It will be an ongoing dynamic process, which I think will require the ATP membership, whether they're elected leaders, or technical people, or interest groups, to be more involved throughout the year and throughout the entire concept of planning to programming . . . . When transportation decisions were made at the state level, the Central Office used guidelines and centralized goals to guide transportation decision making. The concept of planning has been elevated because the ATPs now are largely responsible for prioritization of investment decisions. Regional planning has been a key process element in this evolution. We prioritize between the municipal level, the county level, and the state level and try to look beyond our boundaries a little better.
Members report that they are working much closer with MPOs than they did in the past.
Members feel that the ATPs help engineers communicate with both citizens and planners. Engineers are willing to talk to planners now. ATP members say having the opportunity to make the actual decisions has made members realize there does need to be some planning. Increased discussions about the challenges of rural planning versus urban planning are occurring. ATP members report varying definitions of planning and differing views on the proper role of planning in the ATPs.