Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

– Peer Exchange Report –

Rural Planning Peer Exchange in Iowa
The Role of Regional Planning Agencies in Iowa's Rural Planning Process

I. Summary

The following report summarizes the results of a Peer Exchange held through the Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This peer exchange provided metropolitan and rural planning agencies from Indiana and New Hampshire, as well as the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), a comprehensive look at the rural/regional transportation planning process in Iowa, specifically examining the role of Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) in the planning process of Iowa. The event took place from August 21 to 25, 2006, and was facilitated by David Franklin, Community Planner in FHWA Indiana Division.

This peer exchange was structured as a scanning tour of multiple RPAs and Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) offices. Over the course of 1 week, the scanning team traveled to and was hosted by:

• East Central Intergovernmental Association (ECIA) — RPA Region 8, Dubuque
• Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) — District 6, Cedar Rapids
• Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments (INRCOG) — RPA Region 7, Waterloo
• Iowa DOT Office of Systems Planning, Ames
• Chariton Valley Planning and Development — RPA Region 17, Centerville, and
• Southeast Iowa Rural Planning Commission (SEIRPC) — RPA Region 16, Burlington.

The objectives of the peer exchange were to learn about the Iowa Regional Planning Agency (RPA) planning process, the Iowa DOT funding for RPAs, the RPA transportation improvement program (TIP) and its relationship with the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP), and the state long range transportation plan (LRTP).

back to top

II. Background

Indiana and New Hampshire are exploring ways to form a more unified regional planning process. In Indiana, the state has thirteen metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) responsible for transportation planning in their urban area. Additionally, there are seven other regional planning organizations (RPOs) that participate in Indiana's transportation planning process. However, MPOs and RPOs only serve 59 of the 92 counties in Indiana, leaving many counties without a formal planning organization to carry out the transportation planning process. Indiana DOT and representatives from MPOs and RPOs in Indiana traveled to Iowa to understand how the state and local planning organizations work together to create a statewide planning process for rural and urban counties.

New Hampshire's planning process differs from Indiana and Iowa. Government is not facilitated on a county or regional level, but on a town or municipal level. This gives small communities a more direct role, but most transportation planning is carried out centrally at the state level. There are nine planning agencies in the state of New Hampshire, five of which are MPOs. Planning agencies work through contracts with New Hampshire Department of Transportation and have some responsibilities for regional planning, but do not have the final decision on programming projects. The entire state is under the jurisdiction of regional planning agencies. Representatives from two planning agencies in New Hampshire and the FHWA New Hampshire Division traveled to Iowa to examine Iowa's rural planning process and apply lessons learned to rural and metropolitan planning in New Hampshire.

In Iowa, there are nine MPOs and 18 RPAs. Since Iowa is known nationally for their regional planning process, the participants of the scanning tour visited four of Iowa's RPAs (two of which are also MPOs) to understand and experience the benefits of a regional planning process. The group also visited one regional office of the Iowa DOT and attended a quarterly RPA Director's meeting, hosted by Iowa DOT's Office of Systems Planning. By visiting these organizations, the participants hoped to learn more about the Iowa RPA planning process, and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the process, especially regarding the roles and relationships among the state, RPAs, and local governments. Participants were very interested in better understanding the process in order to assess whether some aspects of it could be successfully adopted in their own state.

The Iowa scan participants also received a unique experience of follow-up and discussion time in-between meetings at the RPA and DOT offices by traveling to meetings in two caravans. The traveling time in the van, which were 1-2 hour drives, allowed the participants to discuss the events of the prior meeting and how it could be positively applied to Indiana and New Hampshire's planning process. This provided excellent talking and networking time, allowing participants to understand each other's organizations and develop a better perspective of the regional planning process in Iowa.

The vans in which the group traveled provided excellent networking and discussion time.

back to top

III. RPA and District Perspectives

1. RPA Region 8 East Central Intergovernmental Association
   Presenter: Chandra Ravada, Co-Director of Transportation and Planning, ECIA
   
   RPA Region 8, or the East Central Intergovernmental Association (ECIA), serves as the RPA for Region 8 and MPO for the Dubuque urbanized area and northeastern Iowa, addressing transportation planning, community development, and technical assistance for a four-county population of 107,000. The functions of the MPO and RPA, which are both staffed by the transportation planning staff of ECIA, are to set goals and prioritize projects within the region, and coordinate with Iowa DOT on planning projects in the area. ECIA is also responsible for transportation modeling in its jurisdiction. Because the planning staff of the ECIA serves both the MPO and RPA, the coordination between the two organizations allows ECIA to be very coordinated with FHWA and the state DOT. Many of the programs are combined between the RPA and MPO, such as the unified ITS plans, transit systems, and traffic count program.
   
   Funding Sources
   Iowa DOT sub-allocates a portion of its Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds to the RPAs and MPOs in Iowa. ECIA receives about $46,000 a year for programming purposes, combining funds including STP funds and group three and four rural funds (FHWA funding for cities with population under 50,000 and 5,000, respectively). ECIA receives $1.2 million in funding for rural planning projects from funding sources such as STP and Rebuild Iowa's Infrastructure Funds (RIIF). ECIA also receives transit funding for transportation projects from sources such as Federal job access reverse commute (JARC) funding, and Section 5310 and Section 5311 funding. Other portions of funding are from local sources such as transit fares.
   
   Iowa is relatively unique in the practice of sub-allocating STP funds to RPAs. Before the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) was enacted, counties received an allocation of federal-aid funds, called Secondary funds. In 1993, RPAs were created with the purpose of providing a regional perspective on transportation priorities. Some of the new STP funds were provided to the RPAs, to replace Secondary funds that had been eliminated by the legislation. Iowa DOT decided that the appropriate way to allocate funding to the RPAs was by a formula that allocated funding per capita. The state did not dictate the boundaries for the RPAs, except to provide some basic guidelines that all RPAs would need to follow. In some cases, RPAs are also supported and funded by the regional MPO, but not all RPAs have a metropolitan area within its boundaries.
   
   TE funds are another source of funding for RPAs. To receive TE funds, the RPA member must apply for funds, which are awarded for the next fiscal year. TE Funds are awarded on the statewide level as well as distributed directly to MPO and RPAs, which are awarded on a competitive basis. To qualify for TE Funds, the proposal must satisfy certain criteria. The project must have a pre-planned timeframe, and funding allocated for a 20 percent match requirement for the project. Annually, ECIA receives around $110,000 in TE Funds.
   
   Transit
   ECIA serves as the regional transit administrator for the region. The Transit Action Group, a subcommittee within ECIA, reviews all transit plans for rural and urban systems. Although transit is most prominent in urban settings, there is a need for transit in rural settings to serve those who cannot or choose not to drive including disabled, elderly, and young individuals. Currently, ECIA provides mostly demand response transit. Transit presents a marketing dilemma for the agency because there is no funding for marketing transit services. Even though the need for a transit system is apparent, without marketing the routes and schedules, it is difficult to inform potential users.
   
   Successes and Needs of the RPA System
   One of the biggest successes with ECIA's regional system is increased interaction between the RPAs and small cities. The RPA staff is better able to see the "big picture" for the region, which allows them to apply for and receive more special funding for the area. There is more interaction between the RPA and engineering staff, which helps to maintain a more fiscally constrained TIP. The planning process is more unified, with input from both engineers and political groups, which leads to better relations with FHWA and Iowa DOT. ECIA would like even more interaction with small cities, especially concerning transit planning. Also, ECIA sees a need for more special funding for small projects that may not have regional impact. The key to making the RPA system work is to "think and act regionally."
2. Question and Answer Networking Session with Iowa Department of Transportation, District 6
   Presenter: Lee Bennfield, Iowa DOT District 6
   
   Since implementation, Iowa DOT field offices are satisfied with the RPA and MPO process. Some do see a problem with RPA boundaries not being consistent with the six Iowa DOT districts, but most do not see it as a significant issue. The RPA boundaries were originally formed from the 16 rural public transit districts. When the state decided to implement the RPA system, the local governments were given the flexibility to organize themselves in accordance with local needs. Presently, there are 18 RPAs that cover every county in the state.
   
   During a reorganization of the Iowa DOT several years ago, the relationship among the Central Office, District Planners, and District Engineers was altered. Instead of all the District Planners reporting to Systems Planning at DOT headquarters in Ames, they now report to their local District Engineer. There was some concern that district engineers might discourage focus on planning tasks, but no serious problems have developed.
   
   District 6 is one of two districts with a concentration of urban counties in Iowa. Major cities in District 6 include Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Clinton, the Quad Cities (Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa and Moline/East Moline and Rock Island, Illinois); along with 12 counties. Other districts have more counties but are more rural. District 6 has 330 staff positions, second largest after District One (central Iowa). The district contains two and four-lane highways, including I-80, I-380 and I-74. Iowa DOT is beginning to change focus statewide. Previously, the priority was to expand high priority corridors from two to four lanes. This was done at the expense of trying to maintain the current system, so the new focus is the maintenance of the existing system.
   
   Most major design projects are carried out by Iowa DOT headquarters staff, with maintenance and other small projects controlled by districts. However, more design work is being allocated to the districts, such as right-of-way and acquisitions projects.
   
   Question and Answer Session
   
   The participants from Indiana and New Hampshire were given the opportunity to ask Iowa DOT District 6 staff questions on the state DOT's perspective on the Iowa RPA planning process.
   
   Q: Do most projects planned have construction oversight process, or is oversight done at the discretion of the project engineer?
   
   A: Construction technicians perform actual inspections. District 6 has two construction engineers, one located in Manchester and one in Davenport. We do take advantage of a shared worker program, where we have maintenance equipment operators volunteering to inspect construction projects.
   
   Q: How long does it take new technician to be trained?
   
   A: Training academies take place over the course of one year. District 6 does not use shared workers as supervisors, but as assistants. This was an effort to curb hiring temporary workers.
   
   Q: Does Iowa DOT use in-house staff or consultants for your project design work?
   
   A: Iowa DOT is reducing the use of consultants and engaging in more design in-house. As the workload for new projects diminishes, our demands for design have decreased, so a greater percentage of design work can be done in-house. Bridge design is usually done internally, though more complex bridges use consultants. We will also conduct traffic counts and other small parts of projects in-house and incorporate the consultant's bridge design into the project, which is a way to conserve funding. As we improve our program, we put less funding into outside consultants, which allows us to allocate more funding to our internal programs.
   
   Q: Have you used access management plans to ease congestion since changing your project focus?
   
   A: As the borders of urban areas become more developed, we start to lose the flow of traffic. Access management is a new focus for us, and it is now part of the project review process. We have completed one access management project in District 6 and have more planned.
   
   Q: Does Iowa DOT have performance measures in regards to car crashes on local roads?
   
   A: We do not have any specific performance measures at the district level, though there are some performance measures at the state level. One example of improving performance is our recent work on constructing shoulders, because many crashes are run-off-the-road. We keep records of crashes versus crashes per million vehicle and severity, used when examining safety projects. We also use measures such as how quickly roads can be restored after snowstorms, disposing of excess right-of-way, and wetlands standards, such as mitigation or re-vegetation levels.
   
   Q: Is the district involved in sponsoring projects?
   
   A: The district co-sponsors transportation improvement projects with local communities. Most project funds are handled by local RPA. More recently we have had some projects falling under the transportation enhancement program. Since most of those projects are unique they are handled at the headquarters office.
   
   Q: Do you have an economic development mandate working with counties or municipalities?
   
   A: The Revitalize Iowa's Sound Economy (RISE) program is one example of economic development. The RISE program was created in 1986 to improve and develop roads to support economic development. The majority of projects include building facilities in industrial parks or turn lanes to new business development, with the intent of creating more value-added jobs. There are two ways to receive funding with this program, the local development program and the immediate opportunity program. The local development program is administered on an application basis, with no requirements for job creation, and is funded at a 50-50 match, with half the funding coming from the RISE program, and the other half from the local community. Immediate opportunity program projects are funded because the funding will influence whether a business will build at a particular location. These funds are administered non-competitively, funded up to 80 percent, and have a response time of about a month. The business is required to create one job for every $300,000 loaned. If the business does not create jobs, the loan defaults to the local development funding rate of 50-50. The funding for RISE is through the transportation fund, which receives revenues from gas tax and state license fees, and is considered a very successful program.
   
   Q: How does the state provide oversight, on topics such as environmental reviews or right-of-way, for Federal Aid funds?
   
   A: There are many checks and balances within the process. In each district office, one staff member is the district contact for the local counties and cities that are using Federal aid funds. There is an environmental oversight office in the headquarters office to handle any environmental situations. The state has also developed a Federal aid development pack, which goes through process step by step. Plans are reviewed in the district office. Since local Federally funded projects are programmed into the regional TIP or STIP by the RPA or MPO, all parties are aware of what projects will need oversight. RPAs stay in communication throughout the process. When a project goes past concepts, RPAs do not play a direct role, but are kept informed of the progress of the project through regional TIP updates.
   
   Q: How involved is the district office in the development of TIP?
   
   A: The district office is directly involved in programming with MPOs and RPAs. Iowa's online Transportation Project Management System (TPMS) automatically emails all involved parties when a TIP is altered. Quarterly reports list projects in systems that are obligated by FHWA, which are obligated 4-6 weeks before.
   
   Q: What do you do to ensure that TIPs are fiscally constrained?
   
   A: RPAs and MPOs have budgets and must stay within boundaries. For the state, fiscal constraint is administered through the headquarters office.
   
   Q: How is the district involved in public involvement?
   
   A: Since there is full coverage on the RPA and state level, public involvement is not done on the district level. The office of program management goes to every statewide outreach meeting. All RPAs and MPOs use public involvement, so it is completed at every step of project. MPOs and RPAs use public involvement for projects that will be included in the TIP, which are used in the creation of the final STIP.
3. RPA Region 7 — Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments (INRCOG)
   Presenter: Kevin Blanshan, Director of Transportation and Data Services, INRCOG
   
   The Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments (INRCOG) was established in 1973 as Council of Governments (COG), and now also serves as an MPO and RPA for the central northeast section of Iowa. The organization covers 53 communities and 6 counties, with a population of 220,000 for the region, and 110,000 in the MPO jurisdiction. There are 16 staff members at INRCOG working on 12 areas of development, including transportation and community development. The structure of INRCOG consists of a policy board, technical committee and enhancement committee. The MPO policy board consists of elected representatives of seven cities and one county of the MPO area, MET Transit and the Waterloo Airport Commission elected officials. The RPA policy board consists of 18 voting members include the six counties, and two cities from each county, including Waverly and Independence. Both policy boards also have a representative from INRCOG, Iowa DOT, FHWA and FTA, who act as non-voting members of the board. The technical committee of both the MPO and RPA includes staff representatives from public works, engineering, planning and general operations. The enhancement committee reports to the technical committee about enhancement funding and the long-range plan.
   
   Funding Sources
   Typical funding sources for INRCOG include STP funds, bridge program funds, TE Funds, Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP), transit and Federal Trails Program. STP funding for FY 2007 is $1.73 million for the MPO and $1.39 million for the RPA, which is a 30 percent decrease since the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Enhancement funding for FY 2007 will be about $164,000 for the MPO and $132,000 for the RPA, and will include projects such as trails and aesthetic improvements.
   
   TIP Development
   INRCOG has a relatively short timeframe for TIP development. Projects are submitted in January and reviewed by the technical committee in February. In March, the proposed projects receive public input. At the end of March, the policy board decides which projects will go into the TIP, and these projects are included in the first draft, which is released in April. For project selection, INRCOG does not use a formal ranking or scoring system. Projects must align with the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to be considered. The technical committee also uses traffic crash or safety data to evaluate projects.
   
   Success and Challenges
   Some successes include local control of STP and enhancement funds. INRCOG has a good working relationship with FHWA, FTA, and Iowa DOT's Office of Systems Planning program management and district planner. INRCOG's process is an inclusive planning process at the local and state level. Good communication and working relationships are also strengthened through the quarterly MPO and RPA meetings. TPMS is also helpful keeping all parties updated on status of projects.
   
   One of the major challenges includes deciphering planning rules and applying them to medium and small MPOs and RPAs, especially now with new compliance issues with SAFETEA-LU. Another challenge is that the MPO policy board and technical committee meet jointly. This is done primarily for convenience, but can take decision making away from the policy board. Ranking projects is always a challenge, as is RPA staffing, since it usually takes two to three months for a new employee to be hired and begin working. Another challenge is finding a balance between pure planning and reality — academic planning versus practical planning. Good planning is finding balance. INRCOG would also like to engage in more freight planning, but is unsure how to take the next steps.
   
   
   
   Members of the Scan team at the Iowa Department of Transportation, District 6.
   Questions and Answers
   
   Q: How does your agency engage in public involvement?
   
   A: A few years ago we tried to take TIP planning to every county, but there was not a very good turnout. As a result, we have found it challenging to make public involvement useful. Q: What have been your problems with the freight planning process?
   
   A: We have been having difficulty getting the correct people interested and involved. Q: How do you compare the MPO and RPA process?
   
   A: Processes that work with MPOs will work with RPAs. Iowa is to the point where the districts are served well by MPOs and RPAs and they are the communication point between communities and politicians, which allows the planning process to take place on the local level. Another factor that made RPAs successful was that the motivation to change the process and create RPAs for the planning process came from the state level.
   
   Q: How do RPAs, MPOs and the public react to the after the distribution of funding?
   
   A: Because funding is allocated to the RPAs and MPOs and distributed on the local level, it gives local projects more of the chance to receive priority and funding. The poorer regions do not experience as much disparity because these regions are getting more funding than in the previous system. Participants at the local level have more input into the process, and are able to manage results.
   
   Q: Can you elaborate on Iowa's TPMS system?
   
   A: Initially TPMS was very cumbersome, but the state has provided training and has worked many of the problems out of system, so it should continue to work better and better. However, the system is only as successful as its users who input information. The program tracks a project through every step, and at each level of approval, the system sends an email notification.
   
   
4. RPA Quarterly Meeting
   Facilitator: Amanda Martin, RPA / MPO Planning and District Planner Coordination, Iowa DOT Office of Systems Planning
   
   This meeting was the quarterly meeting for the RPA's directors and staff and Iowa DOT, and was a different format than the rest of the meetings that took place over the course of the week. Peer exchange participants participated in a question and answer session before the meeting began, and were able to ask questions to Iowa DOT Office of System's Planning representatives, as well as any RPA representatives that arrived early for the meeting. During the quarterly meeting, the peer exchange participants were able to see how the RPAs and Iowa DOT communicated with each other, and how the meeting provided an open format to voice questions and concerns about Iowa DOT projects and policy. Peers from Indiana and New Hampshire were also given the opportunity to give presentations about their state's system, and this allowed Iowa DOT and RPAs to ask questions and provide suggestions to them.
   
   Question and Answer Session: Iowa DOT Systems Planning, Indiana and New Hampshire
   
   Q: What does the Iowa DOT expect from RPAs?
   
   A: RPAs should be very similar to MPOs in producing a LRTP, UPWP, and TIP. RPAs receive PR funding, as well as Section 5313 and Section 5311 funds from FTA, to use for planning.
   
   Q: How does the Iowa DOT like using the TPMS system? Do you know of any other states that have systems like this?
   
   A: The Iowa County Engineers Association began the effort to have an online project management system, and Iowa DOT assisted with funding so state and local level projects could be recorded into the system. Some RPAs used the system for a trial run, and after it was found to be successful, the Iowa DOT mandated its use for project development. New York State also has an online project development program, and they would like to bring their program to the national level for use by other states. The FHWA also has an online project development program called the Transportation, Economic, and Land Use System (TELUS).
   
   Q: How similar is the work plan for RPAs and MPOs?
   
   A: The work plans for RPAs and MPOs are almost identical, and Iowa DOT has put together guidance for both. MPOs and RPAs have to provide a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and TIP, although since MPOs have more activity in their region, their work plans may be more complicated. MPOs receive more funding to program, with MPOs receiving an average of $4 million, while RPAs typically receive around $1.3 million.
   
   Q: Benefits of Iowa's process could be a benefit in New Hampshire. How do I communicate this system and its benefits to the correct people in New Hampshire?
   
   A: You need to talk to New Hampshire DOT, MPOs, RPAs, municipalities, and the New Hampshire legislature. When the RPA system was developed in 1993, there was talk among the DOT, counties, MPOs, and other groups as to how to distribute funds. Once there was a consensus among these groups, it was easy to move forward. It will be harder to move forward if the DOT is unsupportive because action needs to take place at the state level. It is also important to have ownership early on how to spend the funding using a regional emphasis.
   
   RPA Quarterly Meeting
   
   GIS — Geographic Information Systems
   The Office of Systems Planning made the first presentation on the use of GIS in the planning process. GIS is an effective analysis tool and is now required to be used as part of the LRTP. GIS can be used to map and illustrate demographics, environmental data, land use analysis, development housing and grant development. It can also be used in conjunction with other transportation data to illustrate how the system works, for example crash data or pavement condition. Additionally, SAFETEA-LU has visualization requirement, and using GIS is a great way to meet visualization requirements.
   
   Iowa DOT's goal is to start collecting more data from the RPAs to create a more complete directory of data. Most RPAs are capable of using GIS software, and the central office would like to use this data and system for planning. Iowa DOT has worked with Iowa State University to develop and coordinate training. If RPAs are interested in training, Iowa DOT can help facilitate the training.
   
   
   
   Members of the Scan team were able to see the RPAs interact with Iowa DOT at the Quarterly Director's Meeting.
   PTDP/Coordinated Plan
   The next segment of the meeting focused on the new Passenger Transportation Development Plan (PTDP). The RPAs were encouraged to ask questions or comment on the new requirement, which was slated to come into use in December 2006, and will help determine what goes into the TIP and work program. All RPAs are required to submit a PTDP, though there will be some flexibility this year since this is a new system.
   
   RPA representatives are concerned with timing of the new requirement because it will take time to coordinate and integrate this into the TIP by December. In order to do this, the RPAs must coordinate with transit operators, because it will be their data that will be used. Some commented that they can probably have the TIP completed by the December deadline, but other practices, such as public involvement, will have to be sacrificed. An RPA representative commented that a more reasonable date would be 60 or 90 days after December, and with this revised timeline, they would still be able to coordinate with TIP planning.
   
   Modal Update
   The Office of Systems Planning then gave modal updates for Safe Routes to School, bicycle/pedestrian, aviation, rail, and transit. Safe Routes to School is a new national program in which the RPA can assist local governments in preparing applications to receive funding. This program encourages schools and towns, counties, and RPAs to work together to improve infrastructure to create safe walking and biking routes to school. Applications for a second round of revolving rail funding are available for funding totaling $1.6 million.
   
   Local Modal Planning Efforts and Best Practices
   This segment of the meeting allowed each RPA to discuss projects on which they have been working and on what they will be working in the next few months. This gave the RPAs the opportunity to hear what was taking place in the areas surrounding them and if any projects they were undertaking were similar to projects in other areas of the state. Some projects occuring in the districts included:
   • Trail construction
   • GIS mapping workshops
   • A freight corridor study
   • Bike and Pedestrian planning
   • A transit ITS project
   • Safe Routes to School
   • LRTP
   • TE funding
   Discussion with Indiana and New Hampshire
   In this segment, representatives from Indiana and New Hampshire were able to make a brief presentation on how the planning process works in their state. They also asked questions to the Iowa RPAs on what makes the planning process work for them.
   
   Indiana
   
   Indiana is divided into six INDOT district offices. Fifty-nine out of 92 counties are covered under rural planning organizations (RPOs) and MPOs and 45 by only RPOs. At one time, every county in the state was represented by an RPO, but due to a lack of funding some agencies closed down and those areas, most of them rural, are no longer served.
   
   The new governor of Indiana and new commissioner of INDOT both came from business backgrounds and support reorganizing INDOT for de-centralization. Currently, most planning activities take place in the central office, with only a few activities going to the district. The districts currently oversee highway management, production, and some environmental and systems assessment planning. Indiana is attempting to move decisionmaking from the central office to outside to where the population resides, to make the government more accessible to residents. INDOT representatives expressed observing many positives in the Iowa system that can be transferred to Indiana.
   
   In Indiana STP funds are centrally sub-allocated, with 25 percent of those funds being shared with local government. The process works as follows:
   • Annual call for projects
   • Apply online
   • Comment on projects
   • Projects are categorized, prioritized
   • Funding is allocated.
   Since this is done on a statewide basis, this results in large parts of Indiana receiving no funding. Question from the audience — Can you speak about the leased toll roads in Indiana? What will this do to your program?
   
   Indiana leased the Indiana Toll Road to a consortium of Spanish and Australian companies for $3.8 billion for the next 75 years. This resulted in a fully funded 10-year program. Other public private partnerships are also being considered, including the possible lease of I-69.
   
   New Hampshire
   
   In New Hampshire, the structure of local government is set up differently than in Iowa or Indiana. Towns and communities hold political and planning influence, and there is no authority on the county level. Most transportation planning is done centrally, though it is beginning to become more de-centralized. There are nine planning agencies in New Hampshire, 5 of which are MPOs. Planning agencies have a planning contract with NHDOT, and NHDOT will award planning agencies funding for planning activities. In New Hampshire, good relationships are being built between New Hampshire DOT and planning organizations, which has allowed NHDOT to decentralize many programs and funding to planning organizations. Planning organizations have taken over tasks such as traffic counts and collecting data for GIS, which removes the burden from the state and allows the state to give planning organizations more funding. The downside to the New Hampshire process is that there is no allocation process to distribute funds to regional planning commissions (RPCs) and MPOs. Projects are selected centrally, which results in some parts of the state receiving no funding.
   
   The North Country Council has 51 communities with a population of 84,000 and is located in Northern New Hampshire. The area is also home to scenic byways and a national forest. Last fiscal year, it was awarded $135,000 for tasks such as a unified work program, regional plan, and other planning activities.
   
   The Nashua Regional Planning Commission (NRPC), an MPO in Southern New Hampshire contains a population of 220,000 in 12 communities. NRPC has very different needs from many other places in New Hampshire because it is more urban than the rest of the state.
   
   Question from audience — What are some differences between New Hampshire and Iowa?
   
   The greatest difference is that there are no counties. This makes it difficult to organize projects as a region, because funding and politics are on the municipal level. Municipalities do not have the authority to make changes without a town meeting, which are once a year. This puts stress on the local government and political process.
5. RPA 17 Chariton Valley Regional Planning Affiliation
   Presenter: Tracy Daugherty Miller
   
   The Chariton Valley Regional Planning Affiliation (CVRPA) serves 11 counties in southern Iowa with a population of 185,000 people, totaling over 5,000 square miles. CVRPA is organized similarly to many RPAs, with a policy board of elected officials planning the goals and objectives of the RPA, and a technical advisory committee of engineers and economic development staff making recommendations to a policy committee of what projects should be pursued. A unique subcommittee is the Historic Hills Subcommittee, which focuses on recommending policies on how the area can be more prepared for tourism. Within the RPA, there are 86,000 acres of public land and Rathbun Lake, a tourist destination and a major focus of economic development. CVRPA regional priorities include: maintaining a population base, augmenting tax dollars lost on state or Federally owned land, developing employment, and advocating a state fuel tax adjustment. Highway priorities in CVRPA 's five-year plan include safety improvements on Highway 5, development of Highway 63, safety improvements on Highway 2, and improvements of I-35.
   
   CVRPA is unique from other RPAs in Iowa because of the history of the organization. When the state decided to form RPAs, many COGs became RPAs. In Southern Iowa, counties were not comfortable with being incorporated with the area COG because it is more urban, and this region is a very rural area. Because of this, 11 counties in Chariton Valley broke away from their respective COGs and formed the CVRPA. According to the RPAs, if these counties had not come together and worked together successfully, transportation projects that CVRPA has undertaken would not have been able to happen.
   
   Funding Sources
   The 11 counties receive about $1.2 million annually from FHWA through Iowa DOT for highway projects, which is allocated throughout the counties primarily by population. The RPA also receives $14,250 for transit planning and $88,000 in transportation enhancement funds. Only a third of CVRPA's money comes from local taxes.
   
   Rural Transit
   Public transportation in Iowa started in the early 1970s when Iowa DOT divided the state into 16 transit regions. Before ISTEA, this region had only one transit planning facility and little funding, now there are three planning agencies and more funding. CVRPA's service area is one of largest in the state because CVRPA operates bus services and covers over 5,000 square miles. The regional hub of Ottumwa (located outside the CVRPA) has a fixed route bus system because it has medical services and the largest population. One of the biggest challenges of operating a rural system is marketing. There is no marketing budget or plan, so the system has to rely on word of mouth. Ridership is constant, but is a very low income and elderly population.
   
   Bus Tour of Centerville and Rathbun Lake
   After the meeting, CVRPA took the peer exchange participants, as well as the many local officials who attended the meeting at the CVRPA, on a bus tour of the surrounding area and new development projects. The group visited the re-vitalized town square, which had used TE funds to refurbish parts of the square, including benches, streetlights, and other street furniture. The group then drove through Rathbun Lake, a man-made lake constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in the 1970s. The lake is a tourist destination in Iowa, since there are not many natural lakes in the state. The group then drove out to the site of the new destination park that is being planned on the lakeside, and the planned sight of the Lighthouse on Rathbun Lake, a new visitor's center.
   
   
   
   The Scan team, CVRPA, and local officials listen to an Army Corps of Engineer member speak on
   the new economic and transportation development of the Rathbun Lake area.
6. RPA 16 — Southeastern Iowa Regional Planning Commission
   Presenter: Brian Tapp
   
   The Southeastern Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC) was chartered in 1974 as an economic development district and participates in program management, planning, land use, and technical assistance. SEIRPC serves a population of about 113,000. SEIRPC encompasses four cities with a population of over 8,000, three major highways, and multiple locations of commercial river access. Planning activities include administering the TIP, technical assistance in grant writing and transportation analysis, project management and developing the annual transportation work program. SEIRPC also serves as an intermediary between local communities and Iowa DOT on state projects. The structure of the organization includes an elected policy board to make final decisions on all TIP projects and other activities, a planning staff to coordinate all TIP activities and programming elements, and a technical advisory committee to make recommendations on projects for inclusion in TIP.
   
   Funding Sources
   Most funding for the region's planning originates from STP funds. SEIRPC chooses to utilize $116,000 of its annual STP allocation for planning activities, along with $20,000 from Section 5311 funds, for a transportation planning budget total of $233,000. SEIRPC annually receives about $1,500,000 of STP funds and about $150,000 in enhancement funding.
   
   Transportation Planning Process
   SEIRPC's transportation planning process for programming the TIP is unique because the organization has its own application and selection process. When the RPA began, the four counties and four cities in SEIRPC's region all received sub-allocations of funding. Cities under 5,000, however, received no funding and had to go to the county if they needed to fund a project. This system was neither fair nor efficient, so SEIRPC developed a ranking system to provide a basis for funding decisions, and made project selection a competitive process. The STP application process was built around the seven TEA-21 factors, and the TE Funds application uses a technical scoring process to determine priorities for the area. The technical committee uses a points system to make recommendations to the policy board. As a compromise between the cities and counties of the region, counties compete amongst themselves for 55 percent of the RPA's funding, while cities compete for the remaining 45 percent.
   
   When the funding process was restructured, the policy board and technical advisory board were diversified to include members from various sectors. The diversification was done to encourage both economic and transportation development with a regional perspective. A diverse board is beneficial because it provides a more balanced perspective of the community and its needs. A unique aspect of SEIRPC is its competitive approach programming funds. The competitive process encourages projects that apply for funding to be larger projects that are better organized. This also allows the board to look at the all the projects on a regional level, and program projects that will benefit the region.

back to top

IV. Lessons Learned

• Creating an RPA System in Iowa
  • RPAs were created with the purpose of providing regions (RPAs) with the opportunity and responsibility to establish regional transportation priorities, and the responsibility of programming funds to implement those priorities. Before this system was established, funding was allocated to each county.
  • When the state decided to implement the RPA system, boundaries were shifted in accordance to local need.
  • The motivation to change the planning process within the state of Iowa and create the RPAs came from the state level, which made the process easier.
• RPA functions
  • The RPAs are given funds to program projects, which gives the local government a reason to invest time in the process. This also allows the state to shift its priorities to statewide issues and needs, because the local and low priority routes are being programmed on the local level.
  • RPAs and MPOs receive STP funding for their regions for programming, and are allowed to establish a project selection process however it is deemed appropriate in the region. Although some RPAs continue to sub-allocate STP funds for projects, they are encouraged to use a regional, technical process for project selection.
  • Some RPAs sub-allocate funding through their regions, ensuring that each county or major city gets a proportionate share of the funds, while other RPAs use a competitive point system to allocate funding through their regions, based on calculated factors.
  • Functioning as a joint RPA and MPO allows coordination between the board members and staff of the agency, results in a more unified plan for the region and better coordination with the FHWA and Iowa DOT.
  • The MPOs and RPAs serve as the communication point between local communities and elected officials, and allow involvement by local officials in the regional planning process.
  • Quarterly meetings between RPAs and Iowa DOT improve communication and strengthen working relationships between the Iowa DOT and the regional planning agencies.
  • The Transportation Program Management System (TPMS) is an online project management system for creation and management of the STIP. This system allows the Iowa DOT, FHWA Iowa Division, MPOs, RPAs and counties to access, edit, and approve STIP projects, improving the efficiency of STIP development.
• Benefits of RPAs
  • The RPA system results in an increased interaction between local planning agencies and small cities, because the RPA staff is able to plan on a regional level, producing more of a "big picture" for the area.
  • The planning process is more unified with input from engineers and planners on the local level, which leads to better relations with the FHWA and Iowa DOT.
  • The RPA system allows local control of some STP and TE funds, and allows for an inclusive planning process at the local and state level. One of the major challenges still is deciphering federal planning rules and applying them to RPAs.

back to top

V. Recommendations

• The key to making the RPA system work is to "think and act regionally."
• In order to create a process that would benefit your state, organizations on every level need to be involved, including local and regional planning agencies, municipalities, state DOT, and FHWA division offices, FTA region offices.
• Action to develop a regional planning system must take place on the state level.
• The existence of RPAs should give transportation planning a regional view, and allow the state DOT to focus on statewide or high-priority projects.
• The flexibility of funding allocation allows each RPA to allocate funding differently, depending on the needs of their communities. Some sub-allocate on the local level, giving a certain amount of funding to each local community or project, while others use a competitive points-based system. It is important to consider local needs and processes of communities.
• An online project management system, such as Iowa's TPMS, allows state and local government and regional planning agencies to efficiently and simultaneously develop and maintain a STIP, and creates better communication among the local agencies and counties.

back to top

VI. For More Information:

back to top

VII. Attachments

Appendix A — List of Peer Exchange Scan Participants

B. List of Iowa RPA/MPO/DOT Participants

C. List of Acronyms

Agenda

back to top