CHAPTER 5
Summary of Findings

This synthesis has examined how state departments of transportation (DOTs) coordinate transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas. Through a survey, case examples, and a comprehensive literature review, the report has highlighted the strategies employed by state DOTs to ensure effective coordination with non-metropolitan officials who have transportation responsibilities, including coordination through federally designated Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs), regional planning entities (RPEs), and direct channels. Key findings reveal significant variations in governance structures, planning responsibilities, capacity-building efforts, and multimodal integration, while also identifying common barriers such as limited staffing, funding constraints, and procedural complexities.

Key Findings

Structure and Role of Regional Planning Entities (RPEs)

RPEs serve as intermediaries between local officials with transportation responsibilities and state DOTs; in many ways, RPEs function similarly to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), only in non-metropolitan areas. They are best understood by the functions they perform, not by their titles alone. Some are dedicated to transportation, while others integrate transportation with broader responsibilities such as economic development, land use, or environmental planning. Many operate as multipurpose agencies, providing long-range planning, technical assistance, and coordination services across disc-notopiplines. These overlapping responsibilities contribute to a wide variation in institutional structures and planning roles across states. Case examples illustrate this variation: Vermontʼs Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) combine transportation, land use, and hazard mitigation planning while Ohioʼs federally designated RTPOs operate under Councils of Governments (COGs) with broad service portfolios.

Communication and Engagement Practices

Among the 37 state DOTs that responded to the survey and indicated they serve non-metropolitan areas, coordination is roughly evenly split between centralized and decentralized models for transportation planning. In centralized states, planning functions are concentrated in a single statewide office, with staff working directly with local officials to integrate rural priorities into broader planning efforts, as seen in Nevada. Decentralized models, such as in California, rely on district offices and independent RPEs to manage regional planning. Many states employ hybrid approaches that balance centralized guidance with regional autonomy, as illustrated by Coloradoʼs Transportation Planning Regions (TPRs) and Iowaʼs Regional Planning Affiliations (RPAs). These arrangements allow DOTs to combine statewide priorities with local decision-making to advance transportation planning goals in non-metropolitan areas of their state.

The literature emphasizes the importance of cooperation (rather than consultation), as mandated by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), to ensure meaningful rural participation in transportation planning. Survey responses indicate that state DOTs use a range of mechanisms, including in-person meetings, virtual disc-notopussions, email exchanges, and shared planning activities, to engage with non-metropolitan officials. Case examples highlight successful coordination practices, such as Vermontʼs monthly Transportation Planning Initiative (TPI) meetings and Coloradoʼs quarterly TPR meetings, which foster collaboration and align regional priorities with statewide goals. However, challenges such as miscommunication and inconsistent practices across regions persist.

Planning Responsibilities and Products

Among states with RPEs, most require the production of formal planning documents such as long-range transportation plans (LRTPs), public involvement plans, or transportation improvement programs (TIPs). Case examples highlight innovative practices, such as Iowaʼs use of RPAs to develop comprehensive plans and Ohioʼs allocation of capital funds to federally designated RTPOs for project delivery. However, the literature and case examples underscore the variability in planning capacity and responsibilities across states, with some rural entities struggling to meet federal and state requirements.

Vermontʼs RPCs integrate transportation planning with broader priorities such as land use and economic development, with the intent of aligning local and statewide goals. Massachusetts was the only state DOT to report that its Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) develop performance measures aligned with state and federal frameworks.

Support for Rural Planning Capacity

The literature review identifies technical assistance, training, and financial support as critical for building planning capacity in non-metropolitan areas. Survey findings show that state DOTs commonly provide access to data, financial support, training, and software/tools to RTPOs and RPEs. Funding mechanisms, such as Californiaʼs formula-based Rural Planning Assistance Program or Ohioʼs state match for RTPO planning funds, help smaller agencies meet obligations without excessive local financial burden. Technical assistance and staff support, such as liaisons assigned to Ohio RTPOs or coordinators in Vermontʼs TPI, ensure RPEs can effectively navigate planning requirements. Training programs cover topics such as multimodal planning, long-range planning, policy, and funding, and are delivered through in-person events, online platforms, and regular regional meetings.

Integration of Transit and Multimodal Planning

The literature highlights the growing emphasis on multimodal transportation options, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure, in non-metropolitan planning processes. Survey results show that many state DOTs integrate rural transit and multimodal planning into regional strategies, often in connection with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 programs. Twenty-five states reported involvement in rural transit planning, with 22 coordinating these efforts alongside broader transportation plans, shared funding, or joint projects. Case examples, such as Coloradoʼs Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund (MMOF) and Iowaʼs coordinated public transit human services transportation plans, showcase effective integration of multimodal priorities into non-metropolitan transportation planning.

Challenges to Coordination

The literature, survey, and case examples collectively identify systemic barriers to effective transportation planning in non-metropolitan areas. Limited staffing at RTPOs/RPEs, lack of local/state match for federal grants, and funding constraints are the most frequently reported challenges. Case examples highlight additional issues, such as Vermontʼs staffing turnover and Iowaʼs difficulty in attracting qualified planners to rural areas. Procedural complexities, miscommunication, and public engagement difficulties further hinder coordination and project delivery.

Observed Practices That May Support Effective Coordination

In documenting these findings, the synthesis also highlights several approaches that may offer value to peer agencies seeking to strengthen coordination with non-metropolitan partners. Those are included here.

1. Clearly Defined and Mutually Understood Roles for All Partners

Foundational documents that clearly define roles and responsibilities can be important tools for fostering effective communication and coordination between DOTs and non-metropolitan partners. These documents provide a shared understanding of expectations, reduce ambiguity, and establish accountability among all stakeholders. For example, in Ohio, formal interagency agreements specify the responsibilities of RTPOs, DOT district offices, and the DOT central office, ensuring alignment in planning activities and clarifying how overlapping boundaries with MPOs are managed. Similarly, Colorado requires planning agreements that outline decision-making authority and coordination expectations between the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) regions and TPRs, creating a structured framework for collaboration. Vermontʼs annual TPI guidance document serves as a foundational tool for RPCs, detailing statewide priorities, required planning tasks, and the scope of work for each region. These foundational documents not only streamline communication but also provide a consistent framework for addressing complex planning challenges, ensuring that all partners operate with a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities.

2. Communication Channels That Operate Year-Round, Beyond Statutory Deadlines

While statutory deadlines often dictate formal planning cycles, communication channels that operate year-round present opportunities to strengthen collaboration and trust between DOTs and non-metropolitan partners. These continuous engagement mechanisms ensure that conversations are not limited to specific planning milestones, allowing for more dynamic and responsive coordination. For instance, the Nevada Department of Transportationʼs (NDOT) Rural Engagement Plan (REP) schedules recurring workshops, biennial county leadership meetings, and regular contact with district liaisons, creating multiple touchpoints throughout the year to address local concerns and align priorities. Similarly, Vermontʼs RPCs meet monthly or quarterly with Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) staff, providing consistent opportunities to share updates, disc-notopuss project progress, and address emerging issues. These year-round communication channels not only strengthen relationships but also enable proactive problem-solving, ensuring that rural voices are consistently heard and integrated into statewide transportation planning efforts.

3. Access to Financial, Technical, and Staffing Resources That Enable Rural Entities to Participate Meaningfully

Access to financial, technical, and staffing resources can be key for enabling rural entities to participate meaningfully in transportation planning processes. These resources help bridge capacity gaps and ensure that rural voices are adequately represented in statewide decision-making. For instance, Californiaʼs Rural Planning Assistance Program provides formula-based funding with no local match requirement to 26 non-MPO Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs), ensuring smaller agencies can meet planning obligations without financial strain. Similarly, Ohioʼs RTPO Program includes a 10% state match for federal planning funds, reducing the burden on local jurisdictions and allowing RTPOs to fully utilize their allocations. Vermontʼs TPI allocates funding to RPCs using a formula that considers population, road mileage, and the number of towns served, while also providing an additional 10% state match to ease financial pressures. Coloradoʼs MMOF offers flexible state funding that can be used as a local match for federal grants, enabling rural jurisdictions to access larger funding opportunities.

In addition to financial support, many state DOTs provide technical assistance and staffing resources to ensure rural entities can effectively participate in transportation planning. For example, Ohio assigns liaisons from its central office to RTPOs, offering personalized technical support and guidance. Vermontʼs TPI designates planning coordinators to assist RPCs with compliance, onboarding, and ongoing collaboration. Similarly, Coloradoʼs Rural Planning Assistance Program centralizes staff support for drafting Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), reducing administrative burdens on rural partners. Tennesseeʼs RPO program equips staff with tools like MetroQuest and Social Pinpoint, while hosting annual conferences and maintaining a SharePoint site for training resources. Nevada and Iowa also provide tailored technical assistance through dedicated liaisons, regular check-ins, and certification reviews, ensuring rural entities have the expertise needed to engage meaningfully in planning processes.

4. Coordination Embedded in Multiple Planning Processes and Program Areas

This synthesis has identified examples of states embedding coordination with non-metropolitan entities into multiple planning processes and program areas, creating repeated points of engagement between state DOT staff and regional partners. In Colorado, TPRs participate not only in the development of RTPs but also in corridor studies, freight planning, and safety planning, providing ongoing opportunities for input across different program areas. This structure results in multiple, consistent points of contact with CDOT staff. In Vermont, RPCs work with VTrans on a range of planning activities that extend beyond transportation, including land use planning and hazard mitigation planning, alongside regional transportation planning. In Iowa, RPEs are involved in statewide performance management disc-notopussions and collaborate on freight and transit planning, in addition to their role in RTP development. These arrangements embed transportation considerations within broader regional and statewide planning contexts, linking infrastructure planning with land use, safety, economic, and resilience objectives.

5. Flexible Processes and Targeted Capacity-Building to Address Known Barriers

State DOTs reported several persistent barriers to effective coordination with non-metropolitan transportation planning agencies, including limited staffing, funding constraints, geographic challenges, lack of technical expertise, and insufficient access to data and tools. While solutions have varied in scope and level of success, many DOTs have demonstrated the importance of

maintaining the flexibility, motivation, and resources needed to identify emerging barriers and collaboratively brainstorm potential responses in addition to testing and refining strategies. This adaptive mindset, often supported by trial and error, stakeholder engagement, and targeted capacity-building efforts, has contributed to improvements in coordination. Below are some of the most often-cited barriers and the actions some state DOTs have taken to reduce these barriers:

Barrier 1: Limited Financial Resources

• Match Support.
  • The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) contributes 10% of the required 20% non-federal match for RTPOs using state gas-tax revenue, leaving RTPOs responsible for the remaining 10%.
  • VTrans provides a 10% state match for federal State Planning and Research (SPR) funds, creating an 80-10-10 funding structure (80% federal, 10% state, and 10% local).
  • Tennessee DOT funds the RPO program through SPR funds, with development districts paying a 10% match, and also provides access to planning tools and resources.
  • Texas DOT offers ongoing funding to high-growth areas outside MPO boundaries for planning studies and tools, which may include match support.
• Alternative Funding Mechanisms.
  • Iowa DOTʼs Federal-Aid Swap Program allows local agencies to use state funds instead of federal funds for certain projects, reducing administrative burden and compliance requirements.
  • Iowa DOT allows RPAs to carry over unspent planning funds into future years, enabling larger or more resource-intensive planning efforts.

Barrier 2: Limited Staffing Capacity

• Financial Support to Reduce Staffing Burden.
  • ODOTʼs match contribution (see above) allows RTPOs to direct more resources to staffing and planning.
  • VTrans provides a match contribution paired with dedicated planning coordinators assigned to each RPC for direct support.
• Centralized or State-Led Planning Support.
  • CDOT staff lead the development of RTPs for RPCs, reducing administrative burden.
  • NDOT staff coordinate directly with local officials through structured workshops and leadership meetings.
• Shared Staffing.
  • An Iowa DOT interviewee notes that, in some regions, RPAs and transit agencies housed in the same COG share staff to integrate planning and service delivery.
• Outsourcing Specialized Tasks.
  • ODOT allows RTPOs to use capital funds for preconstruction activities such as environmental documentation and preliminary engineering via consultants.

Barrier 3: Limited Technical Expertise

• Training and Professional Development.
  • VTrans provides training on multimodal design, grant writing, funding opportunities, and onboarding support for new planners.
  • ODOT funds RTPO staff participation in conferences and peer exchanges to share best practices.
  • Tennessee DOT offers technical tools such as MetroQuest and Social Pinpoint, along with hosting an annual conference for RPO staff.

• Enhanced Coordination and Liaison Support.
  • ODOT assigns liaisons to each RTPO for tailored assistance and process navigation.
  • VTrans assigns planning coordinators to specific regions to provide regular communication and guidance.

Barrier 4: Geographic Challenges and Travel Distances

• Flexible Engagement Formats.
  • Iowa DOT uses a mix of virtual, in-person, and mobile outreach methods to accommodate travel distances and schedules.
  • CDOT offers virtual office hours to assist with administrative tasks such as invoicing.

Barrier 5: Lack of Access to Data and Tools

• Data and Analytical Support.
  • CDOT provides rural agencies with datasets, planning software, and technical guidance.
  • ODOT offers RTPOs access to data dashboards and tools such as the Transportation Information Management System (TIMS).
  • Tennessee DOT supplies RPOs with access to online engagement and mapping tools to enhance public involvement and planning analysis.

Limitations and Opportunities for Additional Research

This synthesis has documented current practices, challenges, and coordination strategies used by state DOTs when engaging with non-metropolitan transportation planning partners. Though the findings draw from a literature review, a national survey, and four case examples, the scope of this study has been limited in several ways. Survey participation was voluntary and may not reflect the full range of practices in every state. The case examples provide rich detail for selected states but cannot capture the variety of all DOT–non-metropolitan coordination relationships across the country. The study did not independently evaluate the effectiveness of specific practices, nor did it collect quantitative measures of coordination outcomes. In addition, certain topics were outside the scope of this study, including the role of coordination with tribal leadership in rural planning processes, the influence of state legislative actions or funding changes on coordination practices, and the impacts of emerging technologies on engagement in non-metropolitan areas.

Several gaps in existing knowledge emerged that may present opportunities for further research:

• Future research could evaluate how formal agreements, staffing models, and communication protocols influence project delivery, funding access, and stakeholder satisfaction over time.
• This synthesis was focused on the perspective of state DOTs. Future research could add interviews and case studies that explore how county commissions, small-town mayors, and other local officials participate in and shape rural transportation planning.
• A national review could compare centralized versus decentralized planning models, including the division of responsibilities between DOT central and district offices, and assess how these governance structures affect engagement with rural entities.
• Additional study could evaluate the use of technology to support rural coordination. How are virtual meeting platforms, online engagement tools, and shared data systems being used in rural contexts, and what are the benefits and limitations of those technologies?
• Future research could involve compiling case studies for all 50 state DOTs regarding their relationships with non-metropolitan agencies to create a comprehensive reference for peer exchange. The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) Research

Foundation conducted a similar compilation in 2016 (Kissel et al., 2016), but given that nearly a decade has passed, an updated effort is likely needed to reflect current rural coordination practices.

• Further study could document the formal and informal mechanisms used for state–tribal transportation coordination, the frequency and depth of engagement, and the unique challenges and opportunities associated with planning across different jurisdictional frameworks.
• Future research could examine the role of funding decisions in shaping non-metropolitan transportation planning. A domestic scan of state DOT practices may provide insights into various funding models and their impacts on planning and project delivery.
• In addition to these efforts, there is also a clear need for the development of a best practices guide for state DOTs that synthesizes lessons on rural and non-MPO transportation and transit planning. Such a guide could highlight effective approaches to engagement, governance structures, and funding, while also documenting models of coordination with tribal governments to ensure that their perspectives are fully integrated into statewide planning.