Introduction
Today, a typical highway 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.
Such delay has very real consequences for the American public. Inadequate and congested highways cost drivers thousands of hours of lost time, and cost businesses millions of dollars in productivity. Stalled highway safety improvements literally cost lives in accidents that might have been avoided.
In today’s world, businesses in need of highway access in order to open a major employment center, commuters losing thousands of hours due to gridlock, or a port facing an avalanche of growth in containers cannot wait a decade for transportation solutions. States lose credibility with the public and fail to meet national needs through such a protracted project delivery process. Achieving compliance with the complex array of Federal laws and regulations is daunting. The business world does not operate that way and neither should government.
The Federal government should set a goal of cutting the current project delivery time in half, achieving in five to seven years what now takes 10 to 15.
The following report contains recommendations and case studies that demonstrate such a goal is achievable.
During the project development stage, state and local agencies, by exercising environmental stewardship, are improving credibility with resource agencies and community stakeholders, and achieving closer collaboration on project planning and environmental permitting.
During the construction stage, innovative contracting methods, advanced construction techniques and materials, and the advantages made possible by public–private partnerships can shave not months but years from project delivery. Lessons learned in swiftly restoring highways and bridges after a natural disaster are equally applicable to non-emergency projects.
Federal agencies also play a vital role in delivering projects swiftly and safely. The U.S. DOT’s “Highways for LIFE” initiative and the President’s Executive Order on Environmental Streamlining are examples of strong leadership that U.S. DOT has provided in the recent past. They are to be commended for what has been achieved.
Action by Congress in the most recent reauthorizing legislation, SAFETEA-LU, to encourage streamlining of the Federal process has been, in part, successful. Limitations on the length of time projects may be held up by lawsuits, and partial reform of the 4(f) review process, have made significant inroads in reducing project delay, as has the “de minimis” process that frees projects with little environmental impact from rigorous review. Other areas have yet to bear fruit, while still others, as identified in this report, have been interpreted in ways that actually will hinder, rather than expedite, project delivery.
What is needed now is focus. The establishment of “macro-goals” for Federal transportation and resource agencies can focus efforts on achieving overall program goals, rather than endless individual project scrutiny.
Another need is direction. An important step in advancing project delivery is clarifying the primary role to be played by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Under current law, the agency is serving dual purposes, which at times conflict. FHWA should be the primary Federal proponent for improving the nation’s mobility, acting as a strong partner with state departments of transportation (DOTs) in delivering transportation projects as expeditiously as possible. But in its stewardship role, FHWA is also called upon to enforce the myriad environmental regulations that have grown up from the more than 40 different statutes enacted by Congress related to transportation. This enforcement responsibility comes at a time when state legislatures have enacted equally effective, or even more stringent, stewardship requirements at the state level.
It is time to end this divided mission and to make clear that the primary responsibility of the FHWA and the U.S. DOT is to improve mobility for the American people in the most expeditious way possible. They should also assure that this is accomplished in ways that satisfy federal laws which protect the environment. Completing project reviews faster in no way precludes doing them well.
What is needed on a constant basis is for U.S. DOT to commit itself to help states deliver projects as fast as possible, and to enlist other Federal agencies in this approach. At stake are economic and social objectives for the country that are just as important as the environmental objectives states are being asked to attain. It is essential to work together to achieve all of these objectives to deliver transportation improvements when communities need them.
As states seek to deliver Federal-aid transportation projects, they must negotiate a maze of legal, technical, and analytical requirements at both the national and state level during planning, programming, design, construction, and related activities.
By addressing ways to accelerate project review and delivery, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission has an opportunity to bring the Federal regulatory process into the 21st Century, enabling transportation agencies to put transportation improvements into place in time to meet America’s growing needs.
John Horsley
Executive Director
