Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

81 A P P E N D I X C The research effort for NCHRP 08-52 included the printing and distribution of more than 3,000 surveys by mail and email to rural counties and municipalities, state DOTs, and tribal planners. In addition, the research team conducted an online survey which was circulated to various listservs and networks associated with rural land use and transportation interests. The primary purpose of the survey was to identify rural needs and strategies that involved integrated land use and transportation. The survey also collected information on barriers to success, ways to disseminate information to rural planners, demo- graphic data, and experiences with rural transit service. Top needs cited by respondents included accessibility to local activities and jobs and driver safety. Concerns over environmental issues such as vanishing open space and de- graded water and air quality were also high, especially among rural communities near major urban centers. Some commu- nities said too many roads were being built, leading to subur- ban sprawl, while others sought more and wider roads as an attempt to mitigate increased local traffic congestion caused by regional commuters and trucks. Another frequently cited issue was the loss of local identity and downtown character, especially in rural communities where the “Main Street” had become a major artery for regional traffic. Some communities were addressing this problem by forging agreements with the state DOT to redes- ignate the state route to a roadway outside of town and trans- fer ownership of the Main Street to the locality. However, this required a high level of local and state coordination, which was often difficult to achieve. Most respondents said their communities’ populations were growing, aging, and becoming more educated and diverse. More than 80 percent had some form of transit service, usually demand-response rather than fixed-route. A surprising number of respondents were very interested in pursuing bicycle and pedestrian improvements to improve accessibility and quality of life. To deal with pedestrian and bicycle safety problems, as well as promoting public health, respondents favored educational programs rather than major infrastructure investments. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies such as improved signal timing were also iden- tified by many as a desirable strategy to deal with the issue of accessibility and cut-through traffic. Respondents said the key barriers to success for coordi- nated land use and transportation planning were parochialism and a lack of funding. Many respondents expressed frustration at political fractures among localities and/or state agencies that hindered improvements to the transportation system and failed to consider a long-term regional perspective. When asked about the best ways to disseminate information to rural planners, respondents preferred interactive venues such as workshops or internet dialogue versus books or CDs. Survey Purpose and Structure Rural communities, which often operate with very limited resources, face challenging decisions when considering trans- portation investments and land use strategies. In response to this challenge, ICMA, in partnership with the Renaissance Planning Group conducted a study for the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (www.trb.org). The goal of the study was to collect information on innovative ways to integrate rural land use and transportation plans in order to construct a best practices guidebook for rural planners. As part of the research effort, a series of surveys were de- signed to help the research team verify and enhance its un- derstanding of trends, issues, and potential transportation and land use solutions. The survey instruments were organized around the following topics: • Rural Community Demographics: Trends in rural com- munities that relate most closely to integrated transporta- tion and land use. • Transit Services: Availability and perceived quality of rural transit services. Survey Summary

82 • Barriers to Success: Factors that affect the ability of rural communities and state agencies to work together and/or achieve successful results with integrated transportation and land use strategies. • Issues: Relative importance of various land use and trans- portation issues. • Strategies: The frequency with which various land use and transportation strategies have been implemented, the degree to which they were successful, the level of difficulty they presented, and their attractiveness to communities that had not yet attempted them. • Information Sources: The relative effectiveness of various methods for disseminating information to rural planners and communities. • Additional Information: General comments, suggestions, or contact information that would further inform the research team of issues, strategies, and potential case studies. Sampling Technique The project budget allowed for the printing and distribu- tion of roughly 3,100 mail and email surveys, in addition to an online survey. Targeted groups are described below. Rural Counties The survey was distributed to 1,384 counties, including 1,008 non-metro counties and 376 metro counties in which 50 percent or more of the population is classified as rural according to the 2000 Census. Counties made up nearly half of the mail-back target group because they cover broad geographical areas and often serve as a planning resource for rural areas. In most parts of the country, counties are at least aware of, if not actively involved in, efforts by rural communi- ties to implement transportation and land use strategies. Small Towns and Incorporated Places In addition to the county sample, the mail-back survey was sent to 1,666 municipalities, including villages, towns, and rural incorporated places. Of these, 380 jurisdictions were smaller than 2,500. The sample was drawn from the ICMA database of municipalities that have a population of less than 20,000. None of the sample municipalities were in a metro- politan statistical area, but 194 were considered “suburban” by the Census Bureau. Although this sample of 1,666 jurisdictions represents only a handful of the thousands of small communities in the United States, results from these participants helped the research team glean insights about issues that may not be understood by county and state planners, especially in areas such as New England where virtually all land areas are part of incorporated municipalities. The surveys were mailed in the winter of 2006 to a selected sample of municipalities with populations between 2,500 and 250,000 and counties with populations between 2,500 and 25,000. Of the 3,050 municipalities and counties that received surveys, 649 responded (21.3 percent). Departments of Transportation A variation of the county/municipal survey was sent in PDF format by email to all 50 state DOTs, with the option to fax or mail it back. Nineteen surveys (38 percent) were completed and returned. Native American Communities A customized version of the county/municipal survey was distributed by email to the Tribal Transportation Assistance Program (TTAP) listserv maintained by Colorado State Uni- versity. Nineteen surveys were received from this source. The percentage of the total is not quite clear in this case—it was difficult to ascertain the number of active listserv members. Online Survey The survey instrument, with some modifications, was also posted on line in order to solicit input from a broader audi- ence (e.g., local officials, professional and civic organiza- tions, and interested individuals). The on line survey was posted from December 15, 2005, to January 16, 2006, and garnered 623 total responses. Based on the contact informa- tion provided by 165 of the respondents, respondents repre- sented a diversity of interests involved in or affected by rural transportation planning. Additionally, the sample indicated that the survey reached all geographic regions of the United States. The results from the survey process are summarized in total. Results of the online and mailed surveys are presented first, followed by highlights of responses from DOTs and tribal planners. Although the mailed and online surveys were not completely identical, they were organized around core questions described at the beginning of this appendix. This material categorizes the collective results into community characteristics (i.e., the overall picture of the communities surveyed) and strategies for dealing with land use and trans- portation issues in rural communities. Demographics As identified in Table C-1, the online survey was answered a wide variety of respondent types, including rural community government staff and officials, nonprofit and consultant

83 organizations specializing in rural issues, and residents of rural communities. Respondents’ perception of the demographic profile of their community did not vary significantly from the rural de- mographic trends identified in this study’s literature review. Respondents generally viewed their communities as growing, aging, and becoming more educated and diverse (see Tables C-2 and C-3). Incomes were generally rated as rising and unemployment as stable. The online and mailed survey results were nearly identical, except that the mailed survey respondents saw the amount of affordable housing as more stable and more mailed survey respondents saw the diversity of jobs increasing. Transit Availability and Quality When asked how they rated their communities’ various transit services, most respondents viewed the services offered as being either adequate or poor (see Tables C-4 and C-5). About half of rural counties did not have fixed-route service. More than 80 percent had demand-responsive transit. Barriers to Success As Table C-6 shows, rural communities think they are restricted most by limited funding from both the public and private sector. Political barriers are also a major concern, while coordination with regional and state entities is a lesser, al- though not negligible barrier. Volunteered responses (e.g., comments) frequently mentioned concerns about the ethics of local officials and community stakeholders. Many said parochialism from various players, including developers and local or state officials, hindered improvements to the trans- portation system. One respondent expressed the views of many in this way: “[The problem is that] personal greed and a failure to accept the fact that the good of the whole area is more important than a new development here or there. In other words, shortsightedness and selfishness seem to hold sway.” Outreach and Education Among online survey respondents, the method seen as most effective was workshops. The next most popular methods all Regional council or regional planning organization staff 17% Rural county staff 12% Rural municipality staff 11% Rural resident 10% Other (please specify) 9% Nonprofit organization focusing on rural issues 8% Private consultant with expertise in rural issues 6% Rural appointed official 5% State DOT staff 5% Rural elected official 5% Other state agency 5% Rural business interest 3% Academic with expertise in rural issues 2% Tribal government or staff 0% Table C-1. Organization or interest represented by respondent (online survey). Increasing Stable Decreasing Wide Variation Overall Trend Population 62% 19% 13% 6% Increasing People over 65 74% 19% 5% 2% Increasing People under 30 32% 25% 38% 5% Even variation Racial diversity 32% 54% 8% 6% Stable/increasing Residents with higher education 45% 42% 7% 5% Stable/increasing Household income 38% 44% 11% 7% Stable/increasing Affordable housing 7% 30% 56% 7% Decreasing Substandard housing 23% 41% 28% 8% Even variation Diversity of jobs 16% 43% 35% 6% Stable/decreasing Number of jobs 27% 40% 28% 5% Even variation Unemployment rate 16% 67% 13% 4% Stable Table C-2. Community demographic information (online survey).

84 Increasing Stable Decreasing Wide Variation Overall Trend Population 55% 29% 15% 1% Increasing People over 65 75% 22% 3% <1% Increasing People under 30 27% 33% 39% 1% Even variation Racial diversity 29% 62% 4% 5% Stable/increasing Residents with higher education 40% 45% 11% 3% Stable/increasing Household income 38% 44% 14% 4% Stable/increasing Affordable housing 11% 44% 43% 1% Stable/decreasing Substandard housing 21% 46% 30% 3% Even variation Diversity of jobs 20% 48% 29% 3% Even variation Number of jobs 31% 41% 27% 1% Even variation Unemployment rate 19% 62% 19% 1% Stable Table C-3. Community demographic information (mailed survey). % with service Service rating Fixed route buses within the county 51% Adequate/poor 88% Fixed route buses to neighboring counties 48% Poor 68% Long-distance bus service (e.g. Greyhound) 71% Adequate/poor 94% Demand responsive transit (e.g. on-call van service) 82% Adequate/poor 90% Passenger rail 30% Poor 58% Ride sharing programs (e.g. carpooling) 65% Poor 64% Private taxi services 71% Adequate/poor 96% Table C-4. Quality of rural transit service (online survey). Service rating% with service Good Adequate Poor Fixed route buses within the county 44% 9% 17% 18% Fixed route buses to neighboring counties 40% 5% 15% 20% Long-distance bus service (e.g. Greyhound) 45% 4% 19% 22% Demand responsive transit (e.g. on-call van service) 87% 19% 42% 25% Passenger rail 22% 4% 6% 11% Ride sharing programs (e.g. carpooling) 56% 2% 20% 34% Private taxi services 57% 4% 26% 27% Other (please describe) 23% 13% 5% 5% Table C-5. Quality of rural transit service (mailed survey). Mailed Online Major barrier Minor barrier Not a barrier Weighted barrier Lack of public input 20% 50% 31% 60% Lack of political support 23% 45% 32% 68% Lack of political authority 22% 41% 40% 54% Limited public funding 84% 13% 3% 91% Lack of private investment 66% 28% 6% 74% Lack of staff, e.g., planning, engineering, etc. 43% 44% 13% 66% Lack of information and/or technical expertise 29% 51% 20% 56% Community leaders are resistant to change 22% 41% 37% 66% Difficulty coordinating with state DOT 17% 45% 37% 52% Difficulty coordinating with adjacent jurisdictions 12% 50% 39% 51% Difficulty coordinating with incorporated areas of the county 9% 42% 50% NA Difficulty coordinating with regional planning agency 7% 35% 58% 32% Table C-6. Barriers to success.

85 Mailed Online Local, regional, or state workshops 61% 94% Internet downloads 53% 41% Email discussion groups and listserves 73% 40% Online courses or webcasts 34% 29% Books 22% 25% National conferences 83% 24% Teleconferences 18% 21% Compact discs 23% 19% Other (please specify) 10% Table C-7. Disseminating new approaches to transportation planning. Table C-8. Issues of importance to rural communities. Mail Online Very Important Somewhat important Not Important Weighted Local accessibility 70% 27% 4% 77% Access to jobs 75% 22% 2% NA Regional accessibility 50% 45% 5% 66% Access for tourists 44% 42% 15% 57% Cut-through traffic 37% 48% 16% 51% Driver safety 54% 40% 6% 70% Pedestrian and cyclist safety 50% 42% 8% 52% Rail crossing safety 42% 32% 26% 38% Water/air quality 62% 30% 7% 68% Open space and environmentally sensitive lands 52% 39% 10% 66% Preserving community history and character 51% 43% 6% 60% Public health concerns 36% 55% 9% 35% utilized email and the Internet. In the mailed survey, the most popular method was national conferences, followed by email and listservs and local workshops (Table C-7). The most com- monly volunteered responses mentioned public meetings and meetings with peers. In other words, face-to-face or internet interaction was preferred over methods such as books or tele- conferences. The American Planning Association (APA) was the most frequently mentioned professional organization through which these outreach methods could be implemented. Issues After gathering basic information on the respondents and their communities, a series of questions was posed about strate- gies communities could use to address primary issues concern- ing their transportation systems and land development. For each topic area, respondents were asked to indicate the impor- tance of the issue in their community as well as strategies for dealing with it. When asked to rate the importance of each issue to their community, the issues of primary concern for rural communities included accessibility and safety issues for drivers as well as environmental/open space concerns. Strategies (Online Survey) Respondents were asked to consider a list of land use and transportation strategies that could help address each of the issues identified in Table C-8. If they had tried a strategy, they rated its general success and level of difficulty. If not, they indicated their level of interest in pursuing it. Local Accessibility The number one issue cited by respondents was access to local destinations. As outlined in Table C-9, the most com- mon method for addressing this problem is widening existing roads or adding turn lanes. Strategies with the highest level of success were spot improvements and additional traffic signals along existing roads, supplying demand-responsive tran- sit, adding sidewalks or bicycle routes, and traffic-calming

86 measures. Strategies deemed most difficult were widening existing or building new roads, relying on fixed-route bus service, and implementing ITS. Strategies that garnered the most interest were bicycle amenities, mixed-use development, and ITS. The issue of accessibility generated more additional com- ments (volunteered responses) than any other issue. The most common concerns expressed were as follows: • Loss of rural lands, especially farmlands: Respondents were greatly concerned about sprawl in their communities, a lack of activity centers, and failure to encourage growth management policies. • The number of roads: Some communities complained that the limited number of roads and a lack of grid net- works limited accessibility. Other communities were con- cerned that more roads would encourage exponential sprawl. • Rural transit: A large number of responses focused on the issue of transit. Rural communities are concerned about their aging population’s ability to get around. Workers, especially those with lower incomes, also need transit to reach jobs. • Bicycle/pedestrian amenities: Quite a few respondents said that sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and wheelchair-accessible facilities are a major concern for their communities. • Transportation funding shortfalls: Permeating many of the volunteered responses were concerns about limited funding sources. Several respondents were worried that cur- rently needed projects were either not funded or substan- tially underfunded. • Coordination and communication with FHWA: One con- cern mentioned frequently was a lack of coordination and understanding between rural communities and the federal government. Many respondents expressed frustration with federal transportation requirements that seemed to be “one size fits all” and not relevant or good for their community. • School Accessibility and Quality: Overcrowding in schools is a concern for some fast-growing communities. Other rural communities are concerned that schools are located far from residential areas because there is no town center or because the district covers so much territory. This situation makes it impossible for students to get to school any other way than by bus or car. Driver Safety Commonly applied strategies for improving driver safety include spot improvements, installing traffic signals, and traffic calming (Table C-10). The success rate for each of these was moderate as was the difficulty of implementation. The two strategies generating the most interest were ITS and traffic calming. Volunteered responses overwhelmingly focused on implementation and enforcement of speed lim- its. Driver education initiatives and roadway designs that emphasize pedestrian safety were also frequently noted as needed strategies for dealing with the issue. Water and Air Quality Rural land preservation was the most frequently applied strategy for improving water and air quality. While all Applied Success Difficulty Interest Widening existing roads 14% 37% 76% 29% Spot improvements (e.g., turn lanes sight distance etc.) 11% 50% 47% 30% Building new roads 8% 35% 81% 40% Mixed-use development 8% 32% 68% 68% Improving street connectivity (e.g., grid road network) 6% 38% 68% 40% Paving unpaved roads 6% 29% 63% 30% Demand-responsive transit (e.g., on-call vans) 6% 48% 64% 45% Installing traffic signals 6% 42% 55% 32% Fixed route bus service 6% 31% 75% 40% Trails and greenways 6% 43% 65% 33% Sidewalks 4% 47% 59% 39% Bicycle routes 4% 37% 62% 45% Rideshare programs (e.g., carpools) 3% 17% 60% 40% Intelligent transportation systems 2% 26% 72% 59% Other (describe in question below) 2% 30% 94% 79% Traffic calming or "road diets" 2% 41% 68% 27% Pedestrian amenities (e.g., lighting benches) 2% 33% 53% 44% Limiting turns on commercial streets 2% 33% 56% 36% Bicycle amenities (e.g., bike parking) 0% 33% 50% 100% Table C-9. Local accessibility strategies.

87 strategies were deemed difficult to implement, there was substantial interest in pursuing many of them, as indicated in Table C-11. A large number of issues were identified in the volunteered responses. They tended to vary depending on climate, geography, and growth rate. For example, rural Southern Californian communities struggle with smog passed to them by Los Angeles and other urban areas. Arid regions are dealing with a lack of potable water, while com- munities with varied topography and higher annual rainfalls are concerned with roadway runoff pollution. A number of respondents cited the problem of developers acting irre- sponsibly. They felt this problem should be addressed through regional planning. This is especially important for rural communities dealing with pollution produced by nearby urban development such as smog, contaminated water supplies, and depleted aquifers. Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive Lands As Table C-12 shows, commonly applied strategies for protecting open space and environmentally sensitive lands include land preservation, trails and greenways, and more efficient development patterns such as clustering, mixed use, or redevelopment. Most of these strategies have been moder- ately successful as well as moderately difficult to implement. Interest was relatively strong for most of the strategies; the least popular were large lot zoning and directing growth toward existing towns. Volunteered responses indicated in- terest in establishing land trusts and provided more detail about the state of rural land preservation in the respondent’s community. Several respondents said nothing was currently being done. Others said a lot of land had already been preserved, which made more preservation difficult because the community was worried about not having enough land for housing and jobs. Regional Accessibility Widening existing roads, building new roads and imple- menting transit service and ridesharing programs were the most common strategies applied to improve regional acces- sibility (Table C-13). The strategies that met with the most success were demand-response transit and road widening. The most difficult strategies were building new roads and establishing commuter rail service. Strategies that generated the most interest were bicycle amenities, demand-response transit service, commercial air service, and trails and green- ways. Several strategies not listed surfaced in the volun- teered responses. One concern cited by many was that they could not afford and maintain their existing roads, let alone invest in regional networks. One highway-proposed capac- ity strategy was to change lane configurations and come up with creative solutions to increase capacity instead of sim- ply widening roads. A number of communities were focus- ing on creating local activity centers, rather than, or in addition to improving regional accessibility. The most com- monly mentioned regional accessibility needs were those for hospitals or medical facilities, jobs, shopping, and higher education. Communications is a concern for rural commu- nities. One respondent recommended telecommuting as an option. Another suggested that fiber-optic lines be installed as part of road construction projects. These lines could be leased to the private sector to open communities to broad- band and could also be used for intelligent transportation systems. Applied Success Difficulty Interest Spot improvements (e.g., turn lanes sight distance etc.) 38% 59% 48% 24% Installing traffic signals 25% 55% 52% 19% Traffic calming or "road diets" 13% 39% 66% 39% Limiting turns on commercial streets 10% 41% 53% 12% Other (describe in question below) 9% 43% 43% 36% Intelligent transportation systems 6% 34% 65% 50% Table C-10. Driver safety strategies. Applied Success Difficulty Interest Rural land preservation 31% 48% 66% 36% Policies directing growth toward existing towns 19% 34% 81% 44% Environmentally sensitive road design 18% 51% 65% 43% Transfer/purchase of development rights 13% 33% 79% 37% Policies directing transportation investments to growth areas 10% 38% 64% 39% Other (describe in question below) 9% 53% 56% 56% Table C-11. Strategies for improving water and air quality.

88 Preserving Rural and Historic Character As Table C-14 shows, the problem of maintaining rural character was most likely to be addressed through historic preservation programs. Pedestrian-friendly streets and design standards/guidelines were the next most popular strategies. Few other strategies were suggested, and most were considered at least moderately difficult to implement. The strategy of creating pedestrian-friendly streets generated the most interest. One volunteered strategy mentioned by a number of respondents was establishing a community vision for historic preservation/community character. This could be accomplished through working with a local historic soci- ety, community leaders, and those in charge of planning and zoning. Many expressed the concern that there was too much apathy or a lack of local funding (due to the small population of the community) for historic preservation. Affordable housing was also a concern for a number of rural communities; respondents said residents were being forced out or were living in substandard housing in order to remain in the community. Access for Tourists Improvements to roadway connections, followed by intel- ligent transportation systems and commercial air service, were the most commonly applied strategies to improve access for tourists (Table C-15). These strategies were also seen as the most successful. All strategies given were considered very difficult to implement. The most interest was in rail transit, followed by intelligent transportation systems and improving roadway connections. This issue generated quite a number of volunteered strate- gies. These included marketing activities such as publicizing the region through the internet, billboards, and signs. Communi- ties were also working with DOTs and private entities, such as the Audubon Society or Route 66 historical organizations, to market special amenities and attractions. Improved wayfinding signage was also frequently mentioned as a way to improve tourist accessibility to the rural community. A number of communities said there was no current tourist market for their community, but that they should consider pursuing the promotion/creation of this industry in their region. Finally, Applied Success Difficulty Interest Rural land preservation 20% 50% 67% 33% Trails and greenways 18% 56% 64% 43% Clustered housing in rural subdivisions 12% 41% 60% 43% Policies directing growth toward existing towns 10% 37% 79% 29% Mixed-use development 10% 40% 67% 33% Environmentally sensitive or scenic road design 9% 57% 59% 45% Large lot zoning 8% 49% 43% 21% Transfer/purchase of development rights 6% 40% 77% 30% Policies directing transportation investments to growth areas 4% 55% 55% 33% Other (describe in question below) 3% 42% 64% 60% Table C-12. Rural lands preservation strategies. Applied Success Difficulty Interest Widening existing roads 22% 40% 77% 23% Building new roads 13% 34% 90% 28% Fixed route bus service 12% 31% 64% 44% Demand-responsive transit (e.g., on-call vans) 11% 44% 56% 58% Rideshare programs (e.g., carpools) 9% 24% 54% 41% Bicycle routes 7% 28% 62% 41% Paving unpaved roads 6% 35% 58% 21% Trails and greenways 5% 30% 70% 55% Rail transit (e.g., commuter rail) 4% 27% 89% 50% Other (describe in question below) 4% 36% 77% 40% Intelligent transportation systems 4% 25% 61% 42% Commercial air service 2% 18% 93% 55% Bicycle amenities (e.g., bike parking) 1% 0% 33% 67% Table C-13. Strategies for improving regional accessibility.

89 maintenance of rural roads, a subject mentioned frequently throughout the survey, was identified as a problem related to tourist access. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety According to Table C-16, the creation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities was the most commonly applied strategy for improving safety, followed by strategies that changed the streets themselves. Most strategies had a reasonable level of success and were deemed moderately difficult to implement. Those that generated the most interest were bicycle ameni- ties, followed by pedestrian-oriented street designs and limiting turns on commercial streets. The most commonly volunteered strategy was safety education for bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers, and the community as a whole. The strategy of adding bicycle amenities (such as bicycle racks) generated a high level of interest throughout the survey. Trucks or Cut-Through Traffic This issue is most commonly dealt with by diverting traf- fic from town centers and by widening existing roads or building new roads and improving street connectivity (Table C-17). The most successful strategies were those that either diverted traffic or attempted to slow it through traf- fic calming. Nearly all strategies were seen as very difficult to implement. Those generating the most interest were traf- fic calming and ITS. The volunteered responses largely repeated these strategies, with a number of respondents expressing frustration that their community was doing nothing to fix the problem. One innovative approach was roadway transfers. In this approach, local governments work with the state DOT to provide an alternative route for through traffic and preserve the character of the commu- nity’s Main Street. Railroad Crossing Safety Railroad service was limited or nonexistent in most of the communities surveyed. Among those that did have active railway lines, the most common strategy applied to the prob- lem of roadway crossing safety was to improve warning signs, signals, or barriers (Table C-18). This strategy was seen as successful. Rerouting rail traffic was rarely tried and deemed nearly impossible. Very little interest was expressed by respondents in any strategy. One volunteered strategy was constructing overpasses. Public Health As Table C-19 shows, this issue has been primarily addressed by building bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Respondents thought these facility improvements had the greatest impact on the problem. Most strategies were thought of as difficult to implement. Interest in any of the strategies was mixed, with street connectivity and mixed-use develop- ment the most frequently mentioned. Many respondents said their community was not addressing or only beginning to deal with the new issue of obesity. Educational programs were mentioned as key to ensuring residents would use new pedes- trian and bicycle facilities. Applied Success Difficulty Interest Historic preservation program 30% 57% 57% 36% Pedestrian-friendly streets in towns and villages 23% 50% 65% 47% Community design standards or guidelines 21% 55% 63% 37% Architectural review board 10% 63% 58% 33% Maintaining unpaved roads 6% 57% 41% 41% Directing through traffic away from town centers 6% 38% 66% 25% Other (describe in question below) 3% 36% 75% 50% Table C-14. Strategies for preserving historic and/or rural character. Applied Success Difficulty Interest Improving road connections 35% 41% 71% 41% Improving local access to amenities 22% 47% 57% 49% Intelligent transportation systems 13% 26% 72% 43% Commercial air service 12% 35% 86% 32% Rail transit (e.g. commuter rail) 9% 20% 85% 60% Long-distance bus service (e.g. Greyhound) 9% 21% 58% 33% Table C-15. Strategies for improving access for tourists.

90 Applied Success Difficulty Interest Bicycle routes 20% 44% 44% 29% Sidewalks 19% 54% 54% 40% Trails and greenways 17% 50% 50% 33% Pedestrian-oriented streetscape design 14% 44% 44% 51% Pedestrian amenities (e.g., lighting benches) 7% 44% 44% 35% Traffic calming or "road diets" 6% 36% 36% 35% Improving street connectivity (e.g,. grid road network) 5% 46% 46% 40% Directing through traffic away from town centers 4% 45% 45% 39% Other (describe in question below) 3% 50% 50% 75% Bicycle amenities (e.g,. bike parking) 2% 42% 42% 67% Limiting turns on commercial streets 2% 50% 50% 50% Table C-16. Strategies for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety. Applied Success Difficulty Interest Directing through traffic away from town centers 23% 43% 65% 36% Widening existing roads 16% 35% 79% 27% Building new roads 15% 33% 84% 23% Improving street connectivity (e.g., grid road network) 13% 32% 76% 47% Traffic calming or "road diets" 10% 39% 61% 59% Limiting turns on commercial streets 8% 37% 40% 24% Other (describe in question below) 8% 50% 55% 64% Paving unpaved roads 4% 34% 77% 30% Intelligent transportation systems 3% 17% 83% 50% Table C-17. Strategies for dealing with cut-through traffic. Applied Success Difficulty Interest Improving warning signs signals or barriers 73% 62% 55% 23% Other (describe in question below) 20% 50% 56% 29% Rerouting rail traffic out of town centers 7% 15% 96% 20% Applied Success Difficulty Interest Trails and greenways 26% 54% 68% 29% Sidewalks 21% 53% 50% 22% Bicycle routes 21% 46% 61% 31% Mixed-use development 8% 31% 71% 33% Pedestrian amenities (e.g., lighting benches) 8% 44% 48% 19% Other (describe in question below) 7% 36% 75% 56% Improving street connectivity (e.g., grid road network) 5% 35% 67% 36% Bicycle amenities (e.g., bike parking) 5% 31% 34% 0% Table C-18. Railroad crossing safety strategies. Table C-19. Public health strategies. Strategies (Mailed Survey) Because the page length was limited for the paper survey, the level of detail was a bit less complex than the online ver- sion. Respondents were asked which transportation and land use strategies had been tried in their communities and whether or not these had proved successful. They were also asked if they were interested in learning more about each of the strategies. The strategies were broken down into five issue areas, as shown in Table C-20. Roadway Improvements Out of all of the strategies, roadway improvements were the most likely to have been employed. Paving unpaved roads, widening existing roads, spot improvements, and

91 Implemented Success Difficulty Interest Roadway Improvements Yes No None Some Very None Some Very Yes No Building new roads 51 49 7 46 47 22 56 23 49 51 Widening existing roads 49 51 8 47 45 26 51 22 46 54 Paving unpaved roads 54 46 7 40 53 34 49 17 44 56 “Spot” improvements (turn lane, sight distance) 55 46 7 49 44 28 56 16 47 53 Traffic calming or “road diets” 22 78 28 42 30 38 36 26 51 49 Improving street connectivity 32 68 15 54 31 26 48 27 46 54 Traffic Management Installing traffic signals 38 62 16 35 49 36 45 19 40 60 Intelligent transportation systems 12 88 49 31 20 59 29 13 38 62 Limiting turns on commercial streets 18 82 25 41 34 39 39 23 33 68 Directing through traffic away from downtowns 20 80 26 44 30 37 42 21 35 65 Rerouting rail traffic out of downtowns 10 91 53 31 16 58 18 25 22 78 Improving warning signs, signals, or barriers 39 61 12 44 44 48 41 12 40 60 Multi-modal Transportation Fixed route bus service 21 79 26 41 33 38 44 18 32 68 33 67 9 45 45 36 55 9 37 63 8 93 73 22 5 67 15 18 25 75 Rideshare programs (carpools, etc.) 13 87 37 41 22 47 38 15 33 67 Bicycle routes 36 64 14 42 44 31 53 17 49 51 Bicycle amenities (bike lockers, etc.) 12 88 46 38 16 59 32 9 39 61 Sidewalks 54 46 8 41 51 32 46 22 47 53 36 64 7 48 46 29 59 12 43 57 Trails and greenways 46 54 9 41 51 23 58 19 53 47 Design Pedestrian-friendly streets 30 70 15 44 41 28 48 23 47 53 20 80 19 48 33 25 48 27 42 58 Community design standards or guidelines 37 63 12 57 31 18 54 27 52 48 Architectural review board 16 84 30 48 23 39 43 19 40 60 Historic preservation program 39 61 10 57 33 21 57 23 50 50 Growth Management 45 55 12 62 26 17 55 28 56 44 23 77 19 57 24 28 47 25 47 53 Mixed-use development 38 62 17 62 22 22 51 27 54 46 Clustered housing in rural subdivisions 29 71 18 60 22 26 49 25 49 51 Large lot zoning 31 69 17 50 33 35 46 19 41 59 Transfer/purchase of development rights 15 85 28 41 31 33 41 27 48 53 Rural land preservation 29 71 19 45 36 26 48 26 48 52 Environmentally sensitive/scenic highway design Pedestrian amenities (lighting, signage, etc.) Rail transit (such as commuter rail or light rail) Policies directing growth to developed areas Policies directing transportation to growth areas Demand-response transit (on-call vans, etc.) Table C-20. Transportation and land use strategies (mailed survey).

92 building new roads were most often cited. These improve- ments ranked as very or somewhat successful and were some- what difficult to implement. Traffic Management In general, these strategies were the least likely to be imple- mented. Installing traffic signals and warnings seemed suc- cessful, while rerouting rail traffic from downtowns was not. Intelligent transportation systems had not been imple- mented in many communities; the few that had tried said it was difficult. Multi-Modal Transportation Traditional multi-modal strategies for pedestrians (such as sidewalks, greenways and trails) were frequently imple- mented, while passenger rail, ridesharing, and bicycle ameni- ties were not. Respondents gave the traditional strategies a high level of success and said they were relatively easy strategies to implement. Very few communities had tried rail transit. Design Design strategies were generally likely to be implemented and to be successful. Respondents were moderately interested in them and they were also seen as being moderately difficult to implement. Growth Management The most commonly used growth management strategy was to adopt policies limiting growth to existing developed areas. The least common were programs to allow transfers of development rights. There was some interest in learning more about mixed-use development and strategies for limit- ing growth to existing developed areas. Departments of Transportation In general, DOT responses closely matched those of the online and mailed surveys. Notable findings were as follows: • Rural communities were seen as growing, becoming more diverse, and aging. • Fixed route bus service of any kind was rated as poor, while demand-response was rated as adequate. • The two greatest needs identified for rural communities were access to jobs and driver safety. • The largest barriers to success were political support and authority as well as limited funding. • Nearly all DOTs said they had implemented pedestrian- friendly, environmentally-sensitive, and historic preserva- tion components in their roadway designs. • Most respondents have focused their efforts on highway strategies, including new road construction, road widen- ing, spot improvements, and warning signs, signals, or barriers. Native American Communities In many ways, responses from tribal planners were similar to those of the other surveys, but there were a few significant differences. Primary findings are outlined below. • Demographic data closely matched that of the online and mailed surveys, except that racial diversity was not as likely to be increasing and economic measures such as unemploy- ment were more likely to be stable rather than improving. Contrary to many of the other surveys, the population of every age group in tribal areas was increasing. • Respondents considered every issue very important, with the exception of access for tourists. While obesity was con- sidered a somewhat important issue in most of the other surveys, it was considered a very important issue in the tribal survey. • While a lack of both public and private funding and a lack of staff were seen as major barriers to success, coordination with other entities and political support were not seen as such significant barriers as they were in the online, mail, and DOT surveys. • While nearly all transportation and land use strategies were less likely to have been implemented, traffic man- agement strategies were the least likely to have been implemented. For example, ITS had only been imple- mented by one of the respondents, while less than half of those responding had implemented a strategy of installing traffic signals. Observations A few observations emerged from the survey that may prove useful to developing a best practices guide for rural communities. These are as follows: • The conflicting opinions about the need for more roads versus the potential for sprawl from too many roads indi- cates a need for rural communities to better understand the impact of roadway location, design, and connectiv- ity on development patterns. Urban communities have

93 successfully addressed accessibility problems by making strategic improvements to multi-modal connectivity and path density in order to expand transportation choices without greatly expanding roadway footprints or promot- ing unwanted development. Rural applications of this approach should be explored. • Rural communities could greatly benefit from profes- sional assistance in developing local and regional land use and transportation plans. Particularly useful services could include support with scenario planning, visioning, multi-modal transportation planning, and collaboration among neighboring jurisdictions, private entities, and state/federal agencies. • The American Planning Association (APA) was the most frequently mentioned professional organization through which outreach and education could be implemented. Working with local APA chapters to organize workshops on transportation and land use planning in rural commu- nities could be an effective way to spread information and encourage innovation.