A good way? Change some of the rules so projects don't have to waste quite as much money on study after study after study, especially when the newer studies tend to be flawed. Just consider some of the screw ups around St. Louis, particularly I-55 in Jefferson County. First study called for widening from Rte M to US 67 (eight lanes to at least Rte Z, I think six down to US 67). More recent study, involving the Metropolitan Planning Organization, called for something like eight lanes down to Rte Z, six to the Herculaneum Exit, and then only auxiliary lanes between Rte A and US 67. Now I believe the plan is for eight lanes from Rte M to the Herculaneum Exit, and six down to US 67. Maybe if the planners had actually driven I-55, they would have seen right away that at least six lanes are needed down to US 67.
Then there was the flawed Cross County Study for St. Louis, which didn't recommend any sort of better connection between I-170 and I-44, nor an extension of River des Peres Blvd, but a light rail line instead to serve southern St. Louis County. The next study on finishing the light rail line to South County found the line would run into major park land impacts or high costs from parallel an active BNSF line. In addition, the River des Peres Blvd extension is back, and just awaiting funding (and probably some design work, otherwise I think it should have been a stimulus project). So how much money was wasted on the initial Cross County study for flawed recommendations that could have been put towards actual construction?