. The program was formalized following a 2013–2015 pilot initiative and has since expanded to include RTPOs across the state. Through this program, ODOT funds and supports the development of key planning products such as LRTPs, regional TIPs, and annual work programs.

To guide participation and promote consistency, ODOT provides RTPOs with an administration manual that outlines planning expectations, deliverables, and fiscal requirements. According to an ODOT representative, ODOT is working on supplementing the Ohio RTPO Administration Manual with interactive online training videos to support onboarding for both RTPO staff and ODOT employees to ensure that planning processes are accessible and standardized, particularly for regions with limited staff capacity.

Assigned Liaisons for RTPOs

Each RTPO is supported by an assigned liaison from ODOTʼs Central Office who serves as the primary point of contact for the agency. These liaisons provide ongoing technical assistance, help navigate internal processes, and ensure that RTPO staff have consistent and knowledgeable support. The interviewees from ODOT emphasized that the personalized communication provided by the liaison, along with tailored support, is often the most effective mechanism for resolving issues and building trust between local officials and ODOT.

Quarterly RTPO Touch-Base Meetings

ODOT hosts quarterly RTPO touch-base meetings, which bring together staff from all RTPOs for updates on planning activities, discussion of shared challenges, and peer-to-peer exchange. These meetings, conducted virtually, offer a collaborative environment where participants can learn from one another and explore solutions to common problems, especially among RTPOs in geographically or economically similar regions.

Ohio Association of Regional Councils Meetings

ODOT participates in broader forums hosted by the Ohio Association of Regional Councils (OARC), which bring together all 17 MPOs and 8 RTPOs in Ohio. These meetings are held virtually or in person and serve as forums for discussing hot topics, legislative updates, and transportation-related issues. While these meetings are often more MPO-focused, representatives from RTPOs are exposed to statewide policy discussions, legislative updates, and shared best practices. This mechanism helps RTPOs stay informed and connected to statewide planning efforts.

Work Program Annual Meetings

ODOT holds one-on-one annual work program meetings with each RTPO to review planning processes, work products, and overall performance. Typically scheduled between February and April, these meetings provide a confidential and supportive setting where ODOT staff can offer tailored coaching and discuss any challenges the RTPO may be facing. ODOT uses these meetings as informal “mini reviews,” offering constructive feedback on issues such as underutilized funds, vague work plans, or capacity constraints. The format is intentionally private to avoid singling out agencies in larger public forums, allowing for more candid conversations and problem-solving. These meetings are often attended by multiple RTPO staff members and provide an opportunity for ODOT to offer guidance, suggest solutions, and reinforce expectations, while also acknowledging the resource limitations that smaller RTPOs often face.

Support for RTPOs and Local Officials

Financial Support

Ohio RTPOs receive federal planning funds through ODOTʼs SPR program, which requires a match of 20% non-federal funds. ODOT contributes half of this match, 10% of the total, using state gas-tax revenue. The remaining 10% is covered by the RTPOs through local contributions, such as member jurisdiction dues. This financial support model eases the burden on these agencies, particularly smaller RTPOs that often operate with limited resources. By covering part of the required non-federal match, ODOT helps ensure that RTPOs can fully access their federal allocations without leaving funding unused due to local funding shortfalls. In addition, ODOT does not require RTPOs to provide the local match up front; instead, the local portion is withheld from reimbursement, reducing administrative pressure on small agencies.

Capital Funds Program

ODOTʼs Capital Funds Program gives RTPOs access to a small pool of federal Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program funds set aside through a state legislative budget allocation. These funds are not part of the SPR planning allocation and do not follow the 80-10-10 match model. Instead, the capital funds are distributed directly to RTPOs, with annual allocations ranging from approximately $400,000 for smaller RTPOs to $1.2 million for larger ones, based on population and geographic size. RTPOs decide how to use the funds through locally developed capital funding policies, and projects may include anything eligible under STBG, such as construction, road resurfacing, pedestrian/bike infrastructure, signal upgrades, or transit stop enhancements. It also supports preconstruction activities, such as environmental documentation and preliminary engineering, which help make projects “shovel-ready” and more competitive for future funding. In some cases, RTPOs have even used the funds for major planning efforts, like updating LRTPs with consultant support. Although the program is relatively small and still developing, it fills a critical gap by helping non-metropolitan regions deliver visible results and meet their unique infrastructure needs.

Data Dashboards and Tools

DOT provides RTPOs with access to data dashboards and tools, such as the Transportation Information Management System (TIMS), which includes information on pavement conditions, safety, congestion, etc. These tools help RTPOs conduct planning more efficiently, especially given their limited staff capacity. By providing readily available data, ODOT reduces the burden on RTPOs and enables them to focus on higher-level planning tasks.

Barriers and Challenges

Staff Constraints and Turnover

Many RTPOs have small teams with only a few staff members, making it difficult to manage workloads and maintain continuity in planning efforts. High turnover in rural areas adds to the challenge because new staff need time to get up to speed. The interviewee explained that some RTPOs leave federal planning funds unused, not due to a lack of money, but because staffing shortages make it hard to complete projects or spend the funds effectively. In addition, the leftover funds are often too small to hire additional staff, so RTPOs canʼt easily solve their staffing shortages by simply bringing on extra help.

Uneven Capacity Across RTPOs

RTPOs across Ohio vary widely in their capacity, expertise, and institutional support. Those hosted within MPOs or well-resourced COGs often benefit from access to experienced planners, technical tools, and established planning procedures. In contrast, RTPOs hosted by agencies with limited planning capacity may lack staff with formal transportation planning training or experience. RTPOs that are physically located farther from urban centers often face greater challenges in attracting and retaining qualified planners, as many professionals are drawn to urban areas with larger projects and greater career opportunities.

Colorado Department of Transportation

Governance

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) operates under a decentralized governance structure, balancing centralized planning oversight with substantial regional and local involvement. The agencyʼs headquarters in Denver manages statewide transportation policy, integrates planning products, and provides technical and financial support to regional partners. Complementing this, CDOT maintains five regional engineering offices spread throughout the state, which provide localized coordination, technical assistance, and direct engagement with rural and metropolitan planning entities.

Colorado is divided into 15 Transportation Planning Regions (TPRs), including 10 rural TPRs and 5 urban TPRs covered by MPOs (see Figure 32). Each region develops an RTP that addresses its unique transportation needs and priorities. These regional plans are consolidated into the Statewide Transportation Plan, ensuring alignment of local and statewide goals. In rural areas, TPRs are represented by RPCs composed of local government officials, such as county commissioners and public works staff. These RPCs are hosted by local agencies such as counties, cities, or COGs, which provide administrative support and staffing. Local jurisdictions participate actively through these RPCs via intergovernmental agreements, fostering collaboration across municipal, county, and tribal lines. Also, three of the five MPOs are eligible for Rural Planning Assistance funds because they have rural areas outside their MPO boundaries. These MPOs are responsible for transportation planning in the rural areas adjacent to their MPO regions. The policy decisions

for these rural areas are generally made by the MPO board, and the rural sections are integrated into the MPOʼs LRTP.

Oversight and policy direction are provided by the Transportation Commission of Colorado, whose members are appointed by the Governor. The commission adopts planning policies and approves statewide plans and improvement programs.

Additionally, statewide advisory committees, such as the Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC) and the Transit and Rail Advisory Committee (TRAC), offer forums for incorporating regional and modal perspectives into CDOTʼs planning processes. These groups facilitate collaboration among local officials, tribal governments, and other stakeholders to ensure statewide planning remains responsive to the needs of both rural and urban communities.

Key Coordination Mechanisms

Quarterly TPR Meetings

CDOT coordinates with TPRs through quarterly meetings hosted by the RPCs. These meetings bring together representatives from counties, towns, cities, and other local jurisdictions and often include elected officials like county commissioners and public works staff. Typically, the hosting COGs or similar administrative entities assist with organizing these meetings by sending notifications, distributing meeting information, maintaining websites, and supporting overall administration. The primary purpose of these quarterly meetings is to foster collaboration between CDOT and rural planning partners, including local officials and staff within the RPC. In some cases, subcommittees may be formed for specific issues, but the quarterly meetings typically involve the entire RPC. Staff from CDOTʼs headquarters in Denver and its regional offices actively participate in these meetings. They provide updates on statewide transportation initiatives, such as the 2050 Statewide Transportation Plan, gather input from local partners, and help ensure alignment with broader state priorities.

Monthly STAC Meetings

The STAC is a statewide body that meets monthly to discuss transportation issues and provide input to CDOT. Each TPR, including the 5 MPOs and 10 RPCs, has one representative on the STAC. These meetings allow CDOT to share updates on statewide planning efforts, funding opportunities, and policy changes. They also provide a venue for each representative to advocate for their regionʼs needs and priorities.

STAC representatives are expected to report back to their respective TPRs during quarterly meetings to keep regional and rural partners informed. Rural representatives may serve in leadership roles such as chair or vice chair. CDOT provides additional financial support to TPRs whose representatives hold these leadership positions.

Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs)

Each TPR in Colorado is required to have an RTP that identifies the regionʼs transportation needs and long-term priorities (see Figure 33). RTPs are developed to ensure that regional perspectives are reflected in the statewide transportation planning process. While RTPs do not include revenue estimates or detailed cost analyses, they help identify priority projects and inform higher-level programming documents such as CDOTʼs 10-Year Vision Plan and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In regions covered by MPOs, rural areas within their boundaries are often included as subsections within the MPOʼs LRTP rather than through separate RTPs.

Long Description.

Four report covers for the 2045 Regional Transportation Plans represent plans for the Central Front Range, Eastern, Gunnison Valley, and Intermountain regions. Each cover is a transportation planning report cover that includes the region name, the title 2045 Regional Transportation Plan, and an adoption date in 2020. The Central Front Range report cover features a mountainous landscape, the Eastern report cover features native grassland vegetation, the Gunnison Valley report cover features a mountain and lake landscape, and the Intermountain report cover features a high mountain scene. Each report cover also includes agency logos and a small inset map identifying the regional planning area within Colorado. Source: https://www.codot.gov/programs/yourtransportationpriorities/regional-transportation-plans.

Support for RPCs and Local Officials

The Rural Planning Assistance Program

The Rural Planning Assistance Program is a grant initiative administered by the CDOT to support rural transportation planning activities conducted by the stateʼs RPCs. Funded through CDOTʼs discretionary use of SPR funds, the program helps RPCs carry out key responsibilities such as developing RTPs, participating in the statewide planning process, and ensuring public involvement in transportation decision-making.

CDOT distributes approximately $200,000 annually through the Rural Planning Assistance Program. Allocation is based on factors such as distance from CDOT headquarters, leadership roles in statewide bodies like the STAC, and special regional considerations, including the presence of tribal governments.

Rural Planning Assistance funds support a range of eligible planning activities and administrative tasks, including maintaining regional transportation planning websites and documenting public engagement. CDOTʼs Rural Planning Guide provides detailed instructions on allowable expenses, invoicing, and reimbursement procedures (CDOT, 2024a).

Staff and Financial Support for RTP Development

CDOT provides significant staff and financial support to RPCs to develop RTPs. Rather than allocating funds for RPCs to manage the planning process independently, CDOT staff lead the drafting of RTPs in collaboration with each RPC. This centralized support model, adopted after earlier consultant-led or locally administered approaches proved inefficient, ensures consistency across regions while still incorporating input from local officials and stakeholders. CDOT fully covers the cost of RTP development, which reduces the financial and administrative burden on rural planning partners.

Technical Support

CDOT provides various forms of technical assistance to support RPCs in fulfilling their administrative and planning responsibilities. One area of focus is training, particularly training related to the invoicing process for reimbursements. CDOT staff have identified the need for clearer guidance and improved documentation to help RPC administrators navigate allowable expenses

and submission procedures. Efforts to address this include the development of training materials and the scheduling of virtual “office hours” for RPC staff. CDOT also grants access to datasets and planning software to assist with regional transportation planning activities. In addition, the agency provides guidance and funding to help RPCs maintain accessible websites that meet state requirements for sharing public information, and offers support to local governments and RPCs in preparing competitive grant applications, including the provision of letters of support.

Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund

The Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund (MMOF) is a state-funded program managed by the CDOT that supports multimodal transportation projects across Colorado. Created by the legislature in 2018, the program was initially funded through a one-time state allocation. It was later expanded by Colorado Senate Bill 2021-260, which added annual state revenue and federal COVID-19 recovery funds (CDOT, 2024b).

RPCs administer the MMOF at the regional level, issuing calls for projects, managing application and selection processes, and awarding funds to eligible recipients. Local jurisdictions can apply for funding to support transit services, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, strategies to meet environmental goals, and other multimodal improvements. The program is designed to benefit older adults, people with disabilities, children, rural residents, and disproportionately impacted communities by improving mobility while also addressing environmental goals (CDOT, 2024b).

One significant advantage of the MMOF is that it can be used as a local match for federal funding, allowing rural and economically constrained jurisdictions to leverage state dollars to access larger funding opportunities. Although the program generally requires a 50% match, the Colorado Transportation Commission has approved reduced or eliminated match requirements for certain rural and disproportionately impacted communities based on economic hardship criteria (CDOT, 2024b).

In total, approximately $17.2 million in MMOF funds were allocated across all TPRs for fiscal year 2024, with an additional $18.5 million allocated for fiscal year 2025, based on the most recent distribution formula adopted in May 2025 (CDOT, 2025a). As state-only funds, MMOF resources are considered relatively flexible, offering fewer administrative burdens as compared to federal transportation programs.

Barriers and Challenges

Limited Staff Capacity in Rural Areas

Interviews with CDOT staff highlighted ongoing limitations in transportation planning capacity among many rural planning partners, particularly within RPCs. Administrators in these roles often come from varied professional backgrounds and may not have prior experience with transportation planning, federal requirements, or administrative procedures such as submitting invoices for reimbursement. This lack of specialized expertise can make it difficult for some rural regions to participate fully in planning processes, apply for competitive grants, or advance local priorities. In many cases, administrative tasks are delayed or submitted with errors, creating inefficiencies for both CDOT and local entities. These capacity limitations are especially challenging for smaller jurisdictions, where transportation responsibilities often fall to elected officials or generalist staff with limited availability.

Uneven Representation and Engagement

Interviewees also noted that participation and communication within Coloradoʼs rural transportation planning structure can vary across regions. Smaller jurisdictions may lack the staff capacity or resources to attend TPR meetings regularly or to engage deeply in regional planning

efforts. Additionally, while the STAC is designed to facilitate communication between CDOT and the RPCs, representatives that attend do not always provide detailed updates back to their respective RPCs, limiting the flow of information from state-level discussions.

Iowa Department of Transportation

Governance

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) operates under a decentralized governance model, distributing responsibilities across its central office in Ames and six district offices throughout the state (Iowa DOT, 2022). The central office provides strategic oversight, administers statewide transportation programs, and manages federal and state funding allocations. District offices are responsible for delivering projects; maintaining infrastructure; and coordinating directly with local governments, MPOs, and Regional Planning Affiliations (RPAs) within their areas.

Iowa is divided into 9 MPOs and 18 state-designated RPAs, which together cover all 99 counties in the state (see Figure 34). RPAs serve as the primary entities responsible for coordinating transportation planning, programming, and public involvement in non-metropolitan areas. RPAs follow a structure similar to MPOs, with a policy board composed of local elected officials and a technical committee that includes city and county engineers and planning professionals. In many regions, the Iowa DOT, the FHWA, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate in technical committees as nonvoting members to provide resources and support while maintaining local decision-making authority.

RPAs are responsible for key planning products, including LRTPs, TIPs, annual transportation planning work programs (TPWPs), public participation plans (PPPs), and passenger transportation plans (PTPs). They also conduct public outreach, help program regional allocations of federal STBG and Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds, and convene committees such as transportation alternatives advisory groups and multidisciplinary safety teams.

In most cases, RPAs in Iowa are administratively hosted by COGs, which provide staffing, meeting logistics, and fiscal oversight. In some regions, a single COG hosts both an MPO and an RPA. For example, the Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments (INRCOG) hosts the Black Hawk County MPO and the Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority, while the transportation division of the Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council (SIMPCO) houses the SIMPCO MPO and the Siouxland Regional Transportation Planning Association (SRTPA). The Iowa DOT Systems Planning Bureau within the central office oversees coordination with both MPOs and RPAs and is responsible for integrating RTPs into the State Transportation Plan.

Oversight and policy-direction transportation planning are provided by the Iowa Transportation Commission, a seven-member body appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Iowa Senate. The commission approves the Iowa Transportation Improvement Program and provides guidance on statewide planning goals. Together with the Systems Planning Bureau and district offices, the commission ensures that transportation planning in Iowa reflects both state priorities and regional needs, including those of non-metropolitan communities.

Key Coordination Mechanisms

Quarterly Meetings

Iowa DOT holds statewide quarterly coordination meetings with RPAs and MPOs to strengthen communication, align planning efforts, and provide technical updates. These meetings are a cornerstone of Iowaʼs collaborative approach to transportation planning. Each agency is required

to send at least one representative, ensuring consistent participation across the state. Typically, three meetings are held in person, and one is held virtually during the winter months to account for weather. Meeting agendas focus on topics relevant to both metropolitan and non-metropolitan planning partners, such as regional planning deliverables, funding updates, and coordination on statewide initiatives. The meetings also serve as a platform for discussion of interagency task forces and working groups, including those focused on freight, safety, and public transit. To expand participation and training opportunities, Iowa DOT has also experimented with innovative scheduling, for example, aligning a quarterly meeting with the Iowa Association of Councils of Governments (ICOG) staff retreat, which enables additional breakout sessions and engagement with a broader pool of regional staff.

Six-Year Certification Reviews

Every 6 years, Iowa DOT conducts comprehensive certification reviews of each RPA to evaluate their performance and compliance with state and federal planning requirements. These reviews include a detailed 60-question survey covering planning work tasks, financial processes, board composition, and public engagement. Staff from across Iowa DOT, including the Systems Planning Bureau, Local Systems Bureau, Modal Bureau, and district planning teams, contribute to the assessments.

While the certification process was initially designed to help Iowa DOT staff better understand each RPAʼs operations, it has evolved into a more diagnostic and collaborative exercise. In addition to assessing compliance, the reviews now include reflective questions on how the planning process is functioning, helping Iowa DOT identify systemic challenges and areas for improvement. The survey results help in identifying trends such as staffing shortages, delays in work task completion, and issues with funding utilization, all of which inform adjustments to Iowa DOTʼs support strategies.

One such adjustment has been the refinement of Iowa DOTʼs carryover policy, which permits RPAs to retain unspent planning funds and apply them in subsequent years. In some cases, staffing shortages have hindered RPAs from completing scheduled work tasks, making carryover essential to maintaining continuity once capacity is restored. In others, adequately staffed RPAs finish their core planning work but are left with small residual balances that are too limited to support new initiatives. Rather than let those funds lapse, Iowaʼs approach allows RPAs to accumulate modest reserves over time and strategically apply them during more resource-intensive planning cycles, such as LRTP development every fifth year.

To maintain ongoing engagement between formal certification cycles, Iowa DOT also conducts informal check-ins with MPOs and RPAs every 3 years. These touchpoints allow staff to discuss current challenges, share updates, and ensure continued alignment with planning expectations between formal review periods.

Annual Surveys

Iowa DOT conducts annual surveys to gather feedback from RPAs on coordination practices, agency support, and emerging challenges. While these surveys were initially designed to help DOT staff build relationships and better understand the roles and needs of individual RPAs, they have since evolved into a more comprehensive tool for continuous improvement. The surveys now include questions about how planning processes are functioning on the ground, how effectively funding is being utilized, and what barriers RPAs face in carrying out their responsibilities. This ongoing feedback loop allows Iowa DOT to monitor trends over time, such as recurring staffing shortages or delays in project delivery, and to make informed adjustments to its policies and procedures.

Integrated Project Programming Through TPMS

Iowaʼs Transportation Program Management System (TPMS) is a centralized, statewide platform for managing all state-funded and federally funded transportation projects (see Figure 35). Developed and maintained by the Iowa County Engineers Association Service Bureau, TPMS is specifically tailored to Iowaʼs decentralized planning structure. It is consistently used across all 99 counties, MPOs, RPAs, and Iowa DOT divisions, enabling transparency, real-time coordination, and uniform programming practices across jurisdictions (Waid et al., 2021).

The platform integrates county-level planning through the submission of county 5-year plans, which include RPA-approved projects and help align local, regional, and state priorities. TPMS also allows Iowa DOT to review and approve submitted projects to ensure compliance with eligibility and funding requirements. TPMS helps streamline this process by providing a single platform for project submission, review, and approval, reducing administrative burdens and ensuring consistency.

RPAs use the system to develop their TIPs, drawing directly from the project data already entered into TPMS, helping RPAs ensure their TIPs are accurate and comprehensive. Additionally, the system tracks the allocation and use of STBG and TAP funds, supporting efficient resource management and facilitating integration with the STIP.

This centralized system enhances communication among RPAs, county engineers, and the state DOT by providing a shared platform for project tracking and updates. According to Iowa DOT staff, it also plays a critical role in fostering collaboration and ensuring that local priorities are integrated into regional and statewide planning efforts. TPMS helps RPAs and local officials coordinate effectively, align their plans with state DOT requirements, and develop competitive, data-driven priorities.

Modal Coordination and Public Transit Planning

While development of a coordinated public transit human services transportation plan is a federal requirement for regions receiving certain FTA funds, Iowa DOT has helped strengthen this process by embedding it within a broader, locally driven coordination model. In Iowa, RPAs lead the development of these PTPs in close collaboration with rural transit agencies.

The Iowa DOT interviewee noted that coordination is particularly effective in regions where RPAs and transit agencies are housed within the same COG. In these cases, shared staffing and close physical proximity allow for integration of planning and transit service delivery. In other regions, where transit and planning functions are not collocated, the PTP development process compels collaboration by design. Joint development of PTPs between MPOs and RPAs is another distinctive feature. For example, in the Des Moines region, RPA 11 and the Des Moines Area MPO collaborated on a single PTP to reflect service provision by both the fixed-route transit agency [Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART)] and a demand-response provider [Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA)] that serves nearby rural areas. A similar multi-agency collaboration was described in the Omaha-Council Bluffs area.

Beyond meeting federal requirements, Iowa DOT also hosts events and training opportunities to support regional staff in delivering quality plans. For example, a statewide public transit event held in Ankeny brought together most RPAs, reinforcing peer exchange and highlighting the importance of rural transit planning.

Support for RPCs and Local Officials

Empowering Local Project Selection Through Direct Programming Authority

Iowa DOT allows RPAs to directly program their allocations of STBG and TAP funds. This approach enables RPAs to identify and prioritize projects based on regional needs, with Iowa DOT providing oversight to ensure eligibility with state and federal requirements.

Distinctive aspects of Iowaʼs model include its statewide coverage of RPAs, formal designation of RPAs in state statute, and use of a centralized TPMS to support coordination and transparency. Iowa also discourages suballocation of funds to individual counties, encouraging RPAs to select projects based on regional priorities through competitive processes. While some local agencies prefer direct distribution, the structure emphasizes regional decision-making and collaboration in programming transportation funds.

Federal-Aid Swap Program

Iowa DOT administers a Federal-Aid Swap Program that allows certain local transportation projects to be funded with state dollars in place of federal funds. The program is designed to reduce administrative burden by removing the need for local agencies to comply with many federal requirements.

Under this arrangement, Iowa DOT retains the federal funds and provides an equivalent amount of state funding to eligible local agencies on a one-to-one basis. Unlike some states that offer discounted swaps (e.g., $0.80 or $0.90 per federal dollar), Iowa offers a one-to-one exchange [U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2020]. This exchange allows Iowa DOT to centrally manage federal compliance, freeing local agencies to implement projects under state administrative procedures, which are less burdensome (Iowa DOT, 2023). For example, Iowa DOT provided $12,000 per agency in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) swap funds to help local governments meet the local match requirement for Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) planning grants. Additionally, the HSIP-Local swap program provides $5 million annually for systemic low-to-medium cost safety improvements under state-funded swap agreements (Iowa DOT, 2025b).

Historically, Iowaʼs Federal-Aid Swap Program had applied to several funding sources and a wide variety of local agencies. However, as of 2023, its scope was narrowed. The swap is now limited to city-sponsored STBG projects administered through RPAs and select HSIP projects under the HSIP-Local initiative (Iowa DOT, 2025b; Iowa DOT, 2023).

While the swap does not increase overall funding levels, its streamlined processes can accelerate project delivery by reducing documentation and shortening development timelines. According to Iowa DOT, using swapped state funds can reduce project timelines by up to 6 months (Iowa DOT, 2023). As of 2019, Iowa swapped approximately 18% of its federal-aid highway funds, making it one of the most active states using this approach. According to a GAO review, 15 states had swap programs between 2015 and 2019, and for most of those states, swapped funds ranged from less than 1% to 12% of their federal-aid apportionments (GAO, 2020).

Technical Support

Iowa DOT provides a range of data and technical support to RPAs and local governments to assist with transportation planning and project development. For example, the agency supplies traffic counts, crash data, bridge condition ratings, annual average daily traffic (AADT), and freight data. These are all resources that RPAs use in developing plans and in preparing competitive grant applications.

Barriers and Challenges

Limited Staff Capacity in Rural Areas

Staffing challenges within RPAs were identified by Iowa DOT representatives as a key factor affecting coordination and transportation planning efforts. RPAs in Iowa face difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified staff, particularly in remote areas. Younger planners are often reluctant to begin their careers in small towns due to several factors, including lower salaries and

the lack of appeal of living in sparsely populated areas. This issue is compounded by high turnover rates, which disrupt continuity and make it challenging for RPAs to complete their required planning tasks effectively. As a result, some agencies struggle to spend their allocated funding or meet their planning obligations, further exacerbating their operational challenges.

Funding Constraints and the Carryover Policy

Iowa DOTʼs funding structure for RPAs includes a flexible carryover policy that can serve as a valuable tool for effective long-range transportation planning. Each RPA receives a base amount of funding (e.g., $60,000 annually) intended to support foundational activities such as developing LRTPs, TIPs, PTPs, and annual work programs. Recognizing that these allocations may not be sufficient for all planning needs, Iowa DOT permits RPAs to carry over unspent funds from previous years, allowing agencies to accumulate resources for larger or more resource-intensive efforts. This flexibility has proven beneficial. RPAs with strong planning capacity and financial oversight can leverage carryover funds to go beyond basic requirements, supporting innovative projects like pavement data collection, expanding community engagement, or enhancing multimodal analysis.

However, for some RPAs, especially smaller or resource-constrained ones, this system can become a challenge. Agencies facing staffing shortages or limited administrative bandwidth may struggle to spend their allocated funds in a timely manner. As a result, their unspent balances grow, not as a function of strategic saving, but due to constrained capacity. When these carryover amounts exceed acceptable thresholds, Iowa DOT may pause new funding until the excess is drawn down, which can further limit the RPAʼs ability to deliver required planning products. Additionally, the pressure to reduce carryover balances can create urgency to spend funds quickly, potentially at the expense of thoughtful project selection or implementation quality. While the carryover policy is well-suited for RPAs with stable staffing and a proactive planning culture, it can unintentionally penalize those grappling with workforce instability or lower institutional capacity.

Balancing Local Autonomy and Regional Coordination

RPAs in Iowa are empowered to conduct competitive project selection processes for funds such as STBG and TAP, with policy boards composed of local elected officials responsible for setting regional priorities. However, some county engineers view these RPAs primarily as administrative bodies focused on approving funding allocations and prefer a straightforward formula distribution that minimizes coordination. This “just give us our share” perspective can limit regional collaboration and complicate efforts to advance long-term planning strategies.

Iowa DOT staff noted that some RPA boards see their role narrowly, concentrating mostly on approving STBG regional funding and not fully embracing broader regional transportation planning responsibilities. In some cases, boards defer decision-making authority to engineers, which restricts their engagement and scope. This limited involvement can hinder the development of shared regional visions and reduce opportunities for identifying cross-jurisdictional priorities. For example, an interviewee described a situation where an RPA could have prioritized flood resilience as a regional goal due to recurring flooding that has impacted Interstate traffic. While some engineers understood the importance of this, others dismissed the idea, showing a lack of shared vision or commitment to cross-jurisdictional priorities.

Planning documentation, such as LRTPs, has also been emphasized as essential for securing competitive federal grants. Despite this, some local engineers may underestimate the value of the planning process, even though it directly supports access to additional funding opportunities.