BackgroundPolicymakers and researchers are increasingly recognizing the connection between public health and transportation, but health improvements are typically framed from a physical activity or active travel perspective rather than considering broader quality of life impacts. Currently, there is an inadequate understanding of the ways in which transportation and quality of life intersect, and little is known about what metropolitan planning organizations in the United States are doing to address quality of life outcomes. This study aims to develop a framework for transportation-related quality of life which we then used to examine the extent to which quality of life is being considered in metropolitan long-range transportation planning. MethodsBased on a review of the literature, a conceptual framework was developed which can aid planners and policymakers in incorporating quality of life into the transportation planning process. Long-range transportation plans were then collected for 148 of the largest metropolitan planning organizations in the United States for an aggregate content analysis. The proposed framework provided the basis for the selection of multiple quality-of-life-related search terms. 11 plans were examined in further detail to assess the context in which quality of life outcomes were referenced. Results: (Analysis Ongoing)The framework identified four domains of transportation-related quality of life: physical, mental, social, and functional well-being. Physical well-being was well-represented in the plans, typically in the context of safety, air quality/emissions, active transport, or environmental justice, but references to the other domains were scarcer. Terms explicitly referenced within federal transportation legislation planning factors such as “safety,” “accessibility,” or “mobility” appeared most frequently. Larger metropolitan planning organizations tended to reference “quality of life,” “mobility,” and “economic“ more frequently, but were less likely to mention “safety“ or “social.“ ConclusionsThe proposed framework indicates that quality of life is not being holistically considered in long-range transportation planning. Plans primarily targeted quality of life enhancements from a physical health perspective, but other dimensions such as mental or social well-being were rarely addressed. While several of the plans explicitly mentioned the improvement of quality of life as a key objective within their vision statements, others appeared to only address quality of life in so far as it satisfied federal requirements. Furthermore, references to improving quality of life were often vague, perhaps owing to its inconsistent interpretation. More than simply mirroring the language put forth by federal legislation, metropolitan planning organizations should actively work to achieve positive quality of life outcomes.