119-HR-5711 Investigative Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

The bill compels MPOs and States to score and publicly categorize projects against federal and state goals, and to draw TIP/STIP priorities primarily from the highest‑performing category—with written explanations for exceptions (e.g., geographic balance, distressed areas). This extends existing performance‑based planning and public‑involvement rules (23 U.S.C. 134/135; 49 U.S.C. 5303/5304; 23 CFR part 450) by tightening the link between plan criteria and programming choices. Expected effects: added administrative lift up front; longer‑run gains in transparency, traceability of decisions, and closer alignment with national goals and conformity practice. [6]LII — 23 U.S.C. §134 – Metropolitan transportation planning[7]LII — 23 U.S.C. §135 – Statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning[8]LII — 49 U.S.C. §5303 – Metropolitan transportation planning[9]LII — 49 U.S.C. §5304 – Statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning[10]LII — 23 CFR § 450.316 – Interested parties, participation, and consultation[5]LII — 23 CFR § 450.326 – TIP development and content

Sources for metrics: 23 U.S.C. 150(b); Brookings 2024; NCDOT STIP overview; SMART SCALE program materials. [11]LII — 23 U.S.C. §150 – National goals and performance management measures[12]Brookings Institution — Brookings – Connecting the DOTs: State transportation p…[3]NCDOT — NCDOT – Strategic Mobility Formula (STI) overview[2]Commonwealth of Virginia — Virginia SMART SCALE – FAQs (CTB justification; proc…

Economic Effects

Likely impacts on allocation efficiency, delivery, labor/markets, and administrative costs.

• Allocation efficiency: Requiring TIP/STIP priorities to come from the top‑scoring category should shift funding toward projects with demonstrably higher benefits per dollar, correcting long‑observed tendencies to prioritize politics over analysis. GAO found states often weighted political/public support above economic analysis in selection; Brookings shows many states still lack transparent, public‑facing selection systems—suggesting room for measurable efficiency gains. [13]GAO — GAO-11-77 – Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to Tra…[12]Brookings Institution — Brookings – Connecting the DOTs: State transportation p…
• Pipeline clarity and predictability: When scoring frameworks are visible and decisions must be justified, boards face pressure to align allocations with scores, improving the stability of multi‑year programs (as Virginia reports under SMART SCALE) and giving contractors clearer pipelines. [2]Commonwealth of Virginia — Virginia SMART SCALE – FAQs (CTB justification; proc…
• Administrative and data costs: Building defensible criteria, scoring tools, and documentation will raise near‑term costs and timelines, especially for small MPOs with limited modeling capacity. Federal PBPP rules already push in this direction, but GAO documents persistent capacity gaps among MPOs; H.R. 5711 would make those pressures more binding. [4]FTA — FTA – Performance‑Based Planning and Programming[14]GAO — GAO-09-868 – Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhanc…
• Benefit‑cost and market signals: Transparent criteria (e.g., safety, reliability, access, asset condition) can steer capital toward projects with stronger ROI and system performance, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 150’s goals. However, realized macroeconomic benefits will vary by how weights are set (e.g., safety vs. congestion vs. access to jobs) and by local market conditions. [11]LII — 23 U.S.C. §150 – National goals and performance management measures

Social Effects

Implications for communities, equity, and participation.

• Public accountability: Mandated public criteria and written explanations for any deviations create a clearer audit trail than current practice in many states, addressing a well‑documented transparency gap. [12]Brookings Institution — Brookings – Connecting the DOTs: State transportation p…
• Equity: The bill permits exceptions for economically distressed areas, but it does not prescribe equity weights. Research across large MPOs finds equity criteria are often present yet lightly weighted, limiting influence on final rankings unless agencies adopt stronger, multidimensional equity metrics. Agencies integrating equity into prioritization show more systematic attention to underserved groups when weights are substantive. [15]SAGE / Transportation Research Record — TRR (2021) – Equity‑Oriented Criteria f…[16]FHWA — FHWA Public Roads (Spring 2023) – Integrating Equity into Transportation…
• Participation: Requirements dovetail with existing 23 CFR 450 participation rules (public notice, access to technical materials, documented responses to comments). Stronger transparency may improve perceived legitimacy, but follow‑through depends on agency capacity to engage non‑technical audiences. [10]LII — 23 CFR § 450.316 – Interested parties, participation, and consultation

Environmental Effects

Connections to emissions, sustainability, and conformity.

• Alignment with national goals: By tying criteria to federal goals under 23 U.S.C. 150(b), agencies are more likely to weight safety, state of good repair, reliability, freight/economic vitality, and environmental sustainability—embedding sustainability in selection logic. [11]LII — 23 U.S.C. §150 – National goals and performance management measures
• Air quality compliance: Because MPO plans/TIPs in nonattainment/maintenance areas must demonstrate transportation conformity to SIP budgets—and because EPA’s modeling requirements (e.g., MOVES5 by December 11, 2026) tighten analytic rigor—selecting higher‑performing, emissions‑efficient projects should ease conformity demonstrations and reduce risk of rework. [17]EPA — EPA – General Conformity Training, Module 3.5: Demonstrating Conformity[18]Federal Register — Federal Register – Official Release of MOVES5 for SIPs and T…
• Project‑type differentials: FHWA’s CMAQ cost‑effectiveness tables show large variation across project types (e.g., signal coordination, TDM, transit service) in dollars per ton reduced; making such metrics explicit in scoring can tilt portfolios toward more cost‑effective emission reductions. [19]FHWA — FHWA – 2020 CMAQ Cost‑Effectiveness Tables Update

Temporal Analysis

Short‑term vs. long‑term consequences.

1. 0–2 years after enactment: Agencies stand up/upgrade scoring frameworks; add documentation for exceptions; retrain boards; and, in some regions, re‑sequence projects. Expect transitional delays and higher staff/consultant costs, particularly where PBPP practices are immature or MPO capacity is thin. [4]FTA — FTA – Performance‑Based Planning and Programming[14]GAO — GAO-09-868 – Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhanc…
2. 2–5 years: Scoring normalizes; TIP/STIP pipelines become more predictable; boards face public pressure to justify deviations; conformity analyses incorporate updated models (MOVES5) with clearer evidence trails. [18]Federal Register — Federal Register – Official Release of MOVES5 for SIPs and T…
3. 5+ years: If criteria are well‑weighted (e.g., safety, access to opportunity, reliability, environmental outcomes) and transparently applied, portfolios should reflect higher net benefits and more consistent progress toward national goals; if equity weights remain token, disparities may persist. [11]LII — 23 U.S.C. §150 – National goals and performance management measures[15]SAGE / Transportation Research Record — TRR (2021) – Equity‑Oriented Criteria f…

Unintended Consequences

Risks and secondary effects to monitor.

• Equity dilution: If equity receives low weights, top‑category lists may systematically underrepresent disadvantaged or rural communities; the bill’s exception path (with written rationale) helps, but also re‑introduces discretion. Evidence from MPOs shows equity factors often carry modest influence unless weighted meaningfully. [15]SAGE / Transportation Research Record — TRR (2021) – Equity‑Oriented Criteria f…
• Capacity disparities: Smaller MPOs may struggle to design/maintain robust scoring and analytics, risking uneven implementation and potential delays. [14]GAO — GAO-09-868 – Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhanc…
• Process/litigation risk: Stronger documentation and public explanations raise stakes; errors in modeling or conformity assumptions (especially during MOVES transitions) could invite challenges or require rework. [17]EPA — EPA – General Conformity Training, Module 3.5: Demonstrating Conformity[18]Federal Register — Federal Register – Official Release of MOVES5 for SIPs and T…
• Discretion vs. discipline: Virginia’s model shows boards can deviate from scores but must justify; that preserves flexibility (e.g., geographic balance) but can also be a pressure valve that dilutes discipline if overused. [2]Commonwealth of Virginia — Virginia SMART SCALE – FAQs (CTB justification; proc…

Assessment

Overall analytical stance.

Neutral. The bill strengthens the evidence chain from goals to funded projects and forces explanations when deviating—advancing transparency and accountability already envisioned in federal PBPP rules. Economic and environmental benefits are plausible where criteria and weights are rigorous (and equity is made consequential), but risks of metric gaming, capacity gaps, and perfunctory equity treatment are real. Net effects hinge on implementation details, oversight, and whether agencies embed ex‑post performance evaluation and independent review. [4]FTA — FTA – Performance‑Based Planning and Programming[12]Brookings Institution — Brookings – Connecting the DOTs: State transportation p…[15]SAGE / Transportation Research Record — TRR (2021) – Equity‑Oriented Criteria f…

Sourcing

Key authorities, guidance, and evaluative evidence relied upon.

• Statutes and regulations: 23 U.S.C. 134/135/150; 49 U.S.C. 5303/5304; 23 CFR part 450 (participation; TIP content). [6]LII — 23 U.S.C. §134 – Metropolitan transportation planning[7]LII — 23 U.S.C. §135 – Statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning[11]LII — 23 U.S.C. §150 – National goals and performance management measures[8]LII — 49 U.S.C. §5303 – Metropolitan transportation planning[9]LII — 49 U.S.C. §5304 – Statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning[10]LII — 23 CFR § 450.316 – Interested parties, participation, and consultation[5]LII — 23 CFR § 450.326 – TIP development and content
• Federal guidance and program evidence: FHWA/FTA PBPP materials; EPA/FR on conformity and MOVES5; FHWA CMAQ cost‑effectiveness. [4]FTA — FTA – Performance‑Based Planning and Programming[17]EPA — EPA – General Conformity Training, Module 3.5: Demonstrating Conformity[18]Federal Register — Federal Register – Official Release of MOVES5 for SIPs and T…[19]FHWA — FHWA – 2020 CMAQ Cost‑Effectiveness Tables Update
• State scoring programs: Virginia SMART SCALE (scoring, CTB deviations with rationale), North Carolina Strategic Mobility Formula (statewide scoring; statewide distribution and jobs claim). [1]Commonwealth of Virginia — Virginia SMART SCALE – How It Works[2]Commonwealth of Virginia — Virginia SMART SCALE – FAQs (CTB justification; proc…[3]NCDOT — NCDOT – Strategic Mobility Formula (STI) overview
• Independent evaluations: GAO on performance‑based planning gaps and MPO capacity; Brookings on state transparency/accountability practices; peer‑reviewed work on equity criteria in prioritization. [13]GAO — GAO-11-77 – Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to Tra…[14]GAO — GAO-09-868 – Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhanc…[12]Brookings Institution — Brookings – Connecting the DOTs: State transportation p…[15]SAGE / Transportation Research Record — TRR (2021) – Equity‑Oriented Criteria f…
• Bill lineage/context: Prior iteration of the Metropolitan Planning Enhancement Act (press release description). [22]U.S. House of Representatives — Rep. DeSaulnier Press Release (Aug. 11, 2020) –…