You've suggested it. What you're talking about here is that there shouldn't be one single framework but there should be a multiple accounting, so you take into account all the implications. For example, a bridge or a road that you say you really need might improve or speed up urban sprawl and the movement into the suburbs, but in fact your objective may be, in terms of energy efficiency, densification.
These issues have to be taken from more than one perspective. They should go through more than one filter. Ultimately, it is up to you, who in a democracy are the people who represent the choice of the people, to put some prioritization. On the basis of this, you could look at all these filters, rank them all, and then give them the weight as to which one supersedes or dominates.
Ultimately you're entitled to make the decision on behalf of the people and you bear the consequences. This is your responsibility, where to put the weight. The economists, the urban planners, the transportation people could give you the consequences of alternatives, but which one should dominate and which one should be considered to be more important.... What we're really arguing here is, don't take one social framework, one accounting framework; take a number of them. But it's the responsibility of the decision-maker to ultimately put some weight on where these things stack.