Comments on TEA-21's Treatment of Environmental Review
National Environmental Policy Act and Major Investment Study Coordination

During the legislative battle to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) during 1997 and 1998, construction interests and Congressional allies sought to apply "streamlining" measures to the application of basic environmental review procedures to transportation construction projects.

"Streamlining" language originally in versions of both House and Senate ISTEA reauthorization bills would have ensured speedy delivery of highway expansion projects with only limited public scrutiny and input and without evaluation of transportation demand management alternatives. The language would have damaged the basic environmental review processes put in place by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970.

Due to the energetic involvement of grassroots and law-oriented environmental groups from around the country, many of them organized by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign into the ad hoc National Coalition to Defend NEPA, streamlining’s effect was muted. TEA-21 does instruct that transportation agency "major investment studies" be integrated with the environmental impact statements NEPA requires of major projects.

Two separate documents comprising the reaction of the National Coalition to Defend NEPA to the US DOT's proposed interpretation of the TEA-21 changes to environmental review of transportation projects are included here:

  • Following the passage of TEA-21 in June, 1998, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration solicited public comment concerning the statute's implementation through a series of "listening sessions" held at various locations around the country, culminating in a request for written comment. In response to that request, the Coalition submitted its comments on December 18, 1998.

The National Coalition to Defend NEPA

back to reports index | back to Tri-State Campaign main page