By Eric Murphy
The transportation needs of urban and rural places are not as binary or opposed as they’re sometimes made out to be, and the U.S. Census Bureau says the line between the two has continued to blur in the years since the COVID-19 pandemic. As it becomes easier for workers to work remotely and commute from rural areas to jobs based in suburbs or cities, state DOTs can work to understand the full context of each place and its interconnections to meet the unique needs of every community.
State agencies have traditionally left many “urban” transportation issues to local agencies and MPOs, while taking the lead on highways in rural areas. But more can be done to bridge the divide between places that are becoming less separated.
For example, an idea like Complete Streets is often thought of as a policy for urban areas, but it has benefits for rural places too. Studies have shown that rural residents walk or bike as often as city dwellers when there is safe infrastructure to accommodate them. But implementing Complete Streets in rural areas can require innovative funding and maintenance strategies, which DOT staff from nine states discussed in a recent workshop series led by SSTI with Smart Growth America.
A cultural shift within agencies is also required to think differently about the role of rural highways. The Massachusetts DOT cultivated its cultural shift toward active transportation in the agency and used new tools to measure latent demand for walking and biking trips. The tools, which measure short car trips and the concentration of nearby destinations, are incorporated into the agency’s process from planning to construction, influencing project selection and being included in project design criteria. The Washington State DOT created interdisciplinary regional teams that allowed for more of a focus on local knowledge and priorities while still facilitating communication.
Though considered remote, rural places may have additional needs and goals for the state-owned roads beyond moving through the most vehicles at the fastest speed. Instead, these areas may want an active “Main Street” to serve as an economic engine, gathering place, and attraction for visitors, which would require lower speed limits, safer street design, and infrastructure for pedestrians or bicyclists.
In Hillsboro, Virginia, State Route 9 is also the town’s Main Street. With the help of grants and local input, a reconstruction of the road added sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and roundabouts at either end of the town to calm traffic, make the street safer, and make it feel more like a place to go to rather than go through.
Strong community engagement in rural areas is key for state DOTs to understand the context and needs of each community in which they work rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. Rural transportation planning organizations can help state DOTs with their outreach, including to local officials.
The changing nature of rural places might also exacerbate traffic safety concerns. Due to a variety of factors, rural areas see more traffic deaths per capita than urban areas. For trips of the same length, the risk of dying on a rural road is 62% higher than on an urban road. Lower speed limits can start to address the problem. As studies have shown, states with higher maximum speed limits have more rural road deaths than those with lower speed limits. “Self-explaining” road design that uses physical features like narrower lanes to encourage drivers to choose the right speed can improve safety, too.
Rural areas can also benefit from transportation infrastructure investments that are coordinated with smart land use planning. Local accessibility of key destinations reduces the need for solo vehicle travel to meet basic needs, even in rural places.
Photo Credit: Jonathan Petersson via Pexels, unmodified. License.