NTU has consistently argued that one of the biggest obstacles to building and repairing existing roads, bridges, and tunnels is not a lack of taxpayer funding, but rather overly burdensome regulations. Oftentimes, federal regulations make it unnecessarily difficult or expensive to bring these transportation structures online over an efficient time period. In our view, the best way to revitalize the United States’ infrastructure and modernize the transportation system is not to indiscriminately throw more dollars at the problem, but instead to streamline the process to make building more efficient and less expensive without sacrificing safety.
Enter the bipartisan “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” -- the Senate’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that was formally unveiled late Sunday night. In the leadup to its introduction, NTU was concerned that the proposal would fail to address some of the core issues such as onerous permitting requirements and National Environmental Policy Act regulations. We were pleased, however, that the bipartisan group retained some important reforms that were a part of a committee-passed surface transportation bill
To be clear, NTU cannot support the overall infrastructure legislation as currently written due its reliance on higher taxes, higher spending, and deficit financing. However, it is important to bring attention to the positive provisions that could form the basis of a better package going forward.
The standout regulatory change in Subtitle C is codification of “One Federal Decision,” a policy that has been a priority for NTU in transportation infrastructure legislation. Under the current process, government review of private sector plans involving environmental impacts has no deadline, with a myriad of agencies that each can independently approve or reject the proposal. One Federal Decision coordinates the government’s response so that the applicant receives one decision within two years of the application date. This consolidates the federal process to make it more efficient, and limits the degree to which the federal government can impede the construction industry. NTU has pushed for One Federal Decision before, as it represents a significant step in the direction of a streamlined approval process.
This same section, Sect. 11301, clarifies the definitions of things like “major project”, “authorization”, “environmental document,” in a way that reduces confusion and provides more flexibility. Clearing up confusing regulations is a good thing in and of itself, because it reduces the potential for misinterpretations that can waste time and money.
Subtitle C also contains new mechanisms for holding federal agencies accountable. For example, it sets a 90-day deadline for authorizations decisions. Subsection E then gives specific consequences if that deadline is not met: the offending agency must issue a report as to why the deadline was not met, and that report must be made publicly available online. This example of good-governance accountability and transparency is in contrast to many regulatory bills that set requirements, but do not address consequences if those requirements are not met. The next page of the bill sets accountability and performance review standards for federal agencies when working with major projects. It directs the Secretary to track the time it takes federal agencies to complete relevant projects and how well they stick to their prescribed schedules. While these are modest reforms overall, building in accountability measures helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used more wisely.
There are several other areas where Subtitle C eases the red tape that often ties up important construction initiatives. Section 11302 would ensure that work zone process reviews are not required more frequently than once every five years. This is a very reasonable stipulation that should have been enacted long ago. Section 11303 would decrease the regulatory burden on projects involving highway lane closure for less than three days. Subjecting smaller highway projects to the same level of paperwork as significantly larger projects makes little sense and only slows down the process overall. Section 11316 would streamline the process for Preservation of Parkland Act reviews, striking a better balance between encouraging efficiency and protecting the public’s right to enjoy parks.
Decreasing the regulatory burden on private construction companies helps hasten the pace of their work, leading to better results for the average American. Curtailing federal involvement smartly (that is, by reducing the strain on private companies without abandoning the original goal of the regulation) stands to benefit everyone. While the bipartisan infrastructure package is a flawed product that is overly reliant on tax hikes and budget gimmickry, some of the reforms in Subtitle C are positive steps that Congress should look to enact regardless of its ultimate fate.