2. Build for people, not just cars

The processes state DOTs use to select projects for funding are often messy, inconsistent, and rarely made public. Agencies rely on a patchwork of prioritization methods tied to different funding sources, with many decisions made on an ad hoc basis or influenced by political pressures. Rarely do agencies evaluate their entire portfolio or individual projects to maximize their alignment with broad strategic goals. This can lead to wasteful spending on legacy projects that don’t deliver the greatest benefits.

Some DOTs have begun taking more deliberate and transparent approaches to picking the projects that do the most with each dollar. These include SMART SCALE in Virginia, Strategic Prioritization in North Carolina, SHIFT in Kentucky, and the Caltrans System Investment Strategy in California. These programs help maximize the benefits of each project as opposed to justifying popular projects, which often involves estimating the return on investment based on principles like the value of time and the cost of crashes.

Virginia’s SMART SCALE project prioritization program is novel for several reasons. First, it evaluates projects based on six specific criteria tied directly to the state’s long-term goals. Second, it strives for outcome-oriented metrics—increased safety and accessibility—as opposed to those that simply prioritize the most dangerous or economically important corridors. And third, it led to an improved project pipeline and scoping process, which produces low-cost solutions that address immediate needs and support long-term goals. This mode-neutral program has funded a diverse mix of projects because smaller projects, including bike and pedestrian investments, are often the most cost-efficient to advance the state’s measurable goals.

In addition to investing in state-owned highways, there are often benefits to making off-system investments and distributing funds to local partners. Not only does this improve overall system performance, but it also earns trust from cities and counties by empowering them to advance projects they care most about. For example, the New Jersey DOT invested in bolstering the local street network to avoid a costly highway bypass, while Virginia’s SMART SCALE program is designed for local agencies to promote a wide range of investments. The Massachusetts DOT created a Shared Streets and Spaces grant program for local governments to invest in street and parking improvements that promote safety and economic growth. Similarly, Colorado’s Revitalizing Main Streets Program and Connecticut’s Community Connectivity Grant Program promote local walking and biking improvements.

Finally, states can play a larger role in supporting local transit, a critical part of an efficient and equitable transportation system. In some smaller states like Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland, state agencies oversee local transit operations and cover more than 50 percent of transit costs, compared to the national average, which is less than 25 percent. The Connecticut DOT has also issued grants to support local micro-transit pilots.

State DOTs often adapt their street design standards from national guidelines, such as AASHTO’s Green Book. While these standards have evolved to consider multiple users and purposes, inclusive approaches like Complete Streets and context-sensitive design remain exceptions rather than the rule in many agencies. Engineers aiming for safer, more context-appropriate designs often still need special approval for exceptions. 

Achieving better design outcomes requires revising design guidelines to provide both greater flexibility and clearer expectations. This balance must be reinforced through ongoing training and support for staff and consultants. In 2018, for example, the Florida DOT introduced a new design manual that incorporates Complete Streets principles and a context classification guide, aimed at putting “the right street in the right place,” which includes narrower roads with fewer lanes in built-up activity centers. Oregon’s Highway Design Manual released in 2023, built on its Blueprint for Urban Design to incorporate similar principles as those used in Florida.  

Other states have enabled more inclusive street design through executive orders. Transportation executives in both Massachusetts and Connecticut have issued directives that require engineers to meet minimum requirements for sidewalks, crosswalks, bike facilities, and transit provisions on every project. Similarly, a Director’s Policy issued at the California DOT in 2021 requires all projects funded or overseen by the agency to meet Complete Streets requirements unless appropriate justification for an exception to this requirement is approved by a District Director.  

State agencies can further clear the way for inclusive design by reevaluating the use of key performance measures like “level of service” (LOS), which prioritize vehicle throughput over local prosperity, livability, and safety for those walking or biking. When Florida revised its design manual, it also relaxed the LOS standards for vehicles in urban context zones and introduced multimodal level of service measures to account for the quality of transit service and the level of traffic stress experienced by people walking or biking. Washington’s DOT told its engineers that reduced LOS could be an acceptable tradeoff for effective and low-cost Complete Streets implementation. In California, lawmakers determined that LOS could no longer be used in environmental reviews because it discouraged compact development and investments in transit, walking, and biking. State and local agencies must now consider whether projects will increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead.  

Finally, to implement the kinds of reforms described here, agencies must provide continued education and training opportunities aimed at both staff and consultants. Massachusetts’ Complete Streets Funding Program, for example, requires local staff to participate in Complete Streets Workshops and provides training opportunities from the private sector. In Minnesota, training opportunities are coordinated through the DOT’s office of sustainability and public health.  

Advancing equitable transportation means state transportation agencies must first acknowledge the harms caused by their peers and predecessors. Facing pressure from federal and local authorities, state DOTs led countless highway projects that displaced over a million people, often targeting Black communities under the pretext of ‘slum clearance’ or ‘urban renewal’. These biases and others persist today in everything from funding decisions to traffic enforcement.  

Some states have taken steps to reconnect communities divided by urban highways. In Rochester, the New York State DOT replaced part of its Inner Loop with an at-grade urban boulevard. The project reconnected communities that were once divided by highway construction and prompted millions of dollars of investment on newly usable land. The federal Reconnecting Communities program—along with state programs like California’s RC:H2B and the Sandy Williams Connecting Communities Program in Washington —prompted planning and capital investments on more than 175 similar projects across the country.  

Having a more equitable outlook means replacing outdated performance measures focused on vehicle movement with measures that instead reflect the impacts of transportation policies and investments on all people. The California DOT, for example, launched a Transportation Equity Index in 2024 that overlays demographic information with measures of transportation burden, traffic exposure, and multimodal access to destinations. The Virginia DOT uses a similar measure of access to destinations in its SMART SCALE project prioritization program, screening specifically for impacts to disadvantaged groups.  

Ensuring equitable outcomes and preventing further damage requires more proactive and meaningful public engagement. This includes ongoing initiatives like Minnesota’s Sustainable Transportation Advisory Council, which advises its commissioner on equity and environmental justice and produces an annual report of the agency’s responses to council recommendations. It also includes project-level public engagement aimed at meeting people where they are and providing them with appropriate resources needed to participate, like Oregon’s Equitable Engagement Payment Program, which provides incentives, stipends, and contracts for public participation.  

Although it is often thought of as outside of their jurisdiction, state transportation agencies can also address inequities through housing and development initiatives. As one example, state-owned land along highways in urban areas frequently becomes a location of informal encampments for unhoused populations. The Washington State DOT, in clearing 47 encampments, partnered with local governments and philanthropic groups to provide shelter for 70% of the 1,200 residents. Legislation in Washington also empowered the agency to repurpose unused land in Spokane and “remedy past impacts to historically marginalized populations”. Similarly, the Texas DOT purchased seven acres of land to house people displaced from informal shelters near highways in Austin, while the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet was involved in creating a 25-acre land trust using funds from FHWA to protect affordable housing along a planned highway extension in Lexington.