Where Rural Roads Don’t Fit Urban Rules

Most municipal policies are built on a simple and reasonable idea:
development pays for development.

In towns and cities, that makes sense. When a new subdivision goes in, roads, pipes, sidewalks, and lights have to be built to serve many homes and higher traffic volumes. Developers build those costs into their projects, and the infrastructure supports long-term growth.

But rural areas didn’t develop that way.

Much of the rural road network was established decades ago, often when municipalities took over responsibility for historic road allowances that had already been used for farming and resource access. Many of these corridors were never built to modern engineering standards. They evolved through use, graded, graveled, and maintained as needed to serve working land.

That patchwork system has functioned for generations.

The challenge shows up when today’s development framework meets yesterday’s rural infrastructure.

There isn’t always a clear policy path for roads that are:

• Low traffic

• Shared by multiple agricultural or resource users

• Serving working land rather than residential neighborhoods

These corridors aren’t quite private driveways.
They aren’t subdivision roads either.
They sit somewhere in between and that “in between” space is where the policy gaps live.

From an engineering and municipal perspective, it makes sense to use established standards to guide road construction. And to be fair, the gravel road standard being discussed (GMSS Class 3) isn’t an urban subdivision roadway with curbs, sidewalks, and streetlights. It’s still a rural-style road.

But even rural engineering standards are designed with certain traffic volumes, widths, drainage structures, and long-term servicing expectations in mind. When those standards are applied to very low-volume, multi-user agricultural corridors, the scale of the design can still feel out of step with how the road is actually used.

A single family home on agricultural land doesn’t create the same traffic patterns or servicing demands as multiple acreages or commercial sites. Yet when a full modern road standard is triggered, the cost can look similar on paper, even if the real-world impact is very different.

That’s where the tension lives.

Right now, many counties (including ours) are actively reviewing and updating agricultural and agribusiness policies. That’s important work, and it recognizes that rural land use is evolving. Small-scale agriculture, on-farm businesses, and families wanting to live where they farm are all part of today’s rural landscape.

Our situation highlights a broader policy question:

How do we create a clear, fair framework for low-volume rural access roads that support working land without requiring infrastructure scaled beyond the actual use?

We don’t have all the answers. But we do know this conversation is timely, and it reaches beyond one permit application.

Because rural roads don’t just connect properties.
They connect policy to the lived reality of the land.

This post is Part 4 of “Field Notes on a Rural Road.”

Tomorrow: So What Do You Do When You Can’t Afford the Road?
The path we chose, and why the bigger conversation still matters.