Presentation: Models for State DOT Reform

In this presentation from February 2025, NCTJ member organizations share their experiences working toward DOT reform in their states.

State Departments of Transportation (DOT) have historically focused on funding highway, road, and bridge projects. Organizers and advocates across the country are working to shift more of their DOT’s focus and funding to public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects.

Hear from organizers in Colorado, Minnesota, and Virginia on their efforts to reform state DOTs, what they’ve learned, and their advice for others taking on similar efforts in their states.

Panelists:

    • Matt Frommer, Transportation & Land Use Policy Manager, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, Colorado
    • Trip Pollard, Senior Attorney and Land and Community Program Leader, Southern Environmental Law Center, Virginia 
    • Elissa Schufman, Interim Executive Director, Move Minnesota 
    • Joe Harrington, Policy Manager, Our Streets, Minnesota

Additional Resources

Questions from the call and follow up answers 

  • Did the law in MN stop highway expansion projects that had already started design, or is it only for completely new projects?

    • Great question. Projects that were already in the State Transportation Improvement Program before that 2/1 date (and next year’s 8/1/26 date) are exempted. Has less to do with where they’re at in the planning process and more to do with the funding programming, though typically planning doesn’t start until after something is in the STIP.

  • Given how systematic these changes in the investment profile have been, have there been changes impacts to hiring so that more of the work for these transit projects is being done in house now that they’re getting regular funding? And has there been any effort to retrain current DOT engineers to work on the different type of projects that are being worked on?

    • This is still a big gap in Minnesota. Our transit agency (metro transit) still contracts with consultants for a large part of this work. This is also true on the LRT development process too. The BRT development office is getting more robust on this but it will take time

    • For Colorado, CDOT has built out it’s Transit & Rail Division, hired a climate team, and two land use planners. 

  • Were any of the laws in the 3 states passed with bi-partisan support?  If so, what were the winning messages or coalition partners that were key to that?

    • Virginia prioritization law had bipartisan support

    • For Colorado, Democrats have big majorities in the Legislature so no Republicans were needed. The authorization legislation included a bunch of new fees and EV programs so Rs wouldn’t have voted for it anyway. 

  • Did these laws fundamentally change how your DOT work? Or were you able to add to / amend their basic structure?

    • Yes in Colorado. CDOT hired a GHG team and 2 land use planners. Similar impact at the MPO level in Denver

  • For Trip (VA): Are there examples of times when a project scored poorly but was pushed forward anyway – and the transparency of the scoring mechanism allowed more effective opposition?  (Or has project selection typically aligned closely with scoring?)

    • Rarely; project selection has almost always aligned with scoring; greater problem has been factor definition/weighting still can lead destructive projects to score well.

  • For Minnesota folks – Joe mentioned keeping MnDOT accountable – what does that look like outside of tracking? How do you engage if they try to slip things past?

    • That is a great question. This means being present at hearings for the VMT mitigation TAC and working with MnDOT staff to identify problems with the current process. This also means building awareness in communities impacted by highway projects that were exempted from the standard (notably the I-94/252 expansion project) to bring them into the process and build awareness. It also means working at the legislature to pass bills that create more democratic accountability in MnDOT. I’d be happy to discuss this further off the call

  • Point to this new federal guidance to combat state DOTs on induced demand:

https://dot-climate-strategies.my.canva.site/improved-travel-demand-modeling

  • It’s empowered advocates in Maryland to try to replicate CO/MN policy to:

    • 1) get a better definition of induced demand in legislation

    • 2) get MDOT to commit to following the best practices on elasticity values, etc

  • Curious if the folks in MN and VA are working on land use, and specifically, growth management / sprawl prevention – the big driver of induced demand. We have one policy in Colorado that attempts to address this through interchange permitting but we need more tools.

    • Katie Jones (now elected House Rep) added land use requirements in the MN bill for the county comp plans to hit the VMT targets, and the City has been changing their processes to accommodate the requirement

    • Yes we are working in this space. This included engagement in an MPO process that mandates the minimum density for sewer service in our MUSA (the MPO’s informal too to enforce an urban growth boundary. We’re also engaged in legislative work on housing policy and anti-displacement and ensuring that we build housing close to the core and near transit, not just abundance regardless of where the housing is located. We want to build density and do so smartly, without increasing VMT or displacing vulnerable residents in the process

    • LU is absolutely critical. We got land use/location efficiency included as a factor in smart scale, but rather small weight on it and current admin has weakened it. Key item will work on with next governor

RELATED NEWS

JOIN OUR CAMPAIGN FOR TRANSIT JUSTICE

ADD YOUR NAME TO SUPPORT OUR PRINCIPLES
A project of Just Strategy
Facebook