After the Storm: Highway Reconstruction and Resilience

After the Storm: Highway Reconstruction and Resilience

September 8, 2017
After the Storm: Highway Reconstruction and Resilience
In the immediate aftermath of natural disasters, such as
Emergency Repairs
Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the first road recovery efforts
Initially the program provides funds for emergency repairs
are focused on clearing roads, establishing detours, erecting
to restore essential travel, minimize the extent of damage,
temporary bridges, and other short-term measures to get the
and protect remaining facilities. Emergency repairs, if
road network up and running. However, Congress and the
accomplished within 180 days of the declared disaster, may
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) have encouraged
be reimbursed with a 100% federal share.
that the planning for permanent repairs consider ways to
make damaged road infrastructure more resilient to reduce
Permanent Repairs
the risk of additional damage in future disasters.
Permanent repairs go beyond the restoration of essential
traffic and are intended to restore damaged bridges and
DOT defines resilience as “the capability to anticipate,
roads to conditions and capabilities comparable to those
prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant multi-
before the event. The federal share for permanent repairs on
hazard threats with minimum damage to social well-being,
the Interstate System is 90%. For other federal-aid
the economy, and the environment.” DOT requires a risk-
highways the federal share is 80%. The vast majority of ER
based analysis to be used when “designing and constructing
funding is allocated for permanent repairs. Generally,
repairs to ensure they are cost effective and reduce the
where damaged parts of a road or bridge can be repaired
potential for future losses.”
without replacement or reconstruction, this is done.
The Emergency Relief Program
When major reconstruction or replacement is necessary,
Most major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid
federal funding may not exceed the cost of repair or
highway system and are therefore eligible for disaster
reconstruction of a “comparable facility.” The program is
assistance under the Federal Highway Administration
not designed to increase road capacity by, for example,
(FHWA) Emergency Relief (ER) program. (See CRS
adding lane capacity or building new interchanges, or to
Report R43384, Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged
raise the elevation of a road. Such changes, which modify
Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief.) Only repairs to roads
the function or character of a highway from what existed
and bridges damaged during a declared disaster or
prior to the disaster, are referred to in the regulations as
catastrophic failure are eligible for ER assistance. For
“betterments.” Normally these improvements would be
disaster-damaged roads not on the federal-aid highway
funded under other programs that provide highway funding
system, states may request reimbursement for emergency
by formula to the states. They are an eligible use of ER
road repairs from the Federal Emergency Management
funds only when they are “clearly economically justified to
Agency (FEMA).
prevent future recurring damage.” States are not to use ER
funds to supplant other funds for correction of preexisting,
As is true with other FHWA programs, the ER program is
non-disaster-related deficiencies.
administered through state departments of transportation in
close coordination with FHWA’s division offices in each
Funding Resiliency Features
state. Although ER is a federal program, it is the state that
Despite the “comparable facility” limitation, the program
makes the decision to seek financial assistance under the
does allow some ER spending on resiliency features.
program, not the federal government. Local officials must
FHWA’s Emergency Relief Manual states that “while ER
work through state departments of transportation in seeking
funds are primarily provided for repair activities following
ER assistance.
a disaster; design and construction of repairs should
consider the long-term resilience of the facility.”
Funding
Congress provides funding in two ways. The ER program
There are generally two ways that resiliency features can be
has a permanent annual authorization of $100 million from
added to permanent repairs without violating the
the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Because the annual costs
comparable facility limitation or being an ineligible
of road repair and reconstruction following disasters usually
betterment:
exceed the $100 million annual authorization, the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L.
 Resiliency features that are consistent with current
114-94) also authorizes the appropriation of additional
standards may be added to ER projects. Roads and
funds on a “such sums as may be necessary” basis,
bridges that were built many years ago may be brought
generally accomplished in either annual or emergency
up to current “geometric and construction standards
supplemental appropriations legislation.
required for the types and volume of traffic that the
facility will carry over its design life.” Rebuilding to
current standards could mean, for example, the repaired
https://crsreports.congress.gov

After the Storm: Highway Reconstruction and Resilience
or replaced road or bridge could be built with better
Resiliency Policy Options
drainage or an improved waterway opening.
Resilience of U.S. highways has been an issue of growing
interest both within the context of individual disasters, as
 Resiliency features that will save the ER program
well as in regard to concerns about potential future
money over time may be eligible. Because it usually is
developments such as rising sea levels, earthquakes, or
inadvisable to restore a highway facility to its pre-
tsunamis. In general, the ER program is intended as a
disaster condition when this would leave it vulnerable to
reactive program for disaster response rather than a
repeated damage, the ER program in some cases allows
program to improve infrastructure resilience nationwide.
for funding of protective features. However, they must
Congress could encourage more attention to the disaster
be clearly economically justified to prevent future
resilience of U.S. highways and bridges in a number of
recurring damage. Economic justification must weigh
ways.
the cost of the protective feature to the ER program
against the risk of eligible recurring damage and the cost
Modify the Current Programs
of future repair. Among the protective changes that have
 The economic justification requirement for protective
been approved are projects that raised roadway grades,
features under the ER program could be broadened to
relocated roadways, lengthened bridges, deepened
consider benefits other than direct savings to the
channels, raised bridges, replaced culverts with bridges,
program, such as travel or economic disruption cost
and stabilized slide areas.
savings. Congress could fund this change by simply
providing more funds through the periodic ER
The ER program funds only the damaged parts of a road or
emergency appropriations and designating them for
bridge facility. Also, it is only a disaster response program.
resilience.
It does not provide funding for resiliency measures on
undamaged roads and bridges in preparation for possible
 The ER program’s mission could be expanded to make
future natural disasters.
improvements to address predicted future damage due to
Other FHWA Funding Sources for
future natural events, such as climate change,
Resiliency Features
earthquakes, or tsunamis, available for funding. This
could be funded by increasing the HTF authorization or
In the FAST Act, Congress authorized an average of $45
by providing annual appropriations.
billion annually (FY2016-FY2020) for federal-aid
highways. Most of these funds are apportioned to the states
 Congress could encourage states to use more of their
by formula. If a state wishes, it can spend these funds to
federal formula funds for resiliency measures by
design and build projects intended to make highways more
increasing the federal share of spending for such
resilient in the face of future disasters. A state can also use
purposes or by mandating that a portion of formula
formula funds to add protective features to ER program
funds be used in this way.
projects in cases where the features do not meet the ER
program’s required economic justification, but the state
Create a Stand-Alone Resiliency Program
believes improving the roadway’s resilience is
Congress could create a new stand-alone program dedicated
economically justifiable based on other factors such as
to preventative retrofitting or rebuilding of at-risk federal-
avoiding potential disruption of economic activity.
aid highways and bridges. This could be either a formula
program run by state departments of transportation or a
Current law and regulation (P.L. 112-141 §1315(b) as
discretionary program under the auspices of DOT.
implemented in 23 C.F.R. §667) already require that states
consider reasonable alternatives for road and bridge
 The resiliency program could be a competitive grant
facilities that have required repair or reconstruction two or
program, perhaps designed to fund resiliency projects
more times due to emergency events. Statewide surveys to
too expensive for many states to fund from their regular
identify these facilities on major roads are to be completed
formula funding. Competitive grant programs could be
by November 23, 2018. State departments of transportation
subject to political pressure or, if the current earmark
must consider the results of these evaluations during the
ban is lifted, earmarking.
development of transportation plans and during the
environmental review process that precedes construction of
 The resiliency program could be a new formula program
federally funded projects.
with a separate authorization. The distribution formula
could be based on risk factors in each state, perhaps
Despite this attention to resiliency measures, no dedicated
relying on the statewide evaluation currently being
federal resiliency funding has been provided. Resiliency
done, or other factors.
funding is to be drawn from existing programs.
Robert S. Kirk, Specialist in Transportation Policy
IF10728

https://crsreports.congress.gov

After the Storm: Highway Reconstruction and Resilience

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10728 · VERSION 2 · NEW