Bill Overview
Title: One Federal Decision Act 1.3
Description: This bill requires, to the greatest extent feasible, the Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct efficient environmental reviews for port infrastructure projects, pipeline projects, and airport or aviation projects that require DOT's approval under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In addition, DOT must maintain and publish a database concerning such projects that are categorically excluded from NEPA requirements.
Sponsors: Rep. Davis, Rodney [R-IL-13]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on infrastructure projects involving ports, pipelines, and aviation
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill targets procedures related to environmental reviews for infrastructure projects, specifically in transportation sectors.
- DOT's actions influence all individuals who rely on the infrastructure it oversees, including ports, pipelines, and airports.
- Environmental reviews could potentially affect project timelines, costs, and outcomes, impacting users of such infrastructure.
- The efficient environmental review process intends to streamline procedures while still maintaining environmental protections under NEPA.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily aimed at improving the efficiency of environmental reviews for infrastructure projects in transportation. This means that the primary impact will be on professionals and stakeholders involved in these projects, such as construction workers, logistic companies, and environmental consultants.
- The general population may experience indirect effects through improved infrastructure, potentially leading to better availability of services and goods and lower costs through more efficient transportation.
- Those who live near proposed infrastructure projects may have concerns about environmental impacts, with opinions varying based on perceptions of whether the bill adequately addresses environmental concerns while expediting project approvals.
Simulated Interviews
Pipeline Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Faster review times are definitely a boon for pipeline projects. It means fewer delays and more predictability in project timelines.
- As long as NEPA standards aren't compromised, I see this policy as a major advantage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a risk that efficiency could come at the cost of thoroughness, which worries me as an environmental consultant.
- I hope this leads to smarter, not just faster, reviews.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Logistics Coordinator (Miami, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in port infrastructure reviews will directly enhance our logistics operations by reducing delays.
- The database transparency is a welcome change. It helps us plan better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Port Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining is necessary for competitiveness, but cutting corners on environmental reviews is risky.
- I support the initiative with appropriate environmental checks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Navy Veteran (Dallas, TX)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about noise and environmental impacts from expedited airport projects.
- Hope the policy maintains stringent checks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Airline Executive (New York, NY)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy promises better synchronization between DOT reviews and airline project timelines.
- Faster reviews are good, but they need to ensure environmental rigor.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Freight Broker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that helps reduce bottlenecks at ports and improves efficiency is excellent for us.
- Our business thrives on predictability, and this helps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient does not always mean better in environmental terms. We need thorough reviews.
- It's crucial to balance speed with environmental protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Port Authority Official (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could cut through red tape and accelerate project timelines significantly.
- I am concerned about potential backlash if environmental standards are seen as compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Community Activist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Community voices are often sidelined in fast-tracking projects. That's my main worry here.
- We need transparency and community input in the decision-making processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $84000000, High: $126000000)
Year 3: $110250000 (Low: $88200000, High: $132300000)
Year 5: $121000000 (Low: $96800000, High: $145200000)
Year 10: $146410000 (Low: $117128000, High: $175692000)
Year 100: $378228728 (Low: $302582982, High: $453874474)
Key Considerations
- The potential for cost variances based on the complexity of projects and involvement of multiple stakeholders.
- The legislation's success relies heavily on effective implementation and inter-departmental collaboration within the DOT.
- The actual economic benefits of streamlining reviews depend on how effectively the DOT can adapt and improve its processes.