New Infrastructure Bill Mandates Public Grading of All Transportation Projects: No More Secret Funding Lists

If you’ve ever wondered how your city or state decides to spend millions on a new highway interchange instead of fixing the potholes on your street or expanding bus routes, this new legislation is about to pull back the curtain. The Metropolitan Planning Enhancement Act is essentially a transparency upgrade for how transportation projects get funded, both at the state level and in your metro area.

The New Grading System for Roads and Transit

Starting now, when state departments of transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) put together their long-range transportation plans, they have to use a public, criteria-based grading system. Think of it like a mandatory report card for every potential infrastructure project. Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the bill all mandate the same thing: all projects must be ranked based on how well they meet specific goals—like national transportation priorities (reducing congestion, improving safety) and the state’s own goals.

This means every bridge repair, every new transit line, and every road expansion must be publicly sorted into categories, with the highest-performing projects sitting at the top. For the average person, this is huge. It means you can actually see the data that supposedly justifies a project. No more guessing games about why one project got prioritized over another.

Why the Best Projects Might Not Win (And Why That’s Okay, Maybe)

Under the new rules, the projects that actually make it onto the final funding list—the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)—must generally come from that top-performing category. This is the bill’s attempt to enforce performance-based spending. However, the bill acknowledges that real life isn't always about the highest score.

The law allows planning groups to select a project that ranked lower than others, but there’s a catch: they must issue a public explanation detailing exactly why they bypassed a higher-ranked project. This explanation must specifically cite factors like ensuring projects are spread out geographically across the region or prioritizing work in economically struggling areas. This is the policy equivalent of saying, “We know Project A scored better on paper, but we chose Project B because it brings jobs to a town that desperately needs them, and here is our written justification.”

The Fine Print: What We Don't Know Yet

While the requirement for public explanation is a massive win for transparency, there’s a critical piece missing in the text: the bill doesn't define the “specific criteria” that must be used for ranking. This is where things get fuzzy (Vague_Authority, SEC. 2-5). The MPOs and state DOTs still get to set the actual rules of the grading game. They could choose criteria that heavily favor, say, road widening over transit expansion, or vice versa, based on local politics or existing biases. If the criteria are skewed, the entire ranking system could be gamed, even if the process itself is transparent.

For local transportation agencies, this means a significant increase in paperwork and public scrutiny (Negatively Impacted Groups). They now have to document every decision and defend every exception. But for the rest of us—the drivers, the cyclists, the commuters—this bill offers a powerful new tool. If your local officials choose a low-ranking project, you now have a mandated public document explaining their reasoning. That document is your leverage for holding them accountable and ensuring infrastructure dollars are spent where they matter most.