How states can prioritize needed transportation projects and improve the effectiveness of spending 

States invest billions of taxpayers’ dollars in transportation projects, but often do not use a clear, measurable, and quantitative cost-benefit framework to decide which projects to fund. As a result, state governments often fund transportation projects that are ‘wants’ rather than ‘needs,’ leading to roads with worse pavement conditions, more traffic congestion, and more dangerous roads than if states prioritized the most needed improvements. 

Each year, states study which highways to expand, which bridges to fix, and where to build new roads. Most people hear about these choices only after plans are set, funding is approved, and construction schedules are announced, leaving much of how decisions are made out of public view. 

These project decisions are based, in part, on technical analysis conducted earlier in the process. Engineers and planners analyze traffic, safety, road conditions, freight movement, and population trends. They estimate costs, compare alternatives, and assess how projects might reduce congestion or improve safety. However, how that analysis influences final choices is not always clear. This gap between technical analysis and final decisions points to a need for clearer, more transparent decision-making processes.

In most states, a transportation board of appointed or elected officials oversees the state department of transportation (DOT) and decides which projects move forward. These boards balance competing priorities and make decisions that staff alone cannot. Problems arise when final decisions do not reflect the technical analysis used to evaluate the projects. In those cases, project selection depends less on performance and more on political considerations.

One state in which politics plays a significant role is Texas. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) develops projects through the Unified Transportation Program (UTP), a 10-year investment plan. 

The UTP guides how funding is distributed across project types and priorities. Projects proposed by local governments, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and TxDOT districts are evaluated using data-driven criteria, including safety, pavement and bridge conditions, congestion, connectivity, and economic factors such as population, employment, and freight movement. This process includes a scoring component that compares and prioritizes projects.

After analysis, the Texas Transportation Commission adopts the program. The commission consists of five members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Texas Senate, serving six-year staggered terms. The Unified Transportation Program is updated annually, allowing the commission to adjust priorities. Final decisions consider local priorities, funding categories, project costs, scheduling, public input, and commission approval. There is limited public communication about this process, and no quantitative analysis for any of these elements. Since these other factors are considered alongside project evaluations, the basis for selecting one project over another is not clearly tied to the underlying analysis.

In contrast, a state that has lessened the role of politics is Virginia. Regional and local projects competing for state funds are reviewed through the SMART SCALE program, which is Virginia’s standard framework for prioritizing projects. 

Virginia’s SMART SCALE uses a quantifiable, transparent scoring system to compare and rank projects before any funding decisions are made. Transportation projects are rated on factors like reducing congestion, improving safety, accessibility, economic development, land use, and environmental impact. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment conduct technical reviews before the board selects which projects to fund.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) makes final funding decisions, but it does so with access to standardized scoring results that are publicly available and designed to support more transparent and comparable decision-making.

In both Texas and Virginia, technical analysis informs project development. The key difference lies in how that analysis is reflected in final decisions. 

Virginia’s SMART SCALE applies standardized scoring and publishes results, allowing direct comparison before board decisions. 

In Texas, projects are evaluated and scored, but those scores do not determine final selections. In systems where technical analysis does not clearly shape the final decision, it is not always clear how project scores influence which projects are ultimately selected. This could allow higher-performing projects to lose out to those with greater political support. In those cases, technical planning becomes a supporting document rather than the basis for choosing among limited options.

To address this problem, state departments of transportation and transportation boards should adopt two reforms to improve transparency:

1. State DOTs should make all project evaluation results public before submitting them to the board. The public usually sees only the final list of projects. Agencies should publish complete evaluation results before the board votes, including scores, rankings, and criteria. This allows policymakers and the public to compare projects before decisions are made.
2. State transportation boards should provide a formal written justification whenever they choose not to follow technical rankings. Publishing evaluations makes differences visible, but visibility alone does not ensure accountability. If a board advances a lower-ranked project, it should provide a clear, written explanation tied to predefined policy goals such as regional equity, economic development, or strategic priorities and include it in official materials. This ensures departures from technical analysis are deliberate and documented.

Transportation investment decisions shape mobility, safety, and economic activity. When states spend public funds, the decision-making process should be visible. Clearer, more transparent decisions would strengthen public trust and help ensure that investments reflect defined transportation priorities rather than opaque choices.

The post How states can prioritize needed transportation projects and improve the effectiveness of spending  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/commentary/how-states-prioritize-needed-transportation-projects-improve-effectiveness-of-spending/