Dashboards and Data: Tools for Regional Capital Planning

6 min read

Regional infrastructure only works when cities stop treating pipes, tracks, and fiber as isolated local assets and start planning them as a single, shared system that matches how people actually live and move. By coordinating stormwater, transit, broadband, and water investments across borders—backed by shared data, joint authorities, and clear cost‑sharing rules—regions can avoid redundant projects, unlock larger state and federal funding, and deliver higher quality service at lower long‑term cost. This article uses real‑world examples of multi‑city stormwater fixes, bus rapid transit corridors, regional water plants, and broadband builds to show how structured negotiation, transparency tools, and aligned zoning turn abstract “regional goals” into concrete pipes in the ground and buses on the street.

Coordinated Infrastructure Planning Across Jurisdictions

One of the most tangible benefits of regional collaboration is the ability to plan for infrastructure that serves more than one jurisdiction, thus avoiding costly duplication and improving service delivery. A recent example comes from the joint efforts between our city and neighboring municipalities in addressing stormwater management across a shared watershed. Rather than each city constructing its own detention and filtration systems, we collaborated through a regional stormwater authority to develop a comprehensive solution that included green infrastructure, shared funding mechanisms, and joint maintenance agreements. This approach not only saved millions in capital costs but also improved water quality outcomes across the entire basin area, aligning with state and federal environmental requirements.

Infrastructure systems such as transportation, water, wastewater, and energy grids rarely conform to municipal boundaries. By coordinating planning efforts early, we ensure that future growth is supported by infrastructure that is both resilient and scalable. For example, our participation in a regional transportation planning organization allowed us to align our local transit priorities with adjoining jurisdictions, ultimately leading to the successful funding and construction of a bus rapid transit corridor that connects three cities. This corridor has since increased transit ridership and reduced single-occupancy vehicle trips in the region, consistent with our shared sustainability and mobility goals¹.

Strategies for Building Consensus and Sharing Resources

Building consensus among multiple jurisdictions requires a structured approach that includes data sharing, inclusive engagement, and clear articulation of mutual benefits. Early in our regional broadband initiative, we developed a shared GIS platform that mapped existing fiber networks, public facilities, and underserved areas. This transparency revealed opportunities for joint trenching and conduit sharing during road reconstruction projects, significantly lowering the cost of network expansion for all participants. By using consistent data and involving technical staff from each jurisdiction in planning discussions, we fostered mutual trust and expedited decision-making².

Resource sharing is most successful when it is formalized through interlocal agreements or memoranda of understanding. In our experience, pooling capital funds and coordinating grant applications have been effective mechanisms for leveraging state and federal dollars. During the construction of a regional water treatment facility, five cities contributed proportionally to the design and capital costs, while operations were contracted to a shared utility authority. This model not only improved water quality compliance but also eliminated the need for each city to independently fund and operate smaller, less efficient plants³. Such arrangements benefit from clear governance structures that define roles, cost-sharing formulas, and dispute resolution processes.

Navigating Competing Interests Through Structured Negotiation

Regional infrastructure initiatives frequently encounter competing priorities, whether in terms of project location, cost apportionment, or perceived benefits. Our experience has shown that structured negotiation frameworks, such as facilitated stakeholder workshops or third-party mediation, are essential tools for surfacing concerns and identifying tradeoffs. During a recent freight corridor expansion project, neighboring jurisdictions disagreed on the placement of a new intermodal facility. By engaging a neutral facilitator and conducting a series of scenario planning exercises, we were able to identify a compromise location that balanced economic development goals with environmental and traffic concerns⁴.

Another key to managing competing interests is establishing decision-making bodies that include representation from all affected parties. For example, our regional capital improvement planning committee includes elected officials, planning directors, and public works managers from each jurisdiction. This structure ensures that infrastructure priorities are debated openly and collectively. While consensus is not always possible, having a formal venue for negotiation and discussion has prevented unilateral decisions that could derail regional progress. It has also helped reinforce accountability and mutual respect among partners, particularly when difficult funding decisions must be made.

Long-Term Relationship Building and Transparency Practices

Successful regional infrastructure planning is underpinned by long-term relationships that are nurtured through transparency and regular interaction. One practice that has proven effective is maintaining a shared capital improvement program dashboard that tracks major infrastructure projects across jurisdictions. This dashboard, accessible to partner agencies and the public, includes timelines, budgets, and contact points. It enables early identification of coordination opportunities and reduces the likelihood of conflicting construction schedules or redundant project scopes⁵.

Transparency also extends to financial planning and performance evaluation. We have adopted a practice of conducting joint post-project reviews to assess outcomes relative to goals, budgets, and community impacts. These reviews not only inform future project planning but also build institutional memory and trust. For example, after the completion of a shared transit maintenance facility, we documented lessons learned regarding procurement and construction management, which have since been used to refine future inter-jurisdictional agreements. This ongoing commitment to learning and openness has enhanced our credibility and effectiveness as regional infrastructure stewards.

Operationalizing Regional Infrastructure Goals

Turning regional infrastructure goals into actionable plans requires aligning local policies, zoning codes, and capital budgets with shared objectives. In our work with a regional housing and transportation coalition, we identified key infrastructure investments that support transit-oriented development across municipal boundaries. Each participating city amended its zoning code to allow higher densities near transit nodes and committed capital funds to upgrade water and sewer lines in those areas. This alignment allowed us to jointly apply for state infrastructure grants that would have been out of reach individually⁶.

Institutionalizing regional infrastructure planning also means embedding it into the decision-making processes of local governments. We have worked to ensure that our city’s comprehensive plan explicitly references regional infrastructure priorities and includes metrics for evaluating alignment. Staff are trained to routinely consult regional plans during project scoping and budgeting. These practices have helped reduce friction between local and regional objectives and have streamlined permitting and environmental review processes for multi-jurisdictional projects.

Bibliography

Metropolitan Council. 2020. “Regional Transitway Guidelines.” St. Paul, MN: Metropolitan Council. https://metrocouncil.org.
National Association of Regional Councils. 2021. “Best Practices in Broadband Infrastructure Planning.” Washington, DC: NARC. https://narc.org.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Regionalization: Solutions for Water and Wastewater Systems.” EPA Office of Water. https://epa.gov.
Federal Highway Administration. 2019. “Collaborative Decision Making in Freight Planning.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov.
Government Finance Officers Association. 2022. “Transparency in Capital Planning.” Chicago, IL: GFOA. https://gfoa.org.
California Strategic Growth Council. 2021. “Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Guidelines.” Sacramento, CA: SGC. https://sgc.ca.gov.