As you may know, I was directly involved in the development of these provisions, in partnership with my colleagues, Senators Wyden and Graham. The purpose of these provisions obviously was to expedite the delivery of transportation projects to the American people. We had, and still have, high hopes that this language will help put order and efficiency in the way transportation projects are reviewed by both state and federal agencies, and as a result, reduce the time it takes to plan and approve a project.
The members of this Committee recognize that every day counts when planning and constructing a highway or bridge in this country. The problem that was addressed in TEA-21 is a serious one. It now takes approximately 10 years to plan, design, and construct a typical transportation project in this country, with at least four of those years devoted to planning and review. I am sure that if each Senator contacted their own state transportation department, you would be horrified to find the number of transportation projects that are delayed due to overlapping and often redundant regulatory reviews and processes. These delays increase costs and postpone needed safety improvements that would save lives.
The delays are occurring because the development of a transportation project involves multiple agencies evaluating the impacts of various modes and/or alignment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While it would seem that the NEPA process would establish a uniform set of regulations and submittal documents nationwide, this has not been the case.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and their companion state agencies each require a separate review and approval process, forcing separate reviews of separate regulations and requiring planners to answer requests for separate additional information. Also, each of these agencies issues approvals according to separate schedules. The result: the time period between project beginning to completion has grown to at least 10 years assuming that the project is not controversial and there is adequate funding available. If either of these assumptions is not the case, the time period may be even longer.
In fact, there is an example in New Hampshire that these provisions are intended to correct. The Nashua Circumferential Highway project was in the planning and review phase for more than 10 years and had finally received all the necessary permits from the Corps of Engineers. Then, EPA came in at the last minute to exercise its veto authority over the project. Needless to say, this caused great frustration and anxiety for our state DOT and local officials.
TEA-21 will hopefully mitigate this situation in the future and improve the project planning process. This would be done by establishing a coordinated environmental review process within the U.S. Department of Transportation where all reviews, analysis, and permits are performed concurrently and cooperatively within a mutually agreed upon schedule by both federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Effective environmental coordination as envisioned under TEA-21 will result in less staff time and expense for all the agencies and stakeholders in the NEPA process and reduce the time it now takes in reaching a final decision with respect to receiving project approvals and permits.
With that in mind, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the status of their efforts to implement these important streamlining provisions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.