On May 16, the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) and its program affiliate RPO America held a virtual peer exchange focused on rural transportation planning programs. Speakers included Krishna Kunapareddy (NADO), Chris Whitaker (Region XII Council of Governments), and Jennifer O'Connor (Northern Arizona Council of Governments). Learning objectives included: * Understanding how RPOs work across the country, including common planning and program responsibilities and unique tasks customized for local conditions * Identify common regional planning organization roles to support local transportation planning and implementation needs. * Identify common regional organization roles conducted in support of statewide transportation planning, such as long-range plans, short-range capital programs, and modal plans.

1. RPO America Virtual peer
exchange
Transportation Programs in
RTPO/RPO world
May 16, 2024

2. Agenda
• Welcome
• Introductions- Please type your name, title and organization name
in the chat!
• NADO & RPO America
• Presentations
• Breakout sessions
• Q & A

3. About NADO
• National association for 540 regional development
organizations, including emerging network of Rural
Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs or
RPOs);
• Promote public policies that strengthen local
governments, communities and economies through
the regional strategies, coordination efforts and
program expertise of the nation’s regional
development organizations.
3

4. NADO Board of Directors formed RPO America in 2006 as the
national professional network for regional rural/small metro
transportation professionals
• Member services program within NADO
• All NADO members are automatically also members of RPO
America
• RPO America has a leadership group called the RPO Council

5. Emergence of Regional Transportation
Planning
• ISTEA (1991)
• Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
• TEA-21 (1998)
• Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
• SAFETEA-LU (2005)
• Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users
• 2003 FHWA/FTA planning regulations were adopted
implementing language on rural planning and state-local
consultation.
https://ruraltransportation.org/about-rtpos/rtpo-states/

6. Recent history: RTPOs in MAP-21 (2012),
FAST Act (2015), IIJA (2021)
• Structure: policy committee, fiscal agent
• Basic regional planning, TA duties outlined
• State outreach to local officials separate from public outreach
• State roles:
• “Cooperate” with RTPOs on LRTP
• “Consult” with RTPOs on Interstate, Bridge, NHS, 5310, 5311
projects in STIP
• “Cooperate” with RTPOs on other projects in STIP for areas with
a population under 50,000
• “Consult” with RTPOs on Strategic Highway Safety Plan
6

7. *
*
*
*
*
*
*
https://RuralTransportation.org/about-rtpos/rtpo-states/
Regional Transportation Planning Models

8. RTPO Structures and Functions
• Usually found within an existing organization
• Fiscal agent, administrative support
• Professional planning support
• Policy board makeup
• Existing regional organization’s board
• Majority local governments
• Transportation mode operators, owners, or key stakeholders
• Major stakeholder reps: health, business, other
• State DOT (voting or non-voting)
8

9. What do RTPOs do?
• Assist the state with public outreach and outreach specifically to
local government officials
• Support locals with the technical transportation issues in their
communities
• Prioritize local needs at the regional level = larger voice

10. Speakers
• Chris Whitaker, Local assistance director from Region 12
COG in Iowa
• Jennifer O’Connor, Planning Director from Northern Arizona
Council of Governments

11. RPO America Virtual Peer
Exchange
May 16, 2024
Region XII Planning Affiliation
Carroll, Iowa
11

12. RPAs in Iowa
12

13. 13

14. Region XII COG Profile
• Organized
1973
• 6 Counties
• 56 Cities
• 72,167 People
• Two Divisions
• Local
Assistance
• Western Iowa
Transit –1977

15. Structure
• Region XII Policy Council
– Approves TPWP, TIP, Passenger
Transportation Plan and Transportation
Plans
• Region XII Executive Board
– Amendments and Revisions of Document
and Programs
15

16. Advisory Committees
• Technical Advisory Committee
– 6 County Engineers, 2 Large City
Engineers, Public Transit Rep and Ex-
Officio Members
• Provides Technical Assistance and
Guidance for the Planning Process
• Recommends TPWP, TIP and Plans for
Approval
16

17. • Transit Roundtable XII Committee
– Region XII Staff, New Hope Village,
Empowerment Agencies, Elderbridge
Agency on Aging, Community
Opportunities, Howard Center, RSVP,
Private Charter, and Ex-Officio Members
• Input Regarding Public Transit and
Passenger Transportation Coordination
• Recommends Passenger
Transportation Plan and Updates
17

18. • Bike-Ped Roundtable
– 18 Members and Ex-Officio Members
– 6 Conservation Directors
– 2 Trail Advocates from each county
• Input on Trail Development,
Maintenance and Promotion
• Assists with Trail Counts
• Roundtable for Bike-Ped Facilities
18

19. • County Transportation Stakeholders
• Grass Roots Citizen Input Groups
– Vary Greatly from County to County
– TAC Members, IDOT, Conservation,
Economic Development, Cities,
Supervisor, 2-4 Business Interests
• Annual Meeting in Each County
– Virtual Online Input on STBG and
Transportation Alternatives Application
– Surveys
19

20. RPA XII TASKS
• TPWP
• Public Participation Process (PPP)
– Technical Assistance, Grants, Advocacy
• Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)
– STBG, Transportation Alternatives, HSIP,
Bridge and Transit Funding
20

21. • Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP)
– WIT Capital Improvement Plan and Operations
Plan
• Transportation Data Collection (TDC)
• Long Range Transportation
• Special Projects
21

22. RPA XII Special Projects
• Transit Facility Feasibility Studies
• Traffic Counters and Counts
• Retroreflectometers
• Sign Inventories
• Recreational Trail Counters
• Solar Speed Detection Signs
• Corridor and Traffic Studies
22

23. Transit Feasibility Studies
• Carroll Main Facility Expansion
• Satellite Transit Storage
– 7 to 10 Units
– Light Maintenance
– Centralized Operations and Office
23

24. Traffic Counters and Counts
• Need for Good Local Data
• IDOT Counts every 4 year (plus another 1
year to get the counts)
• Collective Purchase
• 8 Tube Counters & a Turn Count
Movement Board
• AADT, Trucks, Speed, and Peak Traffic
Data
24

25. Retroreflectometers and Sign
Inventories
• Retroreflectometers
– Cooperative Purchase
– Meet MUTCD 2A.09 Minimum
Retroreflectivity Compliance
– 80% STP Funds
– 20% County/City Match
• Sign Inventories
– Interns for 2 summers
25

26. Recreational Trail Counters
• Need for Data on Usage (or lack of)
• Limited IDOT Data and not Well Shared
• 27 Trafx Counters
– 80% STP and 20% County Conservation Board
and Cities and Trail Groups
• 12 Eco Counters
– 80% STP
26

27. RPA XII Special Projects
• All Driven Locally
• TAC Members
• Local Governments
• Transportation Stakeholders
• Call for Projects Annually
27

28. TPWP Budget
28

29. 29
Region XII Council of Governments
Chris Whitaker, Local Assistance Director
Carroll, Iowa
www.region12cog.org
cwhitaker@region12cog.org

30. Northern Arizona Council of Governments
Planning Activities in No. Arizona
Jenn O’Connor
NACOG Planning Director

31. Northern Arizona Council of Govts.
• Geography:
- 47,967 square miles
- Approx. 42% of Arizona
- About the size of New York
- 2 Small MPO’s – Flagstaff
and Prescott areas

32. Northern Arizona Council of Govt.s
• Geography:
- 22 Cities and Towns
- Ex. Sedona, Page, Show Low
- 4 Counties
- 7 Tribes
- Nat’l Forests and Parks
32
In Sum: Combination of highly rural
areas made up of counties, cities,
small towns, unincorporated
communities, tourist destinations
and tribes

33. Northern Arizona Council of Govt.s
• Population:
- 334,400 people
- 18.6% of the state pop.
- Diverse make-up
33
Race and Hispanic
Origin Yavapai Coconino Apache Navajo
White, not Hispanic 79.3% 53.5% 18.1% 42%
American Indian 2.2% 27.5% 74.5% 44.6%
Hispanic/Latino 15.3% 14.9% 7.1% 12.1%

34. Tribal Partners
34
• NACOG Region:
– 7 Tribes, including:
• Navajo Nation
• Hopi Tribe
• Yavapai-Apache Nation
– 3 Additional Tribes share
boundaries with other COGs

35. NACOG Vision
Rooted in its rich diversity and history, Northern
Arizona is a vibrant region to live, work, grow, and
connect.
NACOG Mission
Our mission is to respond to relevant and emerging
issues through creative and collaborative services,
planning, education, and advocacy.

36. Regional Planning Team
Jennifer O'Connor, Planning Director
 Strategic Planning, Project Management, Studies, Safety
Investments, Funding
Vacant, Transportation Planner
 Data and GIS, Project Management, Roads, Infrastructure,
Safety
Tod Morris, Sr. Mobility Management Planner
 Passenger Transportation, 5310, 5311
36

37. Level of Participation in TAC and Activities
• Turnover and staffing shortages at local jurisdictions
• Local participation is voluntary
Extremely large region with high needs means NACOG
has to prioritize where to spend time/energy
Elected Officials Need to be Educated on Complex Topic
• Increase communication with elected officials at the
local and state level to support funding and projects
Challenges/Barriers

38. Available funding too small to meet the needs
• STBG funding has not increased in years and inflation has
meant that jurisdiction struggle to find projects
Smaller jurisdictions have limited capacity
• Even once projects are awarded, they can struggle with
implementation
• However, Local First Arizona provides free grant-writing
services
Challenges/Barriers

39. NACOG’s Work in the Region
• On behalf of ADOT and USDOT
– Overview of Regional Planning Activities
– Funding Sources and Associated Activities
• NACOG-Initiated Activities
– Crash Data Analysis
– Tribal Partnerships
– Rural School Bus Route Study
– BIL Supports

40. Regional Planning Activities
• Rural Consultation and Technical Assistance
• Project Programming in the Transportation
Investment Plan (TIP)
• Grant Program Coordination
• Functional Classification & Urban Boundaries
• Liaison between local agencies & ADOT for
project funding
• Data Acquisition and Maintenance
• Transportation Planning

41. Funding Sources for Local Jurisdictions
- Exchange federal for state funds to remove expensive
and time-consuming federal regulatory requirements
- Subject to fund sweeps by legislature to pay for DPS
- $1.8 million annually for NACOG
- 94.3%/5.7% match rate
Surface Transportation Block Grant – Federal Funds
Highway User Revenue Fund - State
- Federal: BIL
- State: Off-System Bridge Program, HSIP, Transp.
Alternatives

42. State Match Advantage for Rural
Transportation (SMART) Fund
• Reimbursement of up to 50% of eligible costs associated
with grant development and submission of an application
for a federal discretionary grant
• Reimbursement of 100% of design and other engineering
services expenditures
• Reimbursement of non-federal match for a Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law grant
New Funding Source in 2022

43. AZ SMART Fund – Funding Availability
Total funding of $62.5 million: $12.5 million in each
of the five categories
New 2024 Legislation makes COGs and MPOs eligible to apply
ADOT Muni < 10K Muni 10K + County < 100K County 100K +
Total Revenue
Legislative Appropriations/1 12,500,000
$ 12,500,000
$ 12,500,000
$ 12,500,000
$ 12,500,000
$
Interest Earnings To Date 559,620
$ 559,676
$ 559,679
$ 559,679
$ 559,679
$
Total Revenue 13,059,620
$ 13,059,676
$ 13,059,679
$ 13,059,679
$ 13,059,679
$
Total Approved
Grant Development 4,600
$ 50,000
$
Match Awards 3,537,057
$ 6,437,407
$ 3,300,000
$ 4,047,342
$
Design & Engineering 3,750,000
$ 7,770,223
$ 6,311,707
$ 3,200,000
$ 770,000
$
Miscellaneous/Overhead 100,000
$
Total 7,387,057
$ 7,774,823
$ 12,749,114
$ 6,550,000
$ 4,817,342
$
Available for Awards 5,672,563
$ 5,284,853
$ 310,565
$ 6,509,679
$ 8,242,337
$
AZ SMART Fund Balances
ADOT Muni <10K Muni 10K + County <100K County 100K +
Total Revenue
LegislativeAppropriations/1 12,500,000
$ 12,500,000
$ 12,500,000
$ 12,500,000
$ 12,500,000
$
Interest Earnings To Date 559,620
$ 559,676
$ 559,679
$ 559,679
$ 559,679
$
Total Revenue 13,059,620
$ 13,059,676
$ 13,059,679
$ 13,059,679
$ 13,059,679
$
Total Approved
Grant Development 4,600
$ 50,000
$
Match Awards 3,537,057
$ 6,437,407
$ 3,300,000
$ 4,047,342
$
Design & Engineering 3,750,000
$ 7,770,223
$ 6,311,707
$ 3,200,000
$ 770,000
$
Miscellaneous/Overhead 100,000
$
Total 7,387,057
$ 7,774,823
$ 12,749,114
$ 6,550,000
$ 4,817,342
$
Available for Awards 5,672,563
$ 5,284,853
$ 310,565
$ 6,509,679
$ 8,242,337
$
AZSMART Fund Balances

44. • Annual regional
allocation ~$1.8M
• Sub-regional
allocations derived
from census
STBG Funding – Roadway Infrastructure

45. Transportation Investment Plan (TIP)
FISCAL
YEAR
SUB-REGION AGENCY ALLOCATION
FY 24
Apache Springerville $410,647
Coconino Williams $289,413
Navajo Navajo Co. $617,000 ($555,300 HX)
Yavapai Clarkdale $738,664 ($664,780 HX)
FY 25
Apache Apache Co. $996,294 ($896,665 HX)
Coconino Williams* $289,413
Navajo Show Low $617,000
Yavapai Camp Verde $369,322
FY 26
Apache Springerville $410,647
Coconino Coconino Co. $289,413
Navajo Holbrook $617,000
Yavapai Camp Verde $369,322
FY 27
Apache St. Johns $410,647
Coconino Coconino Co. $289,413
Navajo Snowflake $617,000
Yavapai Yavapai
County
$369,322

46. Traffic Count Program
• Consultant-contracted
• 1,115 count locations
• $162,070 in ADOT SPR
• Not to duplicate local
collection efforts
State Planning and Research (SPR) Funds

47. Opportunities:
1. Regional Transp. Safety Plan
2. Tribal Partnerships
3. Rural School Bus Route Study
4. BIL Supports
NACOG-Initiated Activities
Navajo Code Talkers played a major role in
winning the war in the South Pacific during
WWII by providing an efficient code that the
Japanese never cracked.

48. • Addresses safety from a regional perspective to reduce risk of
death and serious injury to transportation users
• Is data driven and engages stakeholders
• Will establish a framework identifying objectives, strategies, and
performance measures for transportation safety
• Will create or lead to federal BIL grant eligibility opportunities
for NACOG, CYMPO, and MetroPlan and respective member
agencies
NACOG Safety Plan

49. Regional Transportation Safety Plan
• NACOG region roadway fatalities per capita triple statewide
rate
• High number of crashes in all Counties (Apache, Coconino,
Navajo, Yavapai)
• High crashes in Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Navajo Nation,
Sedona, and Show Low
• Extremely high number of fatal crashes in Navajo Nation
and Yavapai County
Key Findings from Crash Data
Given the crashes in the Verde Valley (Yavapai County, Camp
Verde, Cottonwood and Sedona), NACOG applied for and
received SS4A funding for a VV Transportation Safety Plan

50. RTSP – Interactive StoryMaps

51. RTSP – Interactive StoryMaps

52. 2020 Vision in Action
• Hopi Tribe for 5-Year Transit Study (Completed in 2023)
• Highway Safety Improvement Program application (2022)
• Participation in Regional Priority Projects List process (‘22, ‘24)
• Partnership project with ADOT and three Navajo Chapters on
Safety Corridor Study (2024 SS4A Planning Grant application)
• Rural School Bus Route Study
Tribal Partnerships

53. • Brought forward by State Transportation Board Chair
- Long travel times for students with potential for long
weather delays or cancellation
- Need for rural school bus route roadway improvements
- Make connection to student performance outcomes
• Project Scope
- Roadway infrastructure and maintenance, bus pull-outs
- Potential partners: Az Dept. of Education, ADOT Tribal
Liaisons, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Counties, Transit,
School Districts, private sector
Rural School Bus Route Study

54. Rural School Bus Route Study

55. Application Support
- Maintain database of potential projects based on site visits
and conversations with jurisdictions
- AZ SMART Fund marketing
- Future collaboration with NAU Economic Policy Institute
for Economic Impact Analyses (free of charge)
- Quick and easy BIL program Fact Sheets
BIL Supports

56. Collaboration Among COGs
1. Rural Transportation Summit
2. Rural Transportation Advocacy Council
3. Regional Priority Project List

57. Power of Networks Across the State
• State:
– 4 COGs
– 6 Small MPO’s
– 2 Large MPO’s (TMA’s)
• Region: 30 members
governments

58. Rural Transportation Summits
• First conducted in 1999
• Statewide rural response to urban areas
• Forum for education, dialogue, and policy
development
• Strong participation from state legislators

59. Rural Transportation Advocacy
Council (RTAC)
• Statewide rural transportation coalition
• Formed as an outcome of 2001 Rural Summit
• Full-time legislative liaison to monitor legislature
and ADOT re policy issues
• Funded collectively by rural COG’s and small MPO’s
• Greater visibility for rural interests

60. State Budget and Earmarks
2021 STATE BUDGET
• $213 million in one-time general
fund spending for specified
highway projects
LESS THAN $1 MILLION IN NACOG
REGION PROJECTS IN 2021 (0.5%)
2022 STATE BUDGET
• $1 billion in one-time general fund spending for
infrastructure
ONLY $41.3 MILLION IN NACOG REGION PROJECTS IN 2022 (4.1%)

61. Priority Project List
Potential funding opportunity
Surplus state funding (state legislature)
RTAC’s Advisory Committee allocation for
NACOG region: $75.3 million (2023/24)
NACOG designed an open and competitive process
NACOG coordinates outreach to state legislators and
education of local elected officials
Example of NACOG’s “Legislative Advocacy”

62. FY 24 Regionally Significant Project List Map

63. Priority Project List
City of Cottonwood – Main Street Pavement
Preservation and Roundabout

64. Scoring Criteria
High
(20 points)
 Demand/Project
Need (20)
 Connectivity (20)
 Economic & Social
Benefits (20)
Low
(5 points)
 Past Maintenance
Expense (5)
 Project Readiness
(5)
 [Support for
Planning Project
(10)]
Medium
(10 points)
 Safety (10)
 Local Leveraging (10)
 Alternate Modes
(10)
Goal for the High Priority Project List: Projects that have been
vetted at the regional level (this process) and have some level of
readiness (applicant can take action if selected).

65. Scoring Criteria

66. Looking Down the Road – FY25

67. • 2024 Regional Priority Projects List - $100M
• Verde Valley Transportation Safety Plan, expanding
into Master Transportation Plan
• Continue site visits and expanding list of potential
grant projects
• Ultimate goal: development of long range
transportation plan and support successful BIL
applications
• Pursue NACOG applications for BIL funding (SS4A,
PROTECT)
Looking Down the Road – FY25

68. Jenn O’Connor
NACOG Planning Director
joconnor@nacog.org
(928) 543-9144
Contact Information

69. Q & A

70. Carrie Kissel, Associate Director
ckissel@nado.org
Bret Allphin, Senior Program Manager
ballphin@nado.org
Krishna Kunapareddy, Program Manager
kkunapareddy@nado.org
Slides & recording will be posted to
https://ruraltransportation.org/
Connect with NADO