Bill Overview
Title: Interactive Federal Review Act
Description: This bill revises the environmental review process for federal-aid highway projects. Specifically, the Department of Transportation (DOT) must encourage recipients of federal highway funding to utilize interactive, digital, cloud-based platforms when carrying out environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); select at least 10 federal-aid highway projects to demonstrate the use of interactive, digital, cloud-based platforms in carrying out the environmental impact analysis and community engagement processes under NEPA; and publish technology-neutral best practice guidance to encourage sponsors of projects that receive federal funds from DOT to use an interactive, digital, cloud-based platform in carrying out the environmental impact analysis and community engagement processes required under NEPA.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People using or living near federal-aid highway projects in the U.S.
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill focuses on federal-aid highway projects, which are part of public infrastructure used by millions of people across the United States.
- The use of interactive digital platforms for environmental reviews could affect the speed, cost, and public engagement of these projects.
- Federal highway projects often go through areas of significant population, impacting both urban and rural communities.
- Increased efficiency in the environmental review process could expedite infrastructure projects, affecting traffic, local economies, and environmental health.
Reasoning
- The Interactive Federal Review Act affects a large and diverse population due to the ubiquity of federal-aid highways across the U.S.
- The policy is primarily aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental reviews, thus directly impacting how quickly highway projects can be completed and potentially reducing costs associated with delays.
- People living near these highways or using them frequently might experience noticeable changes, particularly if projects are completed more swiftly.
- Not everyone will feel the impact immediately; those far from active projects may not notice changes, whereas those adjacent to selected demonstration projects will likely see quicker effects.
- A balance needs to be struck in the simulation to ensure diversity in age, occupation, gender, and location for a comprehensive understanding of the policy impact.
Simulated Interviews
real estate agent (Dallas, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that if the process becomes more efficient, the highway project disrupting my neighborhood might finish sooner.
- The digital engagement could let us voice our concerns more effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
logistics manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A more streamlined process can mean less commuting hassle if road projects wrap up quicker.
- I’m interested in how digital platforms will allow for more public feedback.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
environmental consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as bringing positive changes to how environmental reviews are conducted.
- Interactive platforms can facilitate more informed decision-making.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
farmer (Rural Iowa)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s good to have more transparency in these processes, especially as someone directly affected by any highway expansion.
- Hopeful that our voices will be heard better via digital platforms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
retired (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not sure how much this will change things for me in a city already dealing with many similar environmental reviews.
- Curious about how effective the digital platforms will be for smaller voices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
college student (Portland, OR)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a step forward in making environmental review processes more accessible.
- Perhaps this will inspire others to engage more with these important issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
construction foreman (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlined reviews might mean fewer delays and more predictable schedules for us.
- Digital platforms should help clarify expectations faster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
local government worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring tech neutrality is important, so no one is left out of the engagement process.
- This could present new opportunities for community involvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incorporating more community input via digital means is beneficial, but always worried about how it’s implemented.
- Environmental health needs to be prioritized.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
software engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Digital platforms are the future for engaging in these processes.
- Important that the process remains accessible to everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- Sufficient funding and skilled staff are required for the development and implementation of the digital platforms.
- There might be a learning curve or resistance from traditional processes among state and local agencies.
- Technological advancements could outpace the published guidance, requiring ongoing updates.
- Ensuring data security and privacy on digital platforms is critical.