The SPEED Act expedites the execution and delivery of small transportation projects by increasing the federal funding thresholds for categorical exclusions.
Harriet Hageman
Representative
WY
The Small Projects Expedited Execution and Delivery (SPEED) Act aims to speed up the delivery of certain transportation projects by increasing the federal funding thresholds for categorical exclusions. This allows projects with greater federal investment, up to $\$12$ million or $\$70$ million depending on the category, to qualify for a streamlined environmental and planning review process. By raising these limits, the bill seeks to accelerate the execution and delivery of smaller-scale infrastructure improvements.
Infrastructure Fast-Track Bill Doubles Funding Limits: Projects Up to $70M Can Now Skip Full Environmental Review
The 'Small Projects Expedited Execution and Delivery Act,' or SPEED Act, aims to clear the bureaucratic backlog for smaller infrastructure projects by changing the rules for federal funding review. Essentially, this bill raises the financial bar for projects that can skip lengthy environmental and planning reviews—a process known as a 'categorical exclusion.' If a project falls under this exclusion, it means the government assumes it won’t have a significant environmental impact, allowing it to move forward much faster.
The New Speed Limits for Federal Cash
This is where the rubber meets the road: the bill dramatically increases the amount of federal money a project can receive while still qualifying for this fast-track status. For one category of projects, the federal funding cap is doubling from $6 million to $12 million. For a second, larger category of projects—think mid-sized road extensions or bridge repairs—the cap jumps from $35 million all the way up to $70 million. This means a project receiving up to $70 million in federal aid can now potentially bypass the full, detailed environmental impact statements that often take years to complete, provided it meets the other criteria for categorical exclusion (SEC. 2).
Why This Matters for Your Commute (and Your Backyard)
On the surface, this looks like a win for efficiency. State and local transportation departments can get infrastructure projects—like that perpetually delayed interchange upgrade or a critical water line replacement—done faster and cheaper because they spend less time and money tied up in regulatory paperwork. If you’re stuck in traffic, faster project delivery is appealing. For the construction worker or the small business waiting for a new road to open, this change could mean jobs and quicker access to markets.
The Trade-Off: Speed vs. Scrutiny
However, doubling the funding thresholds for projects that can avoid full environmental review introduces a significant trade-off. Environmental reviews, while slow, are designed to catch potential problems before they become permanent—things like impacts on local wetlands, air quality, or noise pollution for nearby neighborhoods. When a project receiving $70 million in federal funds skips the deeper review, it raises the risk that significant local impacts might be overlooked. For the community living near the proposed expansion, this means less time for public input and less detailed analysis of how a project, now twice as expensive as the previous limit, might affect their quality of life (SEC. 2).
Think of it this way: a $35 million project is substantial, but a $70 million project is massive. Giving that massive project a regulatory shortcut means we’re prioritizing speed for developers and agencies over the detailed environmental and community oversight that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) typically requires. This expansion of 'categorical exclusion' is a clear signal that the focus is on execution and delivery, even if it means less time spent looking under the hood for potential environmental costs.