Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Delivery Nepa Cig topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions NEPA, permitting and CIG delivery after witnesses warn delays raise costs
Summary
Witnesses told the subcommittee that permitting and environmental reviews slow delivery and raise costs for capital projects, and called for clearer FTA timelines and reforms to the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) process so locally‑chosen projects can be built faster.
Multiple witnesses told the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit that permitting delays and complex federal reviews inflate costs and stall capital projects funded through the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program.
Brooke Feigenbaum said the United States lags peer nations on delivery time and cost and recommended streamlining environmental reviews and realistic timelines. “NEPA is basically a part of streamlining of environmental reviews…we need to look at this bureaucratic mess…and streamline it so we can get these projects done more cheaply and quickly,” she said.
APTA and local officials described how predictable federal capital funding helps plan and deliver projects, but several witnesses and members urged improvements to the CIG process so that local sponsors can get timely decisions and move to construction. Nat Ford noted that capital certainty allows agencies to plan consultants, engineering and construction schedules and that “certainty is important.”
Members pressed for a combination of NEPA/process reforms, clearer FTA guidance and performance metrics, and faster federal review of awarded CIG projects so federal investments translate into visible local benefits on schedule.
