BACKGROUND:

Typically a highway or transit project can take from 10 to 15 years to complete – up to six years for the environmental process, and up to nine years or more for planning, design, and construction. Congress and previous administrations have tried to streamline the process. In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), Congress directed the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to undertake various initiatives to address this problem, but regulations proposed in 2000 by the DOT were roundly criticized for making a bad situation worse.

Furthermore, as a result of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) litigation in 1999, highway projects that passed all of the local, state and federal environmental reviews when an area was in compliance with Clean Air Act standards became targets of environmental organization legal attacks when non-attainment subsequently occurred. Billions of dollars of highway projects authorized by Congress, distributed to states with matching funds, prioritized by state and local communities and designed, environmentally permitted, and readied for construction phase were held up all over the country by a legal loophole.

Currently, there are 40 different federal environmental laws, administered by almost as many agencies, each with its own agenda, priorities and systems. This confusing patchwork of laws, regulations and processes contributes to the lengthy delays in processing environmental reviews, whether projects are simple or complex. There must be a way to streamline the process while maintaining a strong commitment to protecting the environment.

Vision 100, the reauthorization of the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), passed in 2003, expedited the environmental review and approval process for airport capacity projects at congested airports, safety projects and security projects by emphasizing DOT’s lead role in the airport project environmental review process and allowing the DOT secretary to identify reasonable alternatives for the capacity project analysis process. It emphasized concurrent environmental reviews and the use of timelines established by the DOT secretary.

The 2005 reauthorization of the surface transportation system, SAFETEA-LU, incorporated environmental streamlining provisions advocated by NSSGA, including a one-year grace period for out-of-compliance areas to come into compliance; a 180-day statute of limitations for challenging highway projects after the environmental review is published; defining DOT as the lead agency for environmental reviews and clarifying the roles of lead and participatory agencies in determining the “purpose and need” of a project and the alternative analysis and giving the lead agency authority to plan public and agency coordination, scheduling timelines and establishing deadlines for environmental reviews, and encouraging concurrent reviews.

NSSGA will work for inclusion in the next aviation and surface transportation authorizations of additional environmental streamlining provisions which further speed the development of the aggregates necessary to the nation’s built environment, but that do not compromise the environment.

TALKING POINTS:

• NSSGA supports an expedited environmental review process for highway and airport construction projects. The typical approval process should be cut in half from between 10 to 15 years to between five to seven years.
• Unnecessary bureaucratic delays can slow or stop important infrastructure construction projects that would otherwise help prevent crashes, move the public more quickly and smoothly, and reduce polluting emissions from vehicles by cutting the time spent idling in traffic.
• NSSGA supports fine-tuning SAFETEA-LU environmental process provisions; e.g. adding language strengthening state ability to use planning products in the NEPA process.
  
• NSSGA supports consolidating all environmental reviews under one federal agency, preferably the DOT. Currently six cabinet-level departments along with three federal agencies have jurisdiction over some part of the process. NSSGA supports the deputy secretaries of those six departments, including EPA, becoming the strike force to work out an administration position and to develop a set of solutions.
• NSSGA believes that states should be allowed to request and receive the authority and responsibility of the DOT secretary over environmental reviews for projects financed with federal highway funds.
• NSSGA supports giving the federal or state transportation secretary the authority to make the final determination regarding a proposed project’s purpose and need.
  
• Increased use of innovative contracting techniques to assist in timely procurement and management of transportation projects should be encouraged.
• The state or federal transportation secretary should be authorized to set deadlines for comment by resource agencies with environmental responsibilities that pertain to a proposed highway project.
• Simultaneous environmental reviews should be instituted so consecutive reviews do not unnecessarily delay a priority federal project.

Updated: November 2008