America’s transportation network is a vital public asset, and at the heart of its management are state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), often referred to as Dots Transportation. These agencies wield significant influence, crafting multi-decade investment strategies and directing billions in annual expenditure. In essence, states, through their dots transportation agencies, decide which projects are built, where they are located, and who undertakes them.
However, this considerable authority comes with a crucial obligation: to invest strategically and transparently. Considering the diverse needs of communities—from local road safety to escalating travel expenses and environmental concerns—dots transportation should empower local entities to realize their project visions. When states initiate and execute their own projects, it’s imperative that the decision-making process is clear to the public, with avenues for feedback and engagement.
The challenge lies in evaluating the accountability of each state’s major transportation actions. Despite recent federal legislation injecting more public funds into states, prevailing laws often allow dots transportation officials to operate with limited transparency regarding their planning and investment choices. To address this, a comprehensive national study was undertaken to inventory state practices in transportation planning, investment, and accountability. The key findings reveal:
- Long-range plans from states set out clear objectives, yet accountability in achieving these goals is lacking within dots transportation. For instance, only a handful of states, including Oregon and Rhode Island, link performance metrics to their goals and establish measurable targets. Conversely, most states fail to publicly report data on many performance indicators.
- Transparency in project justification is weak; most states do not openly explain why specific projects are prioritized by dots transportation, or how they align with long-term plans. A significant number of states lack public-facing project selection systems, obscuring the rationale behind funding allocations. Notable exceptions, showcasing best practices, are Virginia and Kentucky.
- Funding distribution reveals imbalances; states, on average, allocate a small fraction of total transportation funds to local partners, with suballocations averaging just 14%. This contrasts sharply with the revenue states gather from gas taxes on locally managed roads, which often surpasses the funds returned to local owners. States like Michigan and Arizona demonstrate the potential for more equitable funding distribution.
- Public engagement is limited; states often create barriers for direct public input into planning and project evaluation within dots transportation. Less than half of states offer platforms for public comments or transparent materials detailing decision-making processes. Some states even lack websites outlining local funding programs.
- Oversight bodies vary in effectiveness; while most states utilize independent commissions to support dots transportation operations, their governance and legal powers differ widely. Commissions have the potential to enhance accountability through independent oversight, but many are not empowered to be truly effective.
Overall, there’s a systemic failure in how states, through their dots transportation agencies, promote transparency and facilitate local investments. However, within this landscape of gaps, there are promising policies and practices that can be adopted across states. The onus is on Congress, state legislatures, and executive bodies to implement policies that foster greater accountability in dots transportation. Recommended reforms include mandatory public justifications for project selections, enhanced revenue sharing with localities, improved coordination in planning, and expanded public communication channels to incorporate feedback from external stakeholders.
Introduction
America’s transportation network stands as a cornerstone of the nation’s economy. This extensive system is truly massive, encompassing 4.2 million miles of roads, over 140,000 miles of railways, and countless ports and airports. Daily, this network facilitates over 1 billion personal journeys and the movement of over 55 million tons of freight. Crucially, the majority of this infrastructure, which underpins the movement of people and goods, is publicly owned.
Maintaining such a vast and critical network necessitates substantial public investment, often exceeding $300 billion annually. These investments must also adapt to evolving economic, social, and environmental demands. After decades of decline, road injuries and fatalities are, alarmingly, increasing once more. Transportation remains the second-largest category of household expenditure, following only housing, with inflation rates spiking significantly in recent years. Furthermore, transportation is now the leading contributor of greenhouse gas emissions across all economic sectors, while extreme weather events increasingly threaten the nation’s $6 trillion in government-owned transportation assets.
Given these factors, the public rightfully expects accountability from all levels of government regarding transportation projects and operations. Stakeholders, including local government officials, business leaders, community advocates, and concerned citizens, should have clear visibility into where investment funds are directed and the rationale behind these decisions. Accountability also entails public officials proactively supporting projects that reflect community needs, from sparsely populated rural areas to bustling urban centers.
These accountability demands are significant at every level of governance, but they are particularly pronounced for the 50 states and Washington, D.C., which are collectively central to the dots transportation landscape.
Managing transportation within each state is a complex undertaking. Departments of Transportation (dots transportation) are tasked with long-range planning, project selection for capital investment, and ensuring infrastructure safety, resilience, and efficiency. Governors appoint DOT leadership, shaping agency priorities, budgets, and policies. Legislatures control public spending and establish the legal framework for DOT operations, including planning and investment mandates. In many states, independent commissions are authorized to provide additional oversight and recommendations on revenue, expenditure, and project selection.
While specific roles vary, state officials possess considerable authority over their transportation systems. This includes capital-intensive decisions like roadway construction and eminent domain, as well as operational controls such as setting speed limits, pedestrian policies, and ride-hailing regulations. States also influence local revenue generation by controlling local taxation powers.
Their authority is especially evident in managing state-owned transportation assets. Roadways constitute their primary asset, making up nearly 69% (711,435 miles) of federal-aid highways, including interstates and U.S. highways. State roads are heavily utilized, carrying 68% of all vehicle miles traveled (VMT), despite representing only about 22% of national lane miles. Some states and their commissions also own transit agencies, port authorities, and airports, building deep expertise in infrastructure development and maintenance within dots transportation.
States also manage a significant share of public transportation spending (Figure 1). In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) channeled approximately $61 billion directly to states via formula funds, around 42% of the agency’s total spending. Additional funding, such as $7.3 billion for intercity rail grants, further augments state resources. States also generate substantial own-source revenue, including about $145.8 billion in 2019 from gas taxes, tolls, and bond proceeds. In the same year, states transferred $18.2 billion of own-source funds to local governments for roadway use alone, not to mention federal roadway fund suballocations and transfers for other transportation modes.
Figure 1
Pathways of government revenue spent on transportation, 2019
Figure 1. Pathways of government revenue spent on transportation, 2019
Figure 1. Pathways of government revenue spent on transportation, 2019
Figure 1. Pathways of government revenue spent on transportation, 2019
However, states do not operate in isolation. Cities, towns, counties, and regional entities share transportation responsibilities. Local governments are closer to the communities they serve, better understanding the specific needs of households and businesses. With diverse transportation challenges across municipalities and metropolitan areas, local and regional bodies are often best positioned to prioritize projects. For instance, if a state road serves as a city’s main commercial street, local officials may have a deeper understanding of how design elements like speed limits and sidewalk widths can impact pedestrian safety and local economic development.
In summary, states, through dots transportation, possess significant regulatory and financial power in shaping transportation projects. An accountable state is one that collaborates with local and regional partners to set priorities, provides transparent justifications for decisions, and actively seeks feedback for continuous improvement.
Unfortunately, assessing state accountability in dots transportation is challenging. While federal law mandates Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plans (LRTPs) to guide investment over two decades, there is no readily available data to gauge progress against federal goals or how state DOTs respond to public input on these plans. Federal regulations also do not require states to justify project funding decisions. The extent of input from state legislatures, independent commissions, or the public in planning and project selection remains unclear.
In essence, holding state DOTs (dots transportation) accountable for their actions is difficult for the public. Given their scale and authority, this lack of accountability can erode public trust and lead to potentially misaligned project priorities within dots transportation.
This report addresses these information gaps by systematically examining how each state conducts long-range planning and project selection, with a focus on local government support and public engagement. It highlights state practices that enhance transparency and local collaboration. The findings provide a new framework for evaluating state DOT accountability, the federal laws governing their actions, and their commitment to local partnerships.
Short Methodology
This report is based on a detailed inventory of practices in all 50 state Departments of Transportation and Washington, D.C. An iterative approach was used to develop a framework for assessing transportation plans, processes, and decision-making. Initial interviews with key stakeholders informed the framework, which was then refined through further consultations. The inventory was conducted between late December 2023 and June 2024.
Data collection relied on publicly accessible documents from each state DOT website. These primarily included federally mandated documents such as Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plans (LRTPs), Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs), and Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs). State-level investment strategies, dashboards, reports, and other published content were also reviewed. Materials from other state agencies, governors’ offices, stakeholder groups, and state statutes were consulted to ensure data completeness.
Transparency was a key consideration, so the reliance on publicly available data reflects a commitment to assessing observable practices. This approach identifies not only reported practices but also gaps in transparency. All state DOT statements were taken in good faith. However, the research may not have uncovered all relevant information, and state DOTs and stakeholders were invited to submit additional materials.
Interviews were conducted to enrich and validate the data. Following the initial inventory, interviews were conducted in nearly every state. Data adjustments were made based on interview feedback, and anonymized comments are included in the report. A detailed methodology is available in the Appendix.
Finding #1 Long-range planning: States have clear goals, but measuring progress toward those goals is often imprecise and inaccessible
Transportation infrastructure is inherently complex and multimodal. This understanding led Congress to pass the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which mandated state DOTs (dots transportation) to create Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plans (LRTPs), recognizing this as a national priority. LRTPs enable state DOTs to take a holistic view of their networks and address long-term trends and investment needs. Unlike metropolitan planning organizations’ (MPOs) long-range plans or state and MPO project lists, state LRTPs are not fiscally constrained, meaning ambitions are not limited by immediate revenue availability.
Figure 2
State departments of transportation with performance measures and targets for all long-range plan goals
Generally, state DOTs utilize LRTPs to clearly articulate their long-term transportation system goals. Over 80% of states include goals that extend beyond the seven national objectives (see Figure 3). These additional goals vary, encompassing equity, environmental resilience, land use, sustainable funding, technological innovation, and quality of life. For example, South Carolina’s DOT aims to “manage a transportation system that recognizes the diversity of the state and strives to accommodate the mobility needs of all of the state’s citizens,” explicitly defining equity as a goal.
Figure 3. National goals for federal-aid highways, pursuant to 23 USC § 150(b)
While LRTPs are primarily policy documents, most state DOTs are not legally bound to their goals, with exceptions in Washington and Minnesota. In these states, legislatures have codified long-range transportation goals into law. Washington largely adopts federal goals, while Minnesota includes specific targets for reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions and increasing walking, cycling, and transit usage.
Nearly all LRTPs (47 states) include implementation strategies for their high-level goals. These typically include objectives—specific outcomes related to each goal. Wisconsin’s DOT, for example, aims to “emphasize system resiliency to reduce repair costs and improve safety and security” to support its goal of maximizing transportation system resilience and reliability.
The most effective long-range planning goes further, detailing specific action or implementation steps for each goal, not just strategies. These concrete actions enhance accountability, allowing the public to hold dots transportation agencies to their commitments. Maryland, for example, provides an appendix to its LRTP, “2050 MTP Action Plan to Implement the Strategies of the Playbook.” This plan links objectives to specific actions and assigns responsibility for implementation to specific agencies or partners. California similarly has detailed action items and tracks their completion publicly on a dashboard.
Despite robust goal-setting and implementation planning in most states, performance measurement against these goals is inconsistent. Only 27 state DOTs link performance measures to each LRTP goal, and 14 others do so for some goals. Among these 41 states, only 15 set targets for all performance measures (Table 1).
Table 1
State DOT long-range transportation plans: Performance measures and targets
Oregon and Rhode Island exemplify best practices by providing performance measures and long-term targets for every LRTP goal. Oregon uses indicators like “increase multimodal travel,” measured by transit service levels and urban household access to mixed-use areas, to track progress. Rhode Island’s LRTP performance measures directly link to each goal, including a 2020 baseline and a 2040 target.
However, a significant gap is the lack of publicly available data on performance measures. Only ten states make data on all LRTP performance measures public. Another 26 states track some data publicly, while five states with performance measures in their LRTPs do not share any data. Seven additional states report performance measures separately from their LRTPs.
Minnesota and Missouri are leaders in performance measurement. Missouri’s “Tangible Results,” linked to LRTP goals since 2005, are tracked via the Missouri DOT’s Tracker, a quarterly updated dashboard showing target performance achievement. Minnesota’s DOT publishes a comprehensive dashboard aggregating all LRTP performance measures, with annual reporting mandated by state law.
Finding #2 Project selection: States take advantage of vague regulations to make investments that are detached from long-range goals
State DOTs (dots transportation) are responsible for translating long-term goals into tangible projects and expenditures. This involves “programming” funds across various purposes and outcomes, then selecting projects within each category until allocated funds are exhausted.
However, fund programming is often detached from long-range planning and performance in dots transportation, allowing investments that may not align with stated goals and targets.
Federal regulation of project selection primarily occurs through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Federal rules require STIPs to include prioritized lists of capital and non-capital surface transportation projects proposed for federal funding or regionally significant even without federal funds.
State DOTs have limited clear requirements for STIP development. They must incorporate MPO Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) directly into the STIP and cooperate with MPOs, though benchmarks for cooperation are vague. States must provide project details, including technical specifications, costs, and responsible agencies.
However, justifications for project inclusion are not mandated. Federal rules only require STIP projects to be “consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan” and, for metro projects, with MPO long-range plans. Programs should also, “to the maximum extent practicable,” discuss how they support LRTP performance targets.
Figure 4
States with public-facing project selection systems
These loose regulations allow states to decouple planning and project selection. Consequently, less than half of states have mechanisms linking their STIP or Capital Plan to the LRTP, and these connections vary greatly in depth and transparency.
States with strong connections link individual projects to specific LRTP goals, integrating long-range planning with project implementation processes from environmental studies to construction. Maryland’s Consolidated Transportation Program, for example, lists the LRTP goal for each major project and explains the alignment. Colorado and Utah uniquely use LRTPs to generate long-range project lists.
Other states make more superficial references. Tennessee’s STIP lists an LRTP goal number for each project without further justification. New Hampshire and Idaho list federal performance measures addressed by each project.
A hybrid approach uses “investment strategies” as intermediaries. Georgia’s Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (SSTP), integrated into its LRTP, outlines long-range investment strategies. Montana’s Px3 process uses LRTP goals to allocate funds and evaluate STIP project performance. Wyoming’s Wyoming Connects initiative uses its LRTP as a foundation for corridor-specific strategies.
However, over half of states lack demonstrable LRTP-STIP/Capital Plan connections. Despite federal guidelines, 45% of states (29) fail to clearly demonstrate STIP consistency with LRTPs. Most of these states (23) provide only generalized statements of alignment (Box 1), while six states omit any reference.
Box 1. Excerpted statements of alignment between LRTPs and STIPs
“The various types of multimodal projects in the STIP are prioritized and programmed to achieve the LRTP goals and the national performance measure goals.” -South Dakota
“The projects identified for funding by each program have been thoughtfully selected through performance-based planning selection processes in order to ensure the operation, maintenance and improvement of Ohio’s robust transportation system. The projects are consistent with the goals of Ohio’s Long-Range Plan (AO2045) and align with the priorities to take care of the current transportation assets before considering expansion.” -Ohio
“STIP projects must be consistent with each county’s long-range plan and/or the Statewide Transportation Plan (23 CFR 450.216(k)).” -Hawaii
A greater concern is the lack of transparency in project selection. Only 18 states have public-facing project selection systems, enabling stakeholders to understand project funding decisions.
Virginia’s Smart Scale is a well-known example. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) uses Smart Scale to evaluate and prioritize projects against metrics related to six goal areas, weighted by location. Scores are public and used to develop the Six-Year Improvement Plan.
Kentucky’s SHIFT system, less publicized, prioritizes roadway projects. Government officials at various levels add projects to a database of transportation needs. Projects are scored, and state DOT staff select statewide significance projects first. Local officials can then boost remaining projects. SHIFT results in prioritized project lists for each of the state’s 12 highway districts. However, local boosts and sponsorships, and available funds, are not proportionally allocated by population or VMT.
Virginia and Kentucky are joined by North Carolina, Arizona, Minnesota, Vermont, Ohio, Utah, and Illinois in having public project selection processes. However, multimodal evaluation remains rare, and highway capacity and maintenance projects are often not evaluated together.
Project history transparency is also lacking. Even though STIP projects are frequently updated, only Nevada clearly documents the year a project was added in its e-STIP system. Georgia and Oregon include the year preliminary engineering began or funds were authorized, but this may not consistently represent the project addition year. South Carolina includes a project “rank” with a year, but its meaning is unclear.
Asset management plans (TAMPs), a federal requirement since 2012, are a success story in public communication. Every state now uses TAMPs to report NHS pavement and bridge conditions and identify investment strategies (Box 2).
Box 2. TAMPs: What they are and why they matter
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) consolidated programs into the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), distributing nearly two-thirds of federal-aid formula dollars. To enhance NHPP spending accountability, Congress mandated state Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs). TAMPs must include asset management objectives, measures, targets, NHS pavement condition descriptions, and investment strategies to improve asset condition and achieve performance targets. Critically, states must integrate TAMPs into STIP-leading transportation planning processes.
Every state DOT meets these federal requirements. TAMPs cover all NHS assets, and all states mention TAMP analysis, targets, and strategies informing project prioritization. Many stakeholders consider TAMPs crucial for project selection.
However, the exclusive NHS focus may limit TAMP effectiveness. While federal law encourages including non-NHS public roads, nearly half (21) of state TAMPs only include NHS pavements and bridges. Of the 30 states expanding beyond NHS, most only extend to the state highway network, not local roads or other modes. Collaboration with local partners remains limited.
Maryland and Minnesota DOTs demonstrate broader monitoring. They consider facilities, tunnels, and IT systems as assets. Minnesota includes pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks), and Maryland evaluates its vehicle fleet and equipment. These states offer models for expanding TAMP approaches.
Finding #3 Local collaboration: States rarely plan or invest in ways that meet the needs of regional and municipal partners
Statewide transportation networks require balancing local and long-distance travel needs, necessitating collaborative planning and investment involving states, MPOs, and municipalities. States are ideally positioned to promote interstate commerce, while localities understand resident needs best. States, in dots transportation, bear the responsibility to facilitate local projects.
However, most state DOTs have created planning and investment barriers between themselves and local partners. Metropolitan planning collaboration is a clear gap. Federal law requires state LRTPs to be developed “in cooperation with” MPOs, but standards are vague. There is no mandate for state LRTPs to reflect MPO project priorities. State DOTs have broad discretion in seeking input from metropolitan plans. (Rhode Island is excluded from this analysis due to its statewide MPO.)
Only Colorado and Utah directly use MPO long-range plans to develop their own long-range project lists. In their recent LRTP updates, they produced decade-long prioritized project lists, partly sourcing projects from MPO plans. These states demonstrate formal deference to regional long-range goals in their planning.
The other 48 states do not as clearly integrate metropolitan plans into their statewide vision. Most DOTs collaborate with MPOs during LRTP development, but the quality and depth of collaboration vary. Nebraska’s LRTP stakeholder advisory committee included one MPO representative. South Dakota’s LRTP calls MPO plans “integral” but lacks detail on integration. In Oregon, state LRTPs do not unify MPO plans but require regional plans to conform to the state’s, a common dynamic observed in many states.
Disturbingly, interviews revealed instances of state DOTs forcing MPOs to revise their long-range plans to accommodate state projects not initially aligned with those plans. This aligns with academic findings over several decades. While not formally scored, “jamming” projects into fiscally constrained regional plans undermines state-MPO collaboration and burdens MPOs with plan amendments under potential state pressure.
Box 3. Utah’s approach to regional collaboration
Utah exemplifies strong state-regional collaboration. The state DOT’s recent long-range planning resulted in the 2023-2050 Unified Transportation Plan. This plan integrates planning efforts from four MPOs, Utah’s DOT, and the Utah Transit Authority. These agencies collaborate on time horizons, revenue and cost estimates, modeling, GIS, performance measures, and communications.
Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan covers all modes and addresses new capacity, operations, maintenance, and preservation. The MPO-state DOT collaboration is exemplary. Utah benefits from decades of aligning state, regional, and local leaders on land use and transportation investments, facilitated by strong relationships, consistent communication, and the Unified Transportation Plan process. These lessons are valuable for other states considering planning reforms and communication strategies.
Funding disparities are a significant barrier. On average, states suballocate only 14% of total transportation funding to local partners (cities, counties, MPOs). This excludes state-run discretionary grants where the state DOT retains project authority. This suballocation share is less than half the VMT (a proxy for gas taxes) on non-state-owned roads.
The median suballocation share is even lower at 8% (Figure 5). 26 states suballocate less than 10% of funds, with 15 below 5%. Low suballocation is not regionally specific, though southeastern states tend to suballocate the least.
Map 1
State suballocation rate as a share of total state DOT spending, 2019
Figure 5
Distribution of state suballocation rates as a share of total state DOT spending, 2019
However, some states prioritize local suballocation. Five states suballocate at least 35% of transportation revenue: Minnesota, Oregon, Michigan, Iowa, and Arizona. These diverse states prioritize local empowerment, supporting balanced investment across local and state roads statewide.
Finding #4 Public involvement: States can do more to educate nongovernmental stakeholders and enhance their participation in transportation planning and investment
Statewide transportation planning and investment processes are often complex, especially for stakeholders unfamiliar with transportation governance. Expecting business leaders or nonprofit directors to understand project permitting or federal planning requirements is unrealistic. State DOTs (dots transportation) must help non-governmental stakeholders understand goal setting and project selection.
Figure 6
States with public-facing portals aggregating programmed projects
Most state DOTs effectively aggregate programmed projects in public portals. Forty-four states have such sites, ranging from detailed project maps to simpler lists. Kentucky visualizes projects prioritized through SHIFT, including costs and SHIFT metric scores. Michigan’s DOT maps STIP projects, 5-Year Transportation Program projects, and Rebuilding Michigan bond program projects. Detail levels vary, but state DOTs generally excel at making project information accessible.
Information on state funding programs is also generally accessible. Thirty-nine state DOTs centralize local funding program information. Most of the remaining 12 states at least have some webpage with funding-related information. Massachusetts’ DOT has a portal aggregating nine state programs, including a survey to match projects to programs. Oregon’s DOT portal lists application dates, eligible entities, and local match requirements. California’s DOT’s Division of Local Assistance website includes funding program lists and relevant documents and processes for local leaders.
Despite these achievements, states could improve public education and participation.
A common gap is the lack of process flowcharts or visuals explaining state DOT planning and project selection. Twenty-three states have robust visualizations, while 17 others have limited or detail-lacking visuals. The Idaho Transportation Department, for example, published a flowchart detailing its state highway system decision-making process, including plan inputs and key decision points. Pennsylvania’s DOT explains its planning, programming, and performance measurement processes visually. Maryland’s DOT provides a simpler visual of the LRTP-STIP flow, highlighting public input steps.
However, some visuals lack significant information or detail. Indiana’s DOT publications only include a generic flowchart of long-range planning steps, providing little practical understanding of processes or public input opportunities.
State DOT flowcharts: Idaho (left) and Indiana (right)
Idaho Transportation Department project selection process for the state highway system
Indiana long-range transportation plan chart
Most states also lack public input portals. While project-specific comment websites exist, only 37% of states aggregate public comment opportunities. Of the 31 states without such portals, 27 list upcoming meetings centrally. Wyoming’s DOT portal maps STIP projects and accepts comments. Maine’s DOT portal aggregates open and closed project comment periods. North Carolina and Virginia use the same software for easy navigation between surveys, projects, and meetings.
Improving public data from asset management systems can enhance transparency. Only 22 states publish geospatial datasets with detailed pavement and bridge condition information (Map 2). Most of these include NHS and state highway asset conditions. Maryland allows users to view roughness, cracking, and remaining service life for NHS and state highway pavements. West Virginia allows filtering by MPO or DOT district to view pavement summary statistics. More detailed data and maps can facilitate informed dialogue between state officials and stakeholders on investment priorities.
Map 2
States with geospatial datasets of pavement and bridge conditions
Finding #5 Independent bodies: Most states establish independent commissions to support their DOT operations, but their governance structures and legal authority vary widely
Independent commissions are a respected mechanism for incorporating public input and oversight into governance, including in transportation. These commissions bring together experts from fields like engineering, real estate, industry, and environmental studies to serve as public liaisons and independent voices. Commissions can address diverse tasks, from long-range goal brainstorming to project selection evaluation in dots transportation.
Independent commissions are widely used in state DOT governance. However, their full potential is often untapped.
Most states use commissions or similar groups for statewide planning strategies, but responsibilities vary. Twenty-six states have permanent DOT boards or commissions, 22 of which played a role in LRTP approval. Another 13 states convened stakeholder groups for LRTP development, though not as permanent bodies. The Florida Transportation Commission is an example of a permanent body designed to operate independently of the DOT, mandated to hold public meetings and review DOT plans for the governor. Ohio convened a steering committee for its recent LRTP, including representatives from the state DOT, regional agencies, cities, counties, business, and environmental groups, instead of a permanent commission.
Independent legislative spending advisory bodies are also common, though their structure and duties differ. The predominant approach in 49 states is to use professional legislative staff. However, in nine of these states, the staff department’s nonpartisan or independent status is not explicitly defined.
Two states lack such entities: Hawaii, where a legislatively authorized Office of the Legislative Analyst has never been funded, and Massachusetts, where legislation to establish a Legislative Fiscal Office recently failed.
Most states (33) have entities overseeing project selection, programming, or contracts, with varied responsibilities. The California Transportation Commission has broad authority over fund allocation across highways, rail, transit, and active transportation. Ohio’s Transportation Review Advisory Council, a legislatively authorized body, has a narrower focus, overseeing Major New Capacity Program project selection and approval, with members appointed by the governor and legislative leaders.
Finally, some boards and commissions review state transportation funding fundamentals. Few states have entities reviewing state transportation funding comprehensively. Massachusetts recently formed a governor-established Transportation Funding Task Force, and the Maryland Commission on Transportation Revenue and Infrastructure Needs includes diverse members from government, business, advocacy, and labor. Their impact depends on legislative action on their recommendations.
In Illinois, the Blue-Ribbon Commission on Transportation Infrastructure Funding and Policy is tasked with a comprehensive review of transportation. Members consider funding options, governance, project approval processes, workforce needs, data needs, and improving transportation investment impact on climate and equity. The Commission also examines solutions used in other states.
Box 4. The legislative puzzle piece
Legislatures play a crucial role in state transportation governance. While state DOTs (dots transportation) chart transportation futures, their power is derived from legislative authorization. Legislatures establish state DOTs and define their roles. They have the authority to design the “car,” with state DOT staff as drivers.
However, judging legislative approaches is complex, as there is no single “correct” model. Legislative governance varies widely. Thirty-one states have annual budgets, while 20 have biennial budgets. Maryland uses a “strong executive model,” limiting legislative budget amendments. Utah’s legislators are all involved in appropriations through committee assignments.
Some legislatures take a more active role in transportation governance, reflected in the specificity of appropriations bills. South Dakota appropriates DOT funds broadly, while Alaska incorporates the entire STIP, project by project, into its budget. This level of involvement can sometimes hinder DOT governance.
Some active legislatures codify DOT procedures in state law. Washington codified state transportation goals and mandated agency collaboration and biennial performance reporting. Wisconsin lawmakers defined project evaluation criteria for major highway projects in detail.
Legislative approaches to transportation governance naturally vary. Greater involvement is not inherently good or bad. Stakeholders should understand their legislature’s approach and advocate for improvements if needed, using national practices as a reference.
Implications
State DOTs (dots transportation) and their staff bear immense responsibility for managing America’s extensive transportation network. They manage almost half of the over $300 billion invested annually, preparing long-range plans, managing billions in federal funds, and partnering with local entities to co-design communities. State DOTs are central to American transportation governance.
States often project an image of public accountability, frequently exceeding federal legal requirements. Most state LRTPs include implementation plans, public project portals, and public comment options. Many state legislatures authorize independent commissions.
However, in practice, many states plan, select projects, and allocate funds with limited oversight and local collaboration. Too few states link projects to long-range goals or public selection methods, and public comment impact is rarely evident. Only two states demonstrably use MPO projects in state LRTPs. Alarmingly, states suballocate less than 15% of total funding to localities on average, significantly less than gas taxes collected from local roads.
These patterns are not accidental. Legislative, gubernatorial, and federal policies have failed to mandate greater public accountability and local responsiveness in dots transportation.
While deferring to DOT engineering expertise for system maintenance is reasonable, elected officials are responsible for ensuring DOT projects advance long-term goals like economic competitiveness, resilience, and safety. Laws requiring transparent project selection, goal-oriented performance measurement, and lifecycle project costs would enhance legislative oversight. Independent commissions can support this evaluation, but most legislatures have not empowered commissions for critical debate, and few commissions comprehensively address budget resources, project selection, and performance monitoring.
Governors also miss opportunities to align administration goals with DOT actions. Most state LRTPs do not influence project selection. Fewer than half of states show how LRTP goals impact funding decisions, and only nine states fully monitor performance against long-range goals, hindering tracking of project impact.
Legislators and governors also fail to establish bidirectional communication between the public and state DOT staff. Once a project is in the STIP, public feedback mechanisms are limited. Mechanisms for community input before project commitment are also lacking. Businesses, nonprofits, and community groups need accessible channels to engage with state officials in dots transportation.
The federal government shares responsibility for oversight gaps, particularly in project selection policies. LRTPs and STIPs should ideally work together, but the lack of requirements for states to demonstrate STIP project alignment with LRTP goals allows states to pursue projects without clear long-term goal alignment, as long as technical requirements are met. Federal law also allows STIP project carryover without requiring listing of the original project addition year, obscuring long-range goal relevance. These federal law gaps undermine LRTP accountability.
In other areas, federal law inadvertently empowers states over local needs. Federal law requires LRTP-STIP alignment with MPO plans, but it is naive about state fiscal influence over MPO priorities. State discretion over federal fund suballocation also contributes to state revenue retention, as data confirms. Even successful federal policies like TAMPs, while improving asset monitoring, primarily benefit states, as they do not extend to local road monitoring.
Recommendations
State Departments of Transportation (dots transportation) have evolved from highway construction and safety agencies to entities with broader mandates encompassing accessibility, safety, and resilience in all communities. Public accountability expectations are higher than ever. Stakeholders rightfully expect transparent project justifications and genuine input opportunities in planning and project selection.
States should modernize their policies for this new era. State DOTs possess operational strengths: efficient project execution, established federal relationships, trusted municipal partnerships, and well-maintained assets.
To build on these strengths, federal and state officials should implement reforms addressing key areas for improvement. Local stakeholders can advocate for these reforms. This report highlights accountability-focused practices from across the country that can serve as models. Based on these findings, the following reforms are recommended:
For federal policymakers:
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s 2026 expiration provides a policy window to address accountability gaps. Key opportunities include:
- Congress should update LRTP requirements. First, mandate implementation plans with fiscally constrained project lists, informed by asset condition reports and specifying capacity expansions, for each long-range goal. Second, require more extensive collaboration with local and civic partners in planning. Consider a LRTP review board with government, civic, and industry representatives, nominated by governors and legislatures.
- Congress should update Transportation Improvement Program guidelines. First, mandate public project scoring systems using quantitative data reflecting LRTP goals, potentially piloting state programs based on Virginia’s Smart Scale or Kentucky’s SHIFT, referencing the Prioritization Process Pilot Program. Second, require clear project justifications beyond LRTP goal listings and the original STIP addition year for every project.
- Congress should increase direct formula funding to regional governments to address state-MPO power imbalances. Consider mandated suballocation levels or a flexible regional block grant program. Increased regional funding would enhance the effectiveness of state-MPO collaboration mandates and other federal fiscal laws like fund swapping.
- Congress should require every state to adopt independent commissions to enhance accountability and long-term transportation goals, similar to Virginia and New Hampshire. Allow states flexibility in commission priorities, including cost and revenue projections, asset condition reports, project selection criteria, and cross-cutting goals.
- Congress should adjust TAMP laws to benefit all major roadways. Expand monitoring to all principal arterials to ensure data-driven prioritization across ownership. Consider setting roadway quality ceilings to distribute spending more broadly.
For state legislators and governors:
This research provides a baseline for state DOT accountability and community support. Elected leaders should consider these benchmark policies:
- States should ensure LRTP goals include targeted implementation strategies and public performance measures. Require input from non-state government staff and independent commissions during plan development, complementing public comment periods. Legislatures should codify goals into state law, following Minnesota and Washington.
- States should adopt public-facing project scoring systems, informed by advisory boards working with DOT staff. Systems should ideally evaluate multimodal projects, as in Minnesota’s new law.
- In developing Transportation Improvement Programs, states should ensure equal voice for local and regional stakeholders, especially for expansion projects. Model New Hampshire’s approach, advancing regional priorities unchanged if fiscally constrained. STIP documents should include project addition years and LRTP goal alignment.
- Legislatures should create and governors should support independent and empowered transportation oversight commissions, with nominating authority shared between legislatures and governors, non-government members, and power to review LRTPs, funding, and project impacts.
- Legislatures can increase direct funding to MPOs and localities, modeling Arizona and California’s practices. Consider allowing localities more project selection funding, with flexibility to transfer funds back to state DOTs for faster and cheaper project delivery.
For state DOTs:
State DOT leadership can take independent action:
- Address emerging challenges like pedestrian safety and local economic development by shifting to a state-local collaboration model where regional and local partners lead community engagement and project prioritization, while state DOTs provide technical expertise and fiscal resources. Enhance collaboration on performance measurement.
- Expand asset management program success by monitoring and reporting locally owned asset quality. Integrate local conditions into statewide TAMPs for a holistic investment needs understanding. Setting roadway quality ceilings could promote broader investment distribution.
- Update public communication practices to improve understanding of planning processes for non-transportation stakeholders. Enhance procedural flowcharts, public input processes, and competitive grant opportunities to build public trust and improve community needs understanding. Publicize project selection system inputs, analysis, and scores.
Conclusion
America’s transportation system faces significant future challenges: road safety, affordability, and environmental threats. Metropolitan growth and new technologies will reshape travel demand.
State Departments of Transportation (dots transportation) will be central to addressing these challenges. They must effectively utilize revenue, strengthen local partnerships, and be responsive to public input on investment decisions.
This research provides baseline data for understanding state DOT strengths and weaknesses. While starting points differ, all state DOTs have capabilities to build safer, more competitive, and resilient transportation systems. With appropriate reforms at all government levels, these agencies can achieve even more.
State scorecard
The scorecard quantifies answers from across the Brookings inventory, using 1 for completeness, zero points for absence, and 0.5 points for anything in between. These scores are only meant to enable consistent comparison among states, not as relative weights.
Source: Brookings analysis of state-published information
Authors
Adie Tomer
Senior Fellow, Brookings Metro
Ben Swedberg
Senior Research Assistant, Brookings Metro
Downloads
While often treated similarly to states and Washington, D.C. within USDOT policies, this paper does not include analysis of Puerto Rico out of respect for unique local governance within the Commonwealth.
As one example, the Transportation Research Board maintains an enormous library of publications related to building staffing expertise (including this and this), in addition to offering trainings for different occupations.
We use 2019 data in some instances, such as revenue, since it’s the last accounting year before COVID-19 impacted travel patterns.
In some states, this data is limited to federally required performance measures that they do not connect to LRTP goals. Some states, though, have relatively strong performance reporting systems, even in the absence of performance measures defined in their LRTP. Hawaii, for example, required every state department to report on its goals, policies, and investment strategies when it passed Act 100 in 1999. Though it’s not measuring performance against long-range planning goals, Hawaii’s DOT now reports significant performance data in its yearly Act 100 report.
“Federally funded” refers to those dollars distributed under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C Chapter 53.
NHPP funding is determined after some set-asides for metropolitan planning and CMAQ programs. The program was set up to do three things for NHS roadways: 1) support condition and performance; 2) support new construction; and 3) connect highway investments using federal aid funds to achieving performance targets established by each state in an asset management plan.
Federal law defines asset management as “a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the lifecycle of the assets at minimum practicable cost.” USDOT put it more simply in an archived 2007 report: asset management principles require an organization to base decisions on information and get results.
While not the same, TAMPs complement the reporting requirements under GASB 34, which include infrastructure quality assessments within a state’s annual financial report. However, this research does not assess the relationship between TAMPs and GASB 34 in detail. For more information, see GASB’s description.
Federal law is more specific about collaboration with nonmetropolitan areas. State DOTs must document how they cooperate with such officials, submit it to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and accept comments from those officials on the process and provide a written explanation when proposed changes are rejected.
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact. We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).
