Projects from regional organizations across the United States demonstrate how the fields of transportation and economic development can complement each other and create an environment for increased collaboration and aligning of resources. Achieving multiple goals with a single project offers significant benefits as budget concerns continue to impact regional planning.

In particular, this report examines transportation planning through the lens of economic development and the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), a regional economic development plan. In 2011, the NADO Board of Directors adopted Peer Standards of Excellence for Economic Development Administration (EDA)-designated Economic Development Districts (EDDs). These principles, developed by NADO members, are intended to make the CEDS a more effective tool, beyond a compliance plan needed to access EDA funds. The Standards of Excellence promote a strategic planning and implementation framework that is results-oriented; focused on aligning and leveraging resources; inclusive of public, private, and nonprofit sector leaders; and emphasizes the importance of asset-based regional economic development.

The seven principles of CEDS Standards of Excellence are:

1. Build resilient regions and capitalize on assets.
   Build more resilient economies and communities by focusing and targeting regional strategies on the existing and potential competitive advantages of each individual region.
2. Align plans and investments.
   Foster a regional collaborative framework to strategically align public sector investments from federal, state, and local sources, as well as private, nonprofit, and philanthropic partners.
3. Focus on data and analysis.
   Use modern scenario, data, and analysis tools and planning techniques that provide policy makers, stakeholders, and the public with evidence-based and factual based information.
4. Link strategies and outcomes.
   Transform the CEDS process into a more strategy-driven planning process focused on regional visioning, priorities setting, and performance outcomes, rather than a broad-based encyclopedia or narrative of the region with a laundry list of random projects and programs.
5. Increase collaboration among regions.
   Promote and support peer reviews and exchanges of Economic Development District planning professionals and policy officials with the goal of increasing collaboration across EDD boundaries, enhancing organizational resources, and positioning regional CEDS as more effective building blocks for statewide and local strategies.
6. Adopt a communications strategy.
   Communicate in a compelling and modern communication style, including use of executive summaries, high quality print and online media, and social media.
7. Collaborate on plans and implementation.
   Engage the public, private, nonprofit and educational sectors, along with the general public, in the development and implementation of the CEDS.

A previous NADO Research Foundation report from April 2009 examined another element of the interaction between transportation and the CEDS. Role of Transportation Planning
in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Process presented the results of a national scan of EDDs to determine the extent to which transportation is incorporated into the CEDS. This report, Aligning Strategies to Maximize Impact provides more detail on collaboration among organizations and implementation of projects that create opportunities for linking transportation investments with economic development objectives.

Although the seven core principles of the Standards of Excellence were created with regard to the development and implementation of the CEDS, they also apply to broader regional planning processes, including transportation planning. As the case studies in this report show, investments in transportation promote numerous other goals outside of mobility, notably economic development efforts. A safe, efficient, and reliable transportation network provides essential infrastructure for a robust regional economy.

The most recent reauthorization of federal surface transportation funding reflects the increasing recognition of transportation as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), signed into law in July 2012, emphasizes performance and outcome-based transportation planning that makes progress towards seven national goals, including freight movement and economic vitality. (1) Performance goals for improving passenger mobility are also embedded in the restructuring of several national programs with increased support for multimodal investments.

This report features 10 case studies on diverse transportation and economic development topics such as freight movement, cluster development, ridesharing, and project prioritization.  RDOs in these 11 states are implementing initiatives with regional impact. Each case also includes valuable takeaway lessons that can serve as a resource to others hoping to promote a stronger link between transportation and economic development strategies. Throughout the report, the best practice themes embodied in the CEDS Standards of Excellence are identified where they appear in these case studies as applied to transportation as well as economic development.

Read the full report at http://www.nado.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/AligningStrategies.pdf.

To view PDF documents, get Adobe Reader.

Following the severe flooding that damaged infrastructure, utilities, buildings, and communities, the Vermont Agency of Transportation asked the state’s RPCs to assist with mapping and data collection, resource matching, communications, help with FEMA Public Assistance, and technical assistance to communities.  Although these tasks were related to the transportation and hazard mitigation planning that RPCs regularly conduct, they went far beyond the typical scope of the RPCs’ training and work.  As a result, the members of VAPDA divided responsibilities, with organizations whose regions were less impacted providing support to those regions with more damage.

View the webinar recording below.

Download the speakers’ slides:

• Part I (large PDF)
• Part II (large PDF)

View the presentation slides without downloading the large files:

Contact NADO Associate Director Carrie Kissel at ckissel@nado.org or 202.624.8829 with questions or feedback.

Install Adobe Reader to view PDF files.

Overall, the legislation reforms and reauthorizes the SAFETEA-LU surface transportation law through FY2016.  The measure would average approximately $52.6 billion each year over the FY2012-2016 period.  The $286.4 billion SAFETEA-LU law averaged about $47.7 billion per year during the FY2004-2009 timeframe for highway, transit and highway safety programs.  By comparison, the Senate’s MAP-21 bill (S. 1813) is a two-year, $109 billion package (FY2012-2013).

The House Republican plan focuses on the major themes of clearly defining the federal role in transportation, advancing program consolidation and reform, and streamlining the project delivery process.  It also encourages more private sector participation in building infrastructure, boosting resources for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation (TIFA) program, and providing incentives for states to build upon existing State Infrastructure Bank programs.  The bill contains no project earmarks, whereas the previous transportation law included more than 6,000 earmarks.

Within the statewide planning section (Title IV-Transportation Planning)(Chapter 52-Transportation Planning, Sec. 5204), the House bill includes NADO-championed language to give federal recognition for Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) for areas outside of MPOs and to require state DOTs to “cooperate” with rural local elected and appointed officials (including through RTPOs), rather than simply “consult.”  The House plan essentially incorporates the RTPO and rural planning language from the legislation (H.R. 1565) introduced by Reps. Richard Hanna (R-NY) and Tim Walz (D-MN) and supported by Chairman Duncan (R-TN).

Under the metropolitan planning section, the House bill would allow the continuation of all existing MPOs (includes keeping the current TMA threshold at 200,000 and above), yet would set a new urbanized area population threshold of 100,000 to be designated as an MPO in the future.  In addition, the House inserted a new provision that would permit the Governor of a state to modify an MPO TIP when the MPO and the State fail to agree on programming a project of statewide significance on the Interstate.  This is very problematic since a Governor may modify the TIP to add the project without the approval or endorsement of the MPO, and the MPO would be required to amend the long-range plan to be consistent with the TIP.

Historically, the surface transportation legislation has been considered a largely bipartisan effort, but the drafting of this measure has been riddled with partisan criticisms.  As a result, approximately 100 amendments were filed and about 90 were considered during the markup, most but not all of these being offered by committee Democrats.

The main controversies centered around the elimination of the 10 percent minimum set-aside for Transportation Enhancements, increased truck weight limits on Interstates, funding cuts for Amtrak’s operations, and new authorities for environmental streamlining and project acceleration.

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) successfully offered an amendment that removed a new provision that would have allowed the President to expedite transportation infrastructure projects to improve U.S. economic competitiveness and let trucks with at least six axles and weighing a maximum of 97,000 pounds operate on Interstates.  Instead, the amendment requires DOT to conduct a comprehensive three-year study of the safety and pavement performance impacts of the widespread use of bigger trucks.  The amendment leaves the provision allowing 126,000 pound trucks on specific 25-mile Interstate segments.

The committee also accepted an amendment by Rep. Peter Defazio (D-OR) that removed a new section of the bill that would have allowed the President to issue an expedited permit for any transportation infrastructure project within two years of the bill’s enactment if the President determined the project would boost the country’s economic competitiveness.

The committee rejected an amendment by Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) that would have preserved an annual set-aside for transportation enhancements (at the FY2009 level) and preserved the eligibility of abandoned railways to bike paths, scenic preservation and safe routes to schools as eligible uses of TE funds.  The amendment failed narrowly by a vote of 27-29.

The House is expected to bring the full SAFETEA-LU rewrite proposal to the House floor before the President’s Day recess, which begins February 20.

To view a copy of the legislation that will be considered on the House floor, click here.

As part of the SAFETEA-LU rewrite process, the Senate is pursuing a two-year, $109 billion package (S. 1813) that maintains most programs at current levels plus inflation. In the Senate, the Environment and Public Works Committee handles the highway title, the Banking Committee has oversight of the transit title, and the Commerce Committee is responsible for safety and research.

• Senate MAP-21 Highway Committee Summary
• Senate MAP-21 Highway Title (S. 1813)
• Senate MAP-21 Highway Title – Manager’s Amendment
• Senate MAP-21 Highway Title – En Bloc Amendments
• Senate Banking  Transit Title
• Senate Banking Transit Committee Summary
• Senate Amendment Combining Transit, Freight, and Finance Titles

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is pushing a $262.9 billion, five-year bill, known as the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 7). The SAFETEA-LU law provided $286.6 billion over six years, averaging $47.7 billion per year over the FY2004-2009 period.  The House Republican proposal would average a total of $52.6 billion per year during the FY2012-2016 period while the Senate EPW bill totals around $54 billion each year.

• Text of House Reauthorization Bill to be considered by the full House (H.R. 7)
• Updated list of House Highway and Transit AMENDMENTS
• Committee Summary of House Bill (H.R. 7)
• Text of House Revenue Title (H.R. 3864)
• Comprehensive analysis by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of surface transportation reauthorization in the 112th Congress

This work is supported by the Federal Highway Administration under contract number DTFH61-10-00033. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of FHWA or the NADO Research Foundation.

View the entire report here (PDF) in a downloadable or printable format, or use the links below to read specific sections.

Table of Contents

Report Introduction

RPO Characteristics

Rural Transportation Leadership

Planning Tools and Techniques

Regional Transportation Planning Activities

Regional Long-range Transportation Plans

• Spotlight: Virginia’s Statewide and Rural Long-range Plans
• Spotlight: Kentucky’s Regional Concept Plans

Statewide and Regional Transportation Improvement Programs

Case Study: North Carolina Develops Statewide Performance-based Prioritization Process

Case Study: North Central Pennsylvania’s Project Prioritization Process

Case Study: Flexible Process Enables Yakima Valley Region to Quickly Respond to Changing Priorities

Conclusions

To view PDF files, use Adobe Reader.

This proceedings report documents a special event on the relationships among regional planning organizations, state and local government agencies, and stakeholder groups. This symposium was held as a joint session during the 2010 National Rural Transportation Peer Learning Conference and AMPO Annual Conference.

Through a keynote address and a series of panels, attendees learned about models for collaboration on planning efforts from five states: Alabama, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee. Through small group discussion, attendees also engaged in further dialogue on benefits of and obstacles to collaboration, issue areas often addressed through partnerships, and institutional arrangements that facilitate relationship-building.

(January 2011, 24 pages): View the report (PDF)