STATEMENT
OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
EPW
Hearing on Transportation Project Delivery
and
Environmental Streamlining
Thursday,
September 19, 2002, 9:30 am, SD-406
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing to examine the progress made on environmental streamlining under
TEA-21. As the Department of Transportation itself says, “Environmentally
responsible transportation improvements, delivered on time and within budget,
is a simple vision that all too often evades the USDOT and its partners.”
• Everyone of us in this room knows the
importance and role that transportation plays in our everyday lives, and
especially in our economy. Our economic
stability and progress is tied directly to transportation. As my dear friend and colleague from
Virginia, Senator Warner, often says - this is a one world market. Our country’s transportation infrastructure
makes it so.
• My home state of Missouri has always been a leader
in the area of transportation. In 1808,
King’s Highway, from St. Louis to southeast Missouri, became the first legally
designated road west of the Mississippi.
In 1929, Missouri was the first state to protect and earmark funds for
highway purposes. The first stretch of
interstate road on which work actually began anywhere in the country was
Interstate 70 in St. Charles, Missouri.
• Missouri, at the geographic center of the
United States, serves as a confluence not only for our Nation’s highway system,
but also for our Nation’s two greatest waterways, the Mississippi and Missouri
Rivers. With the 2nd and 3rd largest
rail hubs, and the 2nd largest inland port in the United States, Missouri
products travel to all fifty states and all reaches of the globe.
• So we care a lot about transportation in
Missouri. We also care a great deal
about the environment. I have fought
long and hard to increase the amount of money we spend in Missouri and across
the Nation on cleaning our water and making it safe to drink. I
hope that next year we will come to a consensus on further air pollution
reductions from electric power utilities.
• We cannot give away our environmental gains
achieved over the last 30 years to transportation projects that needlessly hurt
our environment. I share the Historic
Trust’s belief that “environmental reviews are an essential element in
transportation development.”
• I also agree with the American Association of
State Highway Transportation Officials that “environmental stewardship begins
not with new laws and regulations, but with a commitment by transportation
agencies themselves to make environmental protection and environmental
enhancement an integral part of their mission.”
• But with that commitment, how far can we get
under the current laws and regulations?
According to FHWA, it typically takes from 9 to 19 years to plan, gain
approval for, and construct a new major federally funded highway project that
has significant environmental impacts.
That is far too long.
• Some would say that the environmental portion
is a minority of that time period. That
just hides the fact that the average length of time to process environmental
documents for major projects is still over five years. Some may be proud that the average is now
five years and two months instead of five years and ten months, but it’s still
over five years and that’s just too long.
• Part of the problem is groups who use
well-meaning environmental reviews for nothing but delay. Testifying before this Committee, the
Executive Director of the Surface Transportation Policy Project admitted that,
“In the struggle between the proponents and opponents of a controversial
project, the best an opponent can hope for is to delay things until the
proponents change their minds or tire of the fight. That is the only option they have so they use it.”
• Sometimes these advocates of delay are
actually aided by government themselves.
Attempts by DOT in the last administration failed to implement the
intent of Congress in TEA-21. Their
regulatory proposals were riddled with new requirements that could easily mushroom
into major new causes of delay, cost overruns and litigation. They also left many existing problems
unaddressed, resulting in missed opportunities to achieve the reforms we
intended.
• Many states are trying to implement
innovative new programs to streamline environmental and historic preservation
reviews. I was particularly impressed
by the example of Vermont, home state of our Chairman.
• According to testimony we will hear later
today, Vermont delegated sign off authority under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act to the state Agency of Transportation itself. Maybe we should consider going national with
this Vermont model? Do you think that
we could delegate sign-off for environmental reviews to the Department of
Transportation? Somehow, I don’t think
that would pass.
• All kidding aside, we still have a long way
to go in realizing our vision of environmentally responsible transportation
improvements, delivered on time and within budget. Memorandums of understanding, or other well meaning but toothless
tools calling for agencies to do nothing more than “play nicely” are
insufficient.
• I commend President Bush for his leadership
in issuing his executive order on environmental streamlining. Putting the weight and authority of the
President behind the need to deliver environmentally sensitive transportation
projects on time and on budget is a great step.
• However, we know that administrations come
and go. The next administration may not
share the same commitment to our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. We need to institutionalize any improvements
we may make and we should consider doing so in legislation.
• We need to take a serious look at proposals
which strengthen the overall NEPA decision-making process and eliminate
inefficiencies in the system. Some
suggestions include:
-- putting
a final end to the major investment study requirement and recognizing the
innovations occurring at state and local levels
-- designating
USDOT and state DOTs as lead agencies in the NEPA process for surface
transportation projects
-- establishing
default deadlines for agency and public comments, with allowances for
alternative deadlines or extensions, and
-- providing clear guidance on how to define
a project’s purpose and need statement in a NEPA document.
• I look forward to working with my colleagues
on all of these issues.
Thank you.