PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 26, 2011
Project Delivery Improvement Act of 2011 - Authorizes a state to select without competitive bidding or the approval of the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) one or more proprietary, patented, or experimental products for use in a federal-aid highway project. Declares that state use of such products shall not affect the eligibility of the state or highway project to receive federal funding.
Repeals certain parkland preservation requirements prohibiting the Secretary from approving a transportation program or project requiring the use of public park lands unless there is no feasible alternative to the use of such land.
Makes the lead agency responsible for determining the purpose of and need for a project.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Decreases from 180 days to 90 days after publication in the Federal Register of a notice that a permit, license, or approval for a highway or public transportation capital project is final the deadline for filing a claim seeking judicial review of the permit, license, or approval. Places the burden of proof of the claim on the claimant.
Authorizes a state to designate a highway project as a categorical exclusion (that does not involve significant environmental impact).
Revises U.S. policy on public lands and wildlife and waterfowl refuges to exclude historic sites. Authorizes the Secretary to approve a transportation program or project (other than a park road or parkway project) requiring the use of a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge only if the Governor of the state (or mayor or chief executive of the city, county, or borough with management responsibility for or ownership of the area) agrees that such project is the preferred alternative.
People & committees
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1081 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1081 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1081 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1081 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.