Trump Changes Regulatory Rules on Infrastructure, U.S. Waiting on Trillion Dollar Roadworks Plan

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

President Trump announced on Tuesday that he had signed an executive order to eliminate and streamline Obama-era regulations that might hinder the construction of U.S. roads and bridges. Absent, however, was any legislation regarding previous promises of allocating a trillion dollars revitalize the nation’s infrastructure.

While the press conference was mired by the weekend’s violence in Charlottesville, the topic eventually returned to roadworks and the aforementioned funding. “We will end up getting health care, but we’ll get the infrastructure, and actually infrastructure is something that I think we’ll have bipartisan support on,” Trump told reporters. “I actually think Democrats will go along with the infrastructure.”

Backed by Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Trump presented the media with a flow chart purporting to show the permitting regulations required to construct a highway in an unnamed state he claimed took 17 years under existing regulations.

“This is what we will bring it down to — this is less than two years,” the president said, as he unveiled a smaller chart representing the new process. “We used to have the greatest infrastructure anywhere in the world, and today we’re like a third-world country,” he said. “No longer will we allow the infrastructure of our magnificent country to crumble and decay.”

According to Reuters, various business groups praised the regulatory streamlining, while environmental groups criticized the executive order — claiming it would lead to riskier projects, unsafe conditions, waste taxpayer dollars, and result in a “climate catastrophe.”

“It’s going to be quick. It’s going to be a very streamlined process. And by the way, if it doesn’t meet environmental safeguards, we’re not going to approve it, very simple,” Trump said at a press conference at Trump Tower in New York.

The National Association of Home Builders approved the Trump administration’s move, saying the laundry-list of rules had raised the cost of housing. The American Petroleum Institute also praised the decision, and released a statement suggesting the order reflects recommendations the oil-industry lobby group submitted to the Commerce Department back in March.

Likewise, Representative Ralph Abraham of Louisiana, a Republican who sponsored legislation that would have blocked President Obama’s flood standard, said he was pleased by Mr. Trump’s decision.“We had more than our share of tragedy down here with the water, but we already have problems meeting requirements,” Mr. Abraham told The New York Times. “The [Obama-era] plan would make it so costly for my Louisiana residents.”

He estimated the rule would have increased the cost of a home by 25 percent to 30 percent in Louisiana because most of the state would be put in a federal flood plain. The same would be true of any roadways or rail-networks.

The Obama administration had previously estimated that its more stringent standards would increase construction costs by 0.25 percent to 1.25 percent and not pertain to private contracts. However, the rule would affect states differently — as lower elevations would be affected more often.

Environmental groups are concerned the order would silence communities with safety and ecological concerns about major projects works projects, especially oil pipelines. “If Trump has his way, we’ll be facing a fossil fuel buildout that locks America into climate catastrophe,” said Janet Redman, U.S. Policy Director at Oil Change International.

The executive order rolls back numerous standards set by former President Barack Obama that requires the federal government to account for climate change and sea-level rise when building infrastructure.

“The Trump administration’s decision to overturn this is a disaster for taxpayers and the environment,” said Eli Lehrer, president of the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington. Lehrer described the Obama order as a common-sense measure to prevent taxpayer money from being wasted on projects threatened by flooding. Rafael Lemaitre, former director of public affairs at FEMA, issued similar comments following Trump’s press conference.

The White House has responded to those allegations by explaining the new order reinstated the previous flood management standard, issued by President Jimmy Carter, and did not prohibit any state or local agencies from using more stringent standards if they chose to.

The order would set a two-year goal for completing permits needed on major infrastructure plans, and create a “one Federal decision” protocol that would appoint a lead federal agency to work with other agencies to complete the environmental reviews and permitting for infrastructure projects.

“We used to have the greatest infrastructure anywhere in the world, and today we’re like a third-world country,” Trump said on Tuesday. “No longer will we allow the infrastructure of our magnificent country to crumble and decay.”

Ending the conference, the administration proposed $200 billion in government funding over 10 years as part of a goal of getting $1 trillion in public and private infrastructure spending.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Join the conversation
2 of 55 comments
  • Erikstrawn Erikstrawn on Aug 17, 2017

    "He estimated the rule would have increased the cost of a home by 25 percent to 30 percent in Louisiana because most of the state would be put in a federal flood plain." If we keep Louisiana out of the "federal flood plain", it won't flood, right? Money saved!

  • Carlisimo Carlisimo on Aug 17, 2017

    I design buildings and my wife designs bridges, so I thought I'd clarify a few things. Projects have to look at an appropriate storm depending on how critical they are - a house might get designed to stay above water in a 100-year storm, but a hospital for, say, a 500-year storm. But we've also been adding sea level rise on top of that number. If your project has a 50-year design life, add a few inches to the height of the first floor. (Of course, most things meant to last 50 years will probably get used for 100.) That's one rule that will no longer be mandatory at the federal level. A lot of engineers will continue to follow it though, because the liability is on us once we stamp the design and we tend not to be risk-takers just because we want something to not be true. More importantly, this doesn't add much time to the design process. If you're in Florida or Louisiana, it can definitely add cost, but you'll save it on the back end unless physics and chemistry turn out to be wrong. In buildings, the real time-waster is that neighbors can use the environmental review process to shut down a project because they don't like the clientele it will attract, or the aesthetics of the building, etc. Cities around here are starting to consider changes to how that works because it's as limiting as it sounds. In infrastructure projects, you have that too, but even worse because these projects tend to be geographically long and can piss off tens of thousands of people in multiple cities. You also have genuine environmental issues, some of which clash (e.g. wind power's good if you're worried about climate change, but bad for animal lovers). Sometimes those environmental issues are big money, like when they'd hurt fisheries. And then there's the slow process of using eminent domain to buy property for expanding a road in a built-up area. And there aren't many areas that aren't built-up. It's also a pain the ass to work with a railroad company when you need to build a road overpass across a railway. There are so many players involved, many of whom are annoyed and don't have any reason to be helpful, that it's hard to speed things up. I'm all for trying, though.

  • Lorenzo The unspoken killer is that batteries can't be repaired after a fender-bender and the cars are totaled by insurance companies. Very quickly, insurance premiums will be bigger than the the monthly payment, killing all sales. People will be snapping up all the clunkers Tim Healey can find.
  • Lorenzo Massachusetts - with the start/finish line at the tip of Cape Cod.
  • RHD Welcome to TTAH/K, also known as TTAUC (The truth about used cars). There is a hell of a lot of interesting auto news that does not make it to this website.
  • Jkross22 EV makers are hosed. How much bigger is the EV market right now than it already is? Tesla is holding all the cards... existing customer base, no dealers to contend with, largest EV fleet and the only one with a reliable (although more crowded) charging network when you're on the road. They're also the most agile with pricing. I have no idea what BMW, Audi, H/K and Merc are thinking and their sales reflect that. Tesla isn't for me, but I see the appeal. They are the EV for people who really just want a Tesla, which is most EV customers. Rivian and Polestar and Lucid are all in trouble. They'll likely have to be acquired to survive. They probably know it too.
  • Lorenzo The Renaissance Center was spearheaded by Henry Ford II to revitalize the Detroit waterfront. The round towers were a huge mistake, with inefficient floorplans. The space is largely unusable, and rental agents were having trouble renting it out.GM didn't know that, or do research, when they bought it. They just wanted to steal thunder from Ford by making it their new headquarters. Since they now own it, GM will need to tear down the "silver silos" as un-rentable, and take a financial bath.Somewhere, the ghost of Alfred P. Sloan is weeping.