Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

August 29, 2018 – October 9, 2020 R45298

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads October 9, 2020
and Public Transportation Systems
Robert S. Kirk
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) provides federal assistance for d isaster-damaged
Specialist in
roads and public transportation systems through two programs: the Emergency Relief Program
Transportation Policy
(ER) administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Public

Transportation Emergency Relief Program administered by the Federal Transit Administration
William J. Mallett
(FTA). These programs are funded mainly by appropriations that have varied considerably from
Specialist in
year to year. Over time the amounts are substantial. Since FY2012, the Highway ER Program has
Transportation Policy
received nearly $9 billion; FTA’s ER Program has received $10.7 billion, all but about $340

million of which was in response to Hurricane Sandy, which occurred in 2012.
Federal-aid highways and public roads on federal lands are eligible for assistance under FHWA’s

ER Program. Following natural disasters (such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in 2017,
which damaged highways in Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), or catastrophic failures (such as the I-
5 overpass that was critically damaged in 2019 by an over-height truck near Chehalis, WA), ER funds are available for both
emergency repairs and restoration of facilities to predisaster conditions.
Although emergency relief for highways is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by a state government
or by a federal land management agency. Local governments are not eligible to apply. The program is funded by a permanent
annual authorization of $100 million from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) along with general fund appropriations provided
by Congress on a “such sums as necessary” basis. Appropriated ER funds have averaged roughly $900 million annually since
FY2012. FHWA pays 100% of the cost of emergency repairs done to minimize the extent of damage, to protect remaining
facilities, and to restore essential traffic during or immediately after a disaster. Emergency repairs must be completed with in
180 days of the disaster event. Permanent repairs go beyond the restoration of essential traffic and are intended to restore
damaged bridges and roads to conditions and capabilities comparable to those before the event. The federal share for
permanent repairs is generally 80% for non-Interstate roads and 90% for Interstate Highways. All ER funding is distributed
through state departments of transportation or federal land management agencies such as the National Park Service. Certain
“quick release” funds are allocated to help with initial emergency repair costs and may be released prior to completion of
detailed damage inspections and cost estimates. Other allocations to the states follow a more deliberate process of completing
detailed damage reports, developing cost estimates, and processing competitive bids.
Unlike the long-standing ER program in highways, the Public Transportation ER Program dates to 2012. The Public
Transportation ER Program provides federal funding on a reimbursement basis to public transportation agencies, states, and
other government authorities for damage to public transportation facilities or operations as a result of a natural disaster or
other emergency and to protect assets from future damage. The Public Transportation ER Program provides federal support
for both capital and operating expenses. Unlike the FHWA’s ER program, FTA’s ER program does not have a permanent
annual authorization. All funds are authorized on a “such sums as necessary” basis and are available only pursuant to an
appropriation from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. In the absence of an appropriation, transit agencies must rely on
funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There have been three appropriations to the Public
Transportation ER Program since its creation in 2012. More than $10 billion was appropriated in 2013 to respond to
Hurricane Sandy, $330 million was appropriated in 2018 to respond to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and $10.5
million was appropriated in 2019 for major declared disasters in 2018. The Public Transportation ER Program also gives the
Secretary of Transportation authority in an emergency to provide more flexibility in the use by transit agencies of urban and
rural formula program funds and to waive federal requirements concerning the use of federal funding. This authority has been
used in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While no Public Transportation ER Program
funding has been provided in response to the emergency brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, $25 billion was provided
directly by formula to transit agencies through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-
136).
Two recurring issues drawing congressional attention are funding levels and funding of activities that go beyond restoring
transportation facilities to predisaster conditions, such as making damaged highways more resilient to natural disasters.
FTA’s ER program has fewer limits and more flexibility than the emergency relief programs administered by FEMA and
FHWA; thus it too faces questions about expenditures that go beyond repairing damage from a disaster. The lack of a
permanent annual authorization for FTA means FTA cannot provide funding immediately after a disaster or emergency, and
transit agencies must rely on FEMA for a quick response.
Congressional Research Service

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

Introduction
Disaster-damaged roads and public transportation systems are eligible for federal assistance under
two U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) programs, the Emergency Relief (ER) Program
administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Public Transportation ER
Program administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The two programs have
different histories and legal and regulatory authorities, but they share a similar intent and face
some of the same issues. For example, there are concerns with both programs about the extent to
which federal y funded activities should go beyond restoring infrastructure to predisaster
conditions, including so-cal ed resilience projects.
This report begins by discussing FHWA assistance for the repair and reconstruction of highways
and bridges damaged by disasters (such as recent flood events, Western wildfires, and ongoing
permanent repairs to damage from the 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria) or catastrophic
failures (such as the I-5 overpass that was critical y damaged in 2019 by an over-height truck near
Chehalis, WA). The report includes information on the use of ER funds on disaster-damaged
federal y owned public-use roadways, such as National Park Service roads and U.S. Forest
Service roads, under an affiliated program, the Emergency Relief for Federal y Owned Roads
Program. This is followed by a discussion of FTA’s assistance program, established in 2012,
which has provided assistance to public transportation systems on three occasions, once after
Hurricane Sandy in 2012, after the 2017 hurricanes, and in 2019 for major declared disasters in
2018.
FHWA’s Emergency Relief (ER) Program
For over 80 years, federal aid has been available for the emergency repair and restoration of
disaster-damaged roads. The first legislation authorizing such use of federal funds was the
Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 993). This act, however, provided no separate funds,
and states subject to disasters had to divert their regularly apportioned federal highway funds
from other uses to repairing disaster-damaged roads.
The Federal-Aid Highway and Highway Revenue Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 374 and 70 Stat. 387) was
the first act that authorized separate funds for the ER program.1 From 1956 through 1978, funding
for the program was drawn 40% from the Treasury’s general fund revenues and 60% from the
Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The HTF is supported primarily by taxes paid by highway users,
mainly on gasoline and diesel fuel. Starting in 1979, the ER program was funded 100% from the
HTF. In 1998 Congress made the annual $100 mil ion HTF authorization permanent. However,
beginning in 2005, while Congress continued the $100 mil ion permanent authorization from the
HTF, it authorized supplemental appropriations from the general fund.2 On December 4, 2015, the
ER program was reauthorized through FY2020 in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation

1 T he program is codified at 23 U.S.C. §125.
2 Beginning with the December 30, 2005, enactment of the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148), ER
supplemental appropriations have been drawn from the general fund.
Congressional Research Service

1

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94).3 The FAST Act was extended through FY2021 on September 30,
2020.4
ER funds may be used for the repair and reconstruction of federal-aid highways and roads on
federal y owned lands that have suffered serious damage as a result of either (1) a natural disaster
over a wide area, such as a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, tornado, severe storm, or
landslide; or (2) a catastrophic failure from any external cause (for example, the collapse of a
bridge that is struck by a barge).5 Historical y, however, the vast majority of ER funds have gone
for repair and reconstruction following natural disasters.
As is true with most other FHWA programs, the ER program is administered through state
departments of transportation in close coordination with FHWA’s field offices in each state.6 The
decision to seek financial assistance under the program is made by state departments of
transportation, not by the federal government. Local officials who wish to seek ER funding must
do so through their state departments of transportation; they do not deal directly with FHWA. As
state departments of transportation normal y deal with FHWA division office (also referred to as
field office) staff in each state on many matters, they typical y have working relationships that
facilitate a quick coordinated response to disasters.
Public Use Roads on Federal Lands
For roads and bridges on federal y owned lands, ER assistance is managed via a related program,
cal ed Emergency Relief for Federal y Owned Roads. This program addresses disaster damage to
facilities such as National Park Service roads, U.S. Forest Service roads, and tribal transportation
facilities.7 FHWA dispenses these funds through the various federal land management agencies,
not the states.8 Aid is restricted to facilities that are open to the general public for use with a
standard passenger vehicle. FHWA pays 100% of the cost of approved repairs, but the program is
designed to pay for unusual y heavy expenses and to supplement the agencies’ repair programs,
not to cover al repair costs. Tribal, state, and other government entities that have the authority to
repair or reconstruct eligible facilities must apply through a federal land management agency.9
The program is managed by FHWA’s Office of Federal Lands Highways.

3 CRS Report R44388, Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114 -94), coordinated by Robert S. Kirk.
4 H.R. 8337, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act.
5 Federal Highway Administration, Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways), Washington, DC, May 31,
2013, pp. 1-67, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/erm/er.pdf.
6 CRS Report R44332, Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): In Brief, by Robert S. Kirk.
7 Federal Highway Administration, Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO): Web Site, at
https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/.
8 T he main land management agencies are the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, the National Park
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Some ER-eligible roads
also serve military installations and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and Department of Energy facilities. See FHWA,
Transportation Serving Federal and Tribal Lands, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2015cpr/pdfs/chap12.pdf.
9 Federal Highway Administration, Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads: Disaster Assistance Manual,
FHWA-FLH-15-001, Washington, DC, October 2014, pp. 1 -109, at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/documents/
erfo-2015.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 20 Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

ER Funding
The ER program has a permanent annual authorization of $100 mil ion in contract authority to be
derived from the HTF. These funds are not subject to the annual obligation limitation placed on
most highway funding by appropriators, which general y means the entire $100 mil ion is
available each year, although the funding could be subject to sequester.10 Because the costs of
road repair and reconstruction following disasters typical y exceed the $100 mil ion annual
authorization, the FAST Act authorizes the appropriation of additional funds on a “such sums as
may be necessary” basis, general y accomplished in either annual or emergency supplemental
appropriations legislation.11 For a listing of ER appropriations since 1998, see the Appendix.
These funds are available until expended.
As is true with other FHWA programs, ER is a reimbursable program. A state receives payment
only after making repairs and submitting vouchers to FHWA for reimbursement of the federal
share. However, once the state’s eligibility for ER funds has been confirmed by FHWA, it can
incur obligations knowing that it wil receive reimbursement.
The ER funding structure of having a modest annual authorization supplemented by
appropriations addressed the fact that smal disaster events occur every year but large disasters do
not. However, the $100 mil ion annual authorization has not changed since 1972. To equal the
current purchasing power of $100 mil ion in FY1972 would require an authorization in the
neighborhood of $500 mil ion to $600 mil ion.12 Because the value of the $100 mil ion permanent
authorization has diminished over time, the program has become increasingly dependent on
supplemental appropriations. Over the last 10 fiscal years, $8.1 bil ion in supplemental
appropriations have been provided in six appropriations acts. Roughly 10.4% of the total amount
made available was provided by the permanent annual authorization; the other 89.6% was
provided in appropriations acts. Consequently, a surface transportation reauthorization issue is
whether to raise the permanent annual authorization to account for its loss of value since 1972 or
to continue to rely heavily on supplemental appropriations to fund emergency repairs to
highways.
The Federal Share
Emergency repairs to restore essential travel, minimize the extent of damage, or protect remaining
facilities, if accomplished within 180 days after a disaster, may be reimbursed with a 100%
federal share. Permanent repair projects, such as rebuilding a bridge or a segment of damaged
road, are reimbursed at the same federal share that would normal y apply to the federal-aid

10 ER funds were subject to the FY2013 sequester under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as
amended. T he sequester amount for the $100 million of contract authority was $5.1 million, and the sequester amount
for the $2.022 billion of supplementary funds provided in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 ( P.L. 113-2)
was $101.1 million. See Federal Highway Administration, Sequestration of Highway Funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013,
Notice 4510.762, Washington, DC, March 22, 2013, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/
n4510762.cfm. Sequester amounts for the annually authorized $100 million in contract authority since FY2013 are as
follows: FY2014, $7.2 million; FY2015, $7.3 million; FY2016, $6.8 million; FY2017, $6.9 million; FY2018, $6.6
million; FY2019, $6.2 million; and FY2020, $5.9 million.
11 T he extensive damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 raised doubts about whether emergency supplemental
ER expenditures could be drawn from the highway account of the HT F without constraining the ability of the HT F to
fully fund other authorized surface transportation programs. For that reason, supplemental ER appropriations have
come from the general fund since December 2005.
12 T he amount varies depending on the deflator used: using the GDP deflator calculates to $473 million; the Consumer
Price Index calculat es to $630 million.
Congressional Research Service

3

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

highway facility. For Interstate System highways the federal share would be 90%, and for most
other highways, including Federal Lands Access Program facilities,13 the share would be 80%. If
the total expenses a state incurs to deal with disaster-damaged roads in a fiscal year exceed the
state’s total federal-aid highway formula funds for that year, the share becomes “up to 90%” for
any federal-aid road. The requirement that the state provide a share of the funding for permanent
repairs applies whether or not the repairs are completed during the first 180 days after the
disaster.
Congress has on occasion authorized FHWA to pay 100% of ER program expenses for repair and
reconstruction projects related to particular disasters. Legislation for that purpose was enacted
following the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes and the collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis in
2007. More recently, a provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) provided for
a 100% federal share for damage caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in Puerto Rico in 2017.
Eligibility and Program Operation14
The ER program divides al repair work into two categories: emergency repairs and permanent
repairs. Only repairs on federal-aid highways or federal y owned roads and bridges that have
suffered damage during a declared disaster or catastrophic failure are eligible for ER assistance.15
The intent of ER assistance is to restore highway facilities to conditions comparable to those
before the disaster, not to increase capacity or fix non-disaster-related deficiencies. However,
current law broadly defines “comparable facility” as one that “meets the current geometric and
construction standards required for the types and volume of traffic that the facility wil carry over
its design life.” Thus, for example, ER funds could be used to rebuild an older disaster-damaged
road or bridge that had narrow lanes with wider lanes that meet current FHWA guidelines.
FHWA’s ER handbook also directs that “design and construction of repairs should consider the
long-term resilience of the facility.” FHWA defines resilience as the “capability to anticipate,
prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant multi-hazard threats with minimum damage
to social wel -being, the economy, and the environment.”16
In regard to bridges, ER funds are not to be used if the construction phase of a replacement
structure has already been included in the state’s approved transportation improvement program

13 Federal Lands Access Program is for roads that are located on or adjacent to, or that provide access to, federal lands.
T he funds are allocated to the states using a formula based on mileage, number of bridges, land area, and visitation. See
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Access Program : Fact Sheet, Washington, DC, February 8, 2017, at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/fedlandsaccessfs.cfm.
14 Federal Highway Administration, Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways), Washington, DC, May 31,
2013, pp. 1-67, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/erm/er.pdf.
15 A governor may issue a formal proclamation of the occurrence of a disaster. A presidential declaration or the
governor’s request for this declaration can serve the same purpose. T he state files a letter of intent to apply for ER
funding with the FHWA division office within the state. T he FHWA division administrator may then concur that a
disaster occurred and substantial damage has occurred to federal-aid highway system roads, or that the criteria for a
catastrophic failure were met and that the damage is eligible under 23 U.S.C. §125. When the President has issued a
major disaster declaration, the division administrator’s concurrence is not necessary. See Federal Highway
Administration, Em ergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways), Washington, DC, updated May 31, 2013, at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/erm/er.pdf, pp. 30-31. FHWA (via the director of each Federal Lands Highway
Division) determines whether a disaster has occurred in regard to Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads,
although this is not necessary when there has been a presidential declaration of a major disaster.
16 FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service

4

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

at the time of the disaster or if the bridge had been permanently closed to vehicular traffic prior to
the disaster.
Contracts supported by ER funding must meet al conditions required by 23 C.F.R. Part 633A,
which regulates highway contracts involving federal funding. Al contractors receiving ER funds
must pay prevailing wages as required under the Davis-Bacon Act.17 ER-funded contracts must
abide by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises requirements, Americans With Disability Act
requirements, “Buy America” regulations, and prohibitions against the use of convict labor (23
U.S.C. §114).18
Repair projects funded under the ER program are subject to the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The impact, however, is general y limited because
work funded by the ER program general y must occur within the federal-aid highway right-of-
way. This means that emergency repairs are normal y classified as categorical exclusions under
23 C.F.R. §771.117(c)(9), as are projects to permanently restore an existing facility “in kind” to
its predisaster condition. “Betterments” (e.g., added protective features, added lanes, and added
access control) may, in some cases, require NEPA review.
States must apply and provide a comprehensive list of al eligible project sites and repair costs
within two years of the disaster or catastrophic event.
Emergency Repairs
State and local transportation agencies can begin emergency repairs during or immediately
following a disaster to meet the program goals to “restore essential traffic, to minimize the extent
of damage, or to protect the remaining facilities.”19 Prior approval from FHWA is not required.
Once the FHWA division administrator finds that the disaster work is eligible, properly
documented costs can be reimbursed retrospectively. To be eligible for a 100% federal share,
emergency repair work must be accomplished within 180 days of the disaster, although FHWA
may extend this time period if there is a delay in access to the damaged areas, for example due to
flooding. Examples of emergency repairs are regrading roads, removal of landslides, construction
of temporary road detours, erection of temporary detour bridges, and use of ferries as an interim
substitute for highway or bridge service. Debris removal is general y the responsibility of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).20 Debris removal from tribal transportation
facilities, federal land transportation facilities, and on other federal y owned roads open to public
travel is eligible for funding under the Emergency Relief for Federal y Owned Roads program.
The emergency repair provisions in the ER program are designed to permit work to start
immediately, ahead of a finding of eligibility and programming of a project. In some instances,
state departments of transportation have been able to let initial ER-funded contracts on the day of

17 T he Davis-Bacon requirements can be suspended by executive order (ref. 40 U.S.C. §276a-5). President George W.
Bush did this in response to Hurricane Katrina. He reimposed the requirements on November 8, 2005.
18 A state may request a waiver of the Buy America requirements from FHWA based on a public interest rationale
under 23 C.F.R. §635.4109(c)(1)(i).
19 Federal Highway Administration, Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways).
20 T he 2012 authorization act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141), restricted
debris removal under ER to events not declared a major disaster by the President or declared a major disaster but where
debris removal is not eligible under the Stafford Act.
Congressional Research Service

5

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

a disaster event.21 Emergency repairs do not have to adhere to normal competitive bidding
requirements and are general y treated as categorical exclusions under NEPA.22
Permanent Repairs
Permanent repairs go beyond the restoration of essential traffic and are intended to restore
damaged bridges and roads to conditions and capabilities comparable to those before the event.23
General y, where the damaged parts of the road can be repaired without replacement or
reconstruction, this is done. Current law includes a limitation that the total cost of an ER project
cannot exceed the cost of repair or reconstruction of a comparable facility.
ER funds may be used for temporary or permanent repair of a repairable bridge or tunnel. If a
bridge is destroyed or repair is not feasible, then ER funds may participate in building a new,
comparable bridge to current design standards and to accommodate traffic volume projected over
its design life. In some cases betterments may be eligible, but they must be shown to be
economical y justified based on a cost/benefit analysis of the future savings in recurring repair
costs.
Permanent repair and reconstruction contracts not classified as emergency repairs must meet
competitive bidding requirements. A number of techniques are available to accelerate projects,
including design-build contracting, abbreviated plans, shortened advertisement periods for bids,
and cost-plus-time (A+B) bidding24 that includes monetary incentive/disincentive clauses
designed to encourage contractors to complete projects ahead of time. For example, the contract
for the replacement of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis, which collapsed in August 2007, used
incentives for early completion. The new bridge was built in 11 months and was completed three
months ahead of schedule.25
ER Funding Distribution and Management
Because the program is funded primarily through supplemental appropriations, the amounts
available for distribution can vary greatly from year to year. The amount available at any one
time, however, is limited. FHWA manages the distribution of these limited funds through a
process of al ocations and withdrawals as wel as procedures to manage funding shortfal s.
There are two processes used to apply for ER funds following a disaster: quick release and the
standard method. Al ocations for quick-release funding often occur individual y, whereas standard
al ocations are periodical y distributed to al eligible states nationwide at one time.

21 T his occurred following the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California. See Effects of Catastrophic Events on
Transportation System Managem ent and Operations (Washington, DC: FHWA, 2004), pp. 37-45.
22 23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c)(9)(i).
23 FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual, pp. 21-24.
24 Cost-plus-time bidding (A+B method) includes two components. The A component is the traditional bid for all work
to be performed. T he B component is a bid of the total number of calendar days required to complete the project. T he
contract includes a disincentive for overrunning the time bid and an incentive for earlier completion.
25 Minnesota Department of T ransportation, Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis, at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
i35wbridge/index.html.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

“Quick Release” ER Allocations
The FHWA Emergency Relief Manual describes the “quick release” method for developing and
processing a state request for ER funding as a method that
provides limited, initial ER funds for large disasters quickly. Quick Release applications
are processed based on preliminary assessment of damage and a damage survey typicaly
does not accompany the application. Quick release funds are intended as a “down payment”
to immediately provide funds for emergency operations until the standard application may
be submitted and approved.26
A total of $140 mil ion of quick-release funding has been al ocated for road damage from
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria; see Table 1. Other examples of quick-release al ocations
include $5 mil ion for earthquake-damaged roads in Puerto Rico on January 16, 2020; $5 mil ion
for flood-damaged roads in Alabama on March 11, 2020; and $2 mil ion for flood-damaged roads
in Kentucky on March 11, 2020.
FHWA holds some funding in reserve to assure that there wil always be funds available for
quick-release needs. The amount reserved is at the discretion of the FHWA Administrator with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation.
Nationwide ER Allocations
The standard application method is more deliberate, requiring that site inspections and a damage
survey summary report be submitted to the division office. This process is mostly used for
permanent repairs. The standard al ocations address both recent and backlogged project needs
from past disasters.27 Money is usual y al ocated twice each fiscal year. In FY2018, FHWA
released two nationwide al ocations of ER funds totaling $1.35 bil ion, in addition to $226 mil ion
for disaster-damaged roads on federal lands. The two FY2019 al ocations totaled $1.29 bil ion
plus $282 mil ion for federal lands. The two FY2020 al ocations totaled $1.06 bil ion plus $165
mil ion for federal lands. These al ocations funded a wide range of disaster response road and
bridge repairs in al regions of the United States, including damage from the 2018 earthquake in
Alaska, repeated wildfires and flooding in California, flooding across the Midwest, and damage
from hurricanes Michael, Florence, and Dorian in the East. Al ocations to the ongoing repairs to
damage from the 2017 hurricanes appear in Table 1.
2017 Hurricanes: Harvey, Irma, and Maria
In the wake of the 2017 hurricanes, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 provided a supplemental
appropriation of $1.4 bil ion for the ER program. The language providing additional
appropriations did not specify which disasters the funds were to be used for. The act did include a
special provision raising the federal share to 100% for ER funds made available to Puerto Rico to
respond to damage cause by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Table 1 presents the al ocations of ER
funding attributable to these disaster events through September 29, 2020.

26 FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual, pp. 30, 33-34, at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/erm/er.pdf.
27 Federal Highway Administration, Emergency Relief Program , Policy and Guidance, Washington, DC, April 17,
2018, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

7

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

Table 1. Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Maria Allocations
(through September 29, 2020, in current $)
Quick
Release
Total
Allocations
Allocation
Allocated
State
Disaster Event
Date Range
($)
($)
($)
Texas
Hurricane Harvey
8/29/2017-9/05/2019
25,000,000
76,542,393
101,542,393
Florida
Hurricane Irma
9/11/2017-2/27/2020
25,000,000
103,277,927
128,277,927
Puerto Rico
Hurricanes Irma &
9/14/2017-9/29/2020
77,500,000
467,075,656
544,575,656
Maria
Virgin
Hurricanes Irma &
9/13/2017-2/27/2020
12,900,000
56,542,910
69,442,910
Islands
Maria
Total

140,400,000
703,438,886
843,838,886
Source: Federal Highway Administration. Includes withdrawals of $1.6 mil ion on November 22, 2017, and $7
mil ion on June 8, 2018, of Virgin Islands’ al ocations. Additional al ocations after June 8, 2018, were compiled by
CRS from FHWA al ocation memoranda available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm. Some
recent withdrawals or real ocations may not be included. Figures include al ocations for Emergency Relief for
Federal y Owned Roads.
Funds Management
Once funding is al ocated for a disaster event, FHWA can enter into project agreements and incur
obligations (which legal y commit the federal government to pay the federal share). If funds are
unavailable, the request is added to a list of unfunded requests.28
Typical y, requests for al ocations exceed the available ER funding. For example, as of October
28, 2019, FHWA had an unal ocated balance of $1,222 mil ion available to respond to unfunded
requests of $2,109 mil ion, leaving a shortfal of $887 mil ion.29 Because FHWA may not commit
to funding beyond its authorized and appropriated amounts, FHWA adjusts the distribution of
funds to stay within the program’s means.
When the unal ocated balance is insufficient to cover the reserved quick release funds and the
upcoming biannual nationwide distribution, the distributions are provided on a proportional basis.
Each state’s al ocation would be computed based on a ratio of total available funding to total
needs. FHWA cannot make the al ocations whole unless Congress makes additional ER funding
available. FHWA also has the option of skipping or delaying a standard nationwide distribution,
al owing time for its funds to be replenished via the annual $100 mil ion authorization or further
supplemental appropriations.
During a funding shortfal , ER projects can be funded using a state’s regular formula funds under
the Federal-Aid Highway Program. That funding would then be reimbursed when and if ER funds
become available. This, however, could lead to delays in the funding of other planned projects as
the state awaits reimbursement from ER funds.

28 T he unfunded request list includes state and federal land management agency estimates for both recent disaster
events and older disasters as well as for projects that were funded using state funds and are awaiting reimbursement.
29 Federal Highway Administration, Emergency Relief (ER) Program Obligation Plans as of October 28, 2019 ,
Washington, DC, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

8

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

FHWA reviews the unobligated and unexpended balances of funds that have been al ocated on a
monthly basis and coordinates the withdrawal of excess ER funds. Withdrawn funds are then
available for real ocation. The agency also tracks recovery of insurance proceeds every six
months. These proceeds are then available for al ocation.30
Program Oversight Issues
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports in 2007 and 2011 expressed concern about the
financial sustainability of the ER program. Both reports found that the scope of the ER program
had expanded beyond its original goal of restoring damaged facilities to predisaster conditions,
described as “mission creep.” The reports also raised questions about FHWA’s ability to recapture
unused funds that it had al ocated to states.31
In addition, a 2012 GAO report found that FHWA officials in some states were reluctant to
recoup funds from inactive ER highway projects over concerns about “harming their partnership
with the state.” In addition, “FHWA has shown a lack of independence in decisions, putting its
partners’ interests above federal interests,” GAO said.32 A broader issue, which may influence the
states’ reluctance to agree with the withdrawal of unused al ocations, is the “available until
expended” nature of the ER funding. Federal-Aid Highway formula funds are general y available
for obligation for only four years. This difference could encourage some states to commit their
limited matching state funds to non-ER projects first for fear of having their Federal-Aid
Highway funding expire. Congress could consider placing a time limit on the availability of ER
funds for obligation to encourage states to prioritize the obligation of funds to ER projects.33
Since the release of these reports, legal and procedural changes have mitigated some of GAO’s
concerns. FHWA has updated the Emergency Relief Manual to clarify eligibility and procedural
issues. States’ applications for ER funding must now include a comprehensive list of al eligible
project sites and repair costs by not later than two years after the event. The definition of
“comparable facility” has broadened and clarified the non-betterment repairs that are eligible for
ER funding. In 2016, FHWA issued an order, “Emergency Relief Program Responsibilities,”
providing procedures to further “strengthen the administration and oversight of the ER program
to ensure the effective use of limited ER funding for eligible projects.”34
In October 2019, GAO released a report that found that FHWA did not document its
decisionmaking when classifying a project as an emergency repair and therefore eligible for
100% federal share and expedited contracting and environmental procedures.35 GAO identified

30 Federal Highway Administration, Emergency Relief Program Responsibilities, FHWA Order 5182.1, Washington,
DC, February 22, 2016, p. 9, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/51821.cfm.
31 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Highway Emergency Relief: Reexamination Needed to Address Fiscal
Im balance and Long-term Sustainability, GAO-07-245, February 23, 2007, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-
245; Government Accountability Office, Highway Em ergency Relief: Strengthened Oversight of Project Eligibility
Decisions Needed, GAO-12-45, November 2011, pp. 1-56, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-45.
32 GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Federal-State Partnership Produces Benefits and Poses Oversight Risks, GAO-12-
474, April 2012, pp. 21-22, 27-28, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-474.
33 Limiting the availability of ER funds to a specific number of years is not a new concept. See U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Public Works, Em ergency Highway Relief, Report to accompany H.R. 6790, 89 th Cong., 1st sess., July 7,
1965, H. Rept. 89-596 (Washington: GPO, 1965), p. 7. T he report recommended an availability of three years. T he
provision was not included in the legislation as passed (P.L. 80 -41).
34 Federal Highway Administration, “Emergency Relief Program Responsibilities,” FHWA Order 5182.1, February 22,
2016, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/51821.cfm.
35 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Highway Emergency Relief: the Federal Highway Administration Should
Congressional Research Service

9

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

projects that had been inappropriately classified and recommended that FHWA document its
emergency repair decisions and clearly define what constitutes restoration of essential traffic . It
also urged FHWA to clarify its policy on when expedited contracting and environmental
procedures are al owed.
The effectiveness of these changes could be of congressional oversight interest.
DOT Inspector General Report
In January 2018, the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (IG) released a
review of FHWA’s “guidance and processes for incorporating resilience improvement into
emergency relief projects to rebuild damaged highway infrastructure.”36 The report found that
FHWA’s ER program guidance did not define “resilience improvement” or inform states how to
incorporate resilience improvements into ER-funded projects. The report also found that FHWA
had no process to track efforts by state transportation departments to include resilience
improvements in their ER-funded projects.37 The IG recommended that FHWA
1. revise the ER Manual to include a definition of “resilience improvement” and to
identify procedures states should use to incorporate resilience into ER projects;
2. develop best practices for improving the resilience of ER projects and share them
with the Division Offices and the state departments of transportation; and
3. develop and implement a process to track the consideration of resilience
improvements for ER projects and their costs.
FHWA concurred with recommendations 1 and 2. The Emergency Relief Manual is in the process
of being updated. In FY2021 the FHWA Office of Infrastructure is to prepare a series of case
studies on implementation of resilience measures as part of ER repairs. In regard to
recommendation 3, to help FHWA gather information on the extent of the application of
resilience improvements, FHWA established an Emergency Relief Data Portal where agencies can
identify whether resilience improvements have been considered or implemented in repairs in
regard to new disaster events and sites. Implementation of these measures could be of oversight
interest to Congress.
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program
The Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program (49 U.S.C. §5324; 49 C.F.R. §602),
established in Section 20017 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21;
P.L. 112-141), is administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and is similar in intent
to FHWA’s ER program. FTA’s program provides federal funding on a reimbursement basis to
states, territories, local government authorities, Indian tribes, and public transportation agencies
for damage to public transportation facilities or operations as a result of a natural disaster or other

Enhance Accountability over Project Decisions, GAO 20-32, October 2019, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-
32.
36 U.S. Department of T ransportation Inspector General, FHWA Lacks Detailed Guidance on Infrastructure Resilience
for Emergency Relief Project and a Process to T rack Related Improvements, January 10, 2018, pp. 1 -20, at
https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FHWA%20ER%20Resilience%20Final%20Report%5E1 -10-18.pdf.
37 T he IG concluded that the ER Manual definition of resilience was stricter than the definition in FHWA’s subsequent
policy directive on resilience; see FHWA, Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Clim ate Change and
Extrem e Weather Events, FHWA Order 520, December 15, 2014, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/
orders/5520.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

10

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

emergency and to protect assets from future damage.38 In the past, funding for these purposes was
provided by FEMA or through appropriations administered by FTA following a specific disaster.
For example, in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which caused severe
damage to rapid transit lines in New York City, about $4.7 bil ion was provided in emergency
supplemental appropriations for transit, some of which was administered by FTA.39
The Public Transportation ER Program provides federal support for both capital and operating
expenses. Capital expenses include projects for repairing and replacing transit facilities that have
been damaged, as wel as projects to protect facilities from future damage, know n as resilience
projects. Sometimes a capital project can involve both damage restoration and resilience
elements. Operating expenses include evacuation activities, rescue operations, and temporary
transit service before, during, or after an emergency event. Operating costs are eligible for
reimbursement for one year beginning on the date a disaster is declared, although the Secretary of
Transportation may extend that period to two years after determining a compel ing need.40
The Public Transportation ER Program also gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to
provide more flexibility to transit agencies in the use of urban and rural formula program funds
for emergency purposes and to waive federal requirements in the use of federal funding. For
example, noncompetitive procurement can be al owed in an emergency when a competitive
bidding process would be too time-consuming.
Funding and Federal Share
Unlike the FHWA’s ER program, FTA’s ER program does not have a permanent annual
authorization. Al funds are authorized on a “such sums as necessary” basis and require an
appropriation from the Treasury’s general fund. The federal share for most capital and operating
projects under the program is 80%, but the Secretary of Transportation may increase this share up
to 100%. Emergency funding wil not be provided when project costs are reimbursed by another
federal agency, such as FEMA, have been funded through insurance proceeds, or are already
funded in an existing FTA grant.
There have been three appropriations to the Public Transportation ER Program since its
enactment in 2012. Funds were appropriated as part of (1) the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act
(P.L. 113-2) in January 2013 in response to Hurricane Sandy, which struck the United States in
October 2012; (2) the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) in response to Hurricane
Harvey, which struck the United States in August 2017, and Hurricanes Irma and Maria, which
struck the United States in September 2017; and (3) the Additional Supplemental Appropriations
for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-20) in June 2019 in response to several extreme weather
events and an earthquake in 2018.
Hurricane Sandy
Hurricane Sandy affected 12 states and the District of Columbia; New York and New Jersey,
states with some of the largest public transportation systems in the country, were the hardest hit.

38 Federal T ransit Administration (FT A), Emergency Relief Manual: A Reference Manual for States & Transit Agencies
on Response and Recovery from Declared Disasters and FTA’s Emergency Relief Program (49 U.S.C. 5324), at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FT A_Emergency_Relief_Manual_and_Guide_ -_Sept_2015.pdf.
39 GAO, September 11: Overview of Federal Disaster Assistance to the New York City Area , October 2003, GAO-04-
72.
40 49 U.S.C. §5324(b)(2).
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 provided $10.9 bil ion for FTA’s Public
Transportation ER Program for recovery, relief, and resilience projects and activities in areas
impacted by Hurricane Sandy. Approximately $10.4 bil ion remained available after sequestration
under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), and $185 mil ion was transferred from FTA
to the Federal Railroad Administration. FTA al ocated the remaining approximately $10.2 bil ion
according to several funding categories:41
 $5.2 bil ion for response, recovery, and rebuilding costs incurred by affected
agencies;
 $1.3 bil ion for local y prioritized resilience projects at designated transportation
agencies in the New York metropolitan area;
 $3.6 bil ion for competitive resilience projects that wil protect or otherwise
increase the resilience of public transportation equipment and facilities to future
hurricanes and storms in the areas affected by Hurricane Sandy;42 and
 $76 mil ion for oversight and administration.
According to FTA, approximately $9.3 bil ion of the Hurricane Sandy funding had been obligated
by March 31, 2020.43
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria
Congress appropriated $330 mil ion for FTA’s Public Transportation ER Program in response to
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria on February 9, 2018. Damage to transit systems associated
with Hurricane Harvey was concentrated in Texas, particularly flooding in Houston, and the
damage associated with Hurricane Irma was concentrated in Puerto Rico and Florida. Hurricane
Maria’s effects on transit systems were concentrated in Puerto Rico. On May 31, 2018, FTA
announced its al ocation of these funds by purpose and location (Table 2).44

41 FT A, “Fourth Allocation of Public T ransportation Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricane Sandy,” 81
Federal Register 43705-43707, July 5, 2016; See also FT A, “ Notice of Funding Availability for Resilience Projects in
Response to Hurricane Sandy,” 78 Federal Register 78486-78493, December 26, 2013; FT A, “Notice of Availability of
Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricane Sandy,” 78 Federal Register 8691-8697, February 6, 2013; “ Second
Allocation of Public T ransportation Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricane Sandy: Response, Recovery &
Resiliency,” 78 Federal Register 32296-32302, May 29, 2013 (see also correction of June 4, 2013, 33467 -33468).
42 FT A, “Resilience Projects in Response to Hurricane Sandy,” September 22, 2014, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/
funding/grant -programs/emergency-relief-program/resilience-projects-response-hurricane-sandy.
43 FT A, “ FT A Grants Awarded for Hurricane Sandy Recovery and Resiliency ,” at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/
grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/fta-grants-awarded-hurricane-sandy-recovery-and.
44 FT A, “Allocation of Public T ransportation Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria,” 83 Federal Register 25104-25108, May 31, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 16 Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

Table 2. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria Public Transportation ER Allocations
Response, Recovery,
State/Territory
and Rebuilding
Resilience
Total
Florida
$16,163,000
$6,619,000
$22,782,000
Georgia
$187,000
—
$187,000
Puerto Rico
$197,789,000
$25,721,000
$223,510,000
Texas
$16,615,000
$6,713,000
$23,328,000
Virgin Islands
$1,554,000
$5,164,000
$6,718,000
Total
$232,308,000
$44,217,000
$276,525,000
Al ocation for states and direct recipients without a direct al ocation
$1,000,000
Unal ocated

$50,000,000
Reserved for administrative expenses and program management oversight
$2,475,000
Total appropriation

$330,000,000
Source: Federal Transit Administration, “Al ocation of Public Transportation Emergency Relief Funds in
Response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria,” 83 Federal Register 25104-25108, May 31, 2018.
Note: Unal ocated is held in reserve for “latent damages, damages not assessed in smal er areas, cost increases,
and additional Emergency Relief needs.”
Extreme Weather and Earthquake in 2018
Congress appropriated $10.5 mil ion for the Public Transportation ER Program for major
declared disasters in 2018. FTA al ocated these funds, less 0.75% for administration, for damage
caused by events including Hurricanes Michael and Florence, Typhoon Mangkhut and Super
Typhoon Yutu, and the earthquake that occurred in Alaska on November 30, 2018 (Table 3).
Table 3. ER Funding Allocations for Major Declared Disasters in 2018
State/Territory
Disaster
Funding Recipient
Amount
Alaska
Flooding (May 11-13, 2018)
Alaska Railroad Corporation
$797,000
Alaska
Earthquake (Nov. 30, 2018)
Alaska Railroad Corporation
$5,475,935
Alaska
Earthquake (Nov. 30, 2018)
Municipality of Anchorage
$159,000
Florida
Hurricane Michael (Oct. 7-19,
Bay County Transportation
$3,643,000
2018)
Organization
Northern Mariana
Typhoon Mangkhut (Sept. 10-
Commonwealth Office of
$351,000
Islands
11, 2018) and Super Typhoon
Transit Authority
Yutu (Oct. 24-26, 2018)
North Carolina
Hurricane Florence (Sept. 7-
Research Triangle Regional
$29,000
29)
Public Transportation
Authority
South Carolina
Hurricane Florence (Sept. 7-
Charleston Area Regional
$8,000
29)
Transportation Authority

Reserved for administrative expenses and program management oversight (0.75%)
$790,650
Total appropriation

$10,542,000
Congressional Research Service

13

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

Source: Federal Transit Administration, “FTA Emergency Relief Funding Al ocations for Transit Systems
Affected by Major Declared Disasters Occurring in 2018,” at https://www.transit.dot.gov/grant-programs/
emergency-relief-program/fta-emergency-relief-funding-al ocations-transit-systems.
Notes: Dates are incident periods as determined by FEMA.
ER Program Authority and the COVID-19 Pandemic
No Public Transportation ER Program funding was provided in response to the emergency
brought on by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Instead, $25 bil ion was provided directly
by formula to transit agencies through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). However, FTA used authority provided in the Public Transportation
ER Program to al ow transit agencies to use regular urban and rural formula funds for capital and
operating expenses directly related to the COVID-19 emergency, such as vehicle cleaning and
temporary transit services. FTA permitted transit agencies to use federal funds for emergency-
related operating expenses with a 100% federal share, even in large urban areas where using
federal funds for operating expenses is typical y not al owed. FTA also established a mechanism
for transit agencies to request temporary relief from federal requirements.45
Program Issues
Because the Public Transportation ER Program does not have a permanent annual authorization,
FTA cannot provide funding immediately after a disaster or emergency. Transit agencies,
therefore, typical y rely on FEMA for funding their immediate needs. GAO observes that this
could make it more difficult for transit agencies to respond immediately after a disaster, and that
the reliance on FEMA can cause transit agencies to be confused about which federal agency to
approach for help if FTA funds later become available. A memorandum of understanding between
FEMA and FTA seeks to coordinate their roles and responsibilities, but FTA cannot define its role
with certainty ahead of an appropriation. Consequently, as GAO has noted, “FTA and FEMA wil
have to determine their specific roles and responsibilities on a per-incident basis.”46
Adding a quick-release mechanism to FTA’s ER program, similar to that in FHWA’s ER
program, would al ow FTA funds to be approved and distributed within a few days of a disaster.
FHWA’s ER program has an annual authorization of funds from the HTF, and FTA’s program
could similarly be authorized an amount from the mass transit account of the fund. Such an
authorization, however, would place a new claim on resources of the HTF, adding to the current
gap between revenues and outlays.47
GAO has observed that FTA’s ER program has fewer limits and more flexibility than the
emergency relief programs administered by FEMA and, to some extent, FHWA.48 The FTA’s ER
program, for example, does not have a limit on the amount that can be spent on resilience projects
as FEMA funding does, and it also al ows damaged assets to be improved or upgraded when
being replaced. FEMA funding is general y limited to restoring a facility to its predisaster design.

45 Federal T ransit Administration, “ U.S. Department of T ransportation Announces Increased Flexibility to Help T ransit
Agencies Respond to Coronavirus,” March 13, 2020, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department -
transportation-announces-increased-flexibility-help-transit-agencies.
46 GAO, Emergency Transportation Relief: Agencies Could Improve Collaboration Begun during Hurricane Sandy
Response, GAO-14-512, May 28, 2014, p. 29, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663627.pdf.
47 CRS Report R44674, Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation , by Robert S. Kirk and William
J. Mallett .
48 GAO, Emergency Transportation Relief, pp. 16-22.
Congressional Research Service

14

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

But, as FTA notes, “it may not always be feasible or advisable to replace damaged assets with
identical facilities, vehicles, or equipment. As a result, projects to repair, replace, or reconstruct
assets may include improvements and upgrades as necessary to meet current safety and design
standards.”49 FTA ER funding can also be spent on a project that is included in a statewide
transportation improvement program (STIP), whereas FHWA ER funding cannot be used, for
example, to permanently repair or reconstruct a bridge if the construction phase of the project is
included in the STIP at the time of a disaster.50
Although there may be advantages to including upgrades and resilience with Public
Transportation ER funds, including these elements requires Congress to appropriate larger
amounts than might otherwise be necessary. ER could also be a way for transit agencies to fund
projects that have little direct connection to the goals of repairing damages and making the transit
systems resilient to future storm events. GAO found that some Hurricane Sandy funding awards
were used for projects that were probably outside the scope of the program.51
ER Resilience Policy Issues
The resilience of U.S. highway and public transportation infrastructure has been a growing issue
both within the context of broad concerns about the impacts of climate change as wel as regional
concerns such as fears of an earthquake generating a tsunami in the Cascadia subduction zone, off
the Pacific Northwest coast.52 The existing ER programs are primarily reactive programs. For
example, the current highway ER program does not al ow expenditure of emergency relief funds
to improve the resilience of facilities not damaged by a natural disaster or catastrophic event,
although states may use their regularly apportioned federal-aid highway funds on such resilience
projects. Also, resilience measures on damaged highway facilities are eligible for highway ER
funding only if they are consistent with current rules on “betterments” and wil save the program
money in the long run.53 Despite these limitations, the ER Manual states that “while ER funds are
primarily provided for repair activities following a disaster; design and construction of repairs
should consider the long term resilience of the facility.”
The Public Transportation Emergency ER program’s eligibility for resilience projects is broader
than the highway ER program and has even al ocated funds specifical y for resilience purposes.
If it wished, Congress could encourage attention to surface transportation infrastructure resilience
in a number of ways, including the following:
 Retaining the current programmatic structure, but broadening eligibilities to
al ow for more funding of resilience measures than al owed under current law. In
the case of highways, for example, this could be done by expanding the funding
of “betterments” to al ow for benefits other than direct savings to the ER
program. Congress could provide additional funds through the appropriations
process to facilitate increased resilience measures following disasters.

49 FT A, Emergency Relief Manual, p. 30.
50 GAO, Emergency Transportation Relief, p. 19.
51 GAO, DOT Discretionary Grants: Problems with Hurricane Sandy Transit Grant Selection Process Highlight the
Need for Additional Accountability, GAO-17-20, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/681603.pdf.
52 State of Oregon, Office of Emergency Management, State of Oregon Cascadia Subduction Zone Catastrophic
Earthquake and Tsunam i Operations Plan , September 2012, at http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/Pages/plans_train/
CSZ.aspx.
53 CRS In Focus IF10728, After the Storm: Highway Reconstruction and Resilience, by Robert S. Kirk.
Congressional Research Service

15

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

 Expanding the resilience mission and funding of the two existing ER programs.
The mission could, for example, be expanded to more fully cover climate change
risk to undamaged surface transportation infrastructure. The additional amounts
could be made available in annual or supplemental appropriations bil s as needed.
This could, however, increase demands for ER funds and again raise concerns
about “mission creep.”
 Creating a stand-alone program dedicated to preventive retrofitting or rebuilding
of at-risk road and public transportation infrastructure. The program could be
authorized permanently or as part of the normal surface transportation
authorization of funds from the HTF. This could, however, widen the existing gap
between HTF revenues and outlays.
 Encouraging the states and transportation authorities to use their federal formula
funds for resilience efforts by providing an increased federal share for resilience
projects.
The extension of the FAST Act through FY2021 effectively shifts the congressional consideration
of resilience measures in surface transportation reauthorization into the 117th Congress.54

54 T wo bills to reauthorize surface transportation programs saw action in the 116 th Congress. In August 2019, the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works unanimously reported the America’s T ransportation
Infrastructure Act of 2019 (AT IA; S. 2302). In July 2020, the House of Representatives passed the Investing in a New
Vision for the Environment and Surface T ransportation (INVEST ) in America Act as part of the larger Mo ving
Forward Act (H.R. 2). Both bills would have made modest changes to the highway ER program’s eligibility
requirements to encourage the inclusion of resilience features in the progr am’s repair projects. T he bills also include
broader climate adaptation programs and provisions that would fund and encourage resilience efforts. See CRS Report
R46452, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Clim ate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302 , by William J. Mallett , pp.
11-13. Neither of these bills was enacted; instead, Congress extended the authorizations of surface transportation
programs through September 30, 2021, in the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021, and Other Extensions Act (P.L.
116-159).
Congressional Research Service

16

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

Appendix. ER Program Appropriations
Table A-1. Appropriated Funds for the FHWA ER Program: 1998-2020
(excludes annual $100 mil ion permanent authorization)
Date
Highway
General
Public Law
Enacted
Title of Appropriations Act
Trust Fund
Fund
P.L. 105-174 May 1, 1998
1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
$259,000,000

Rescissions Act
P.L. 106-346 Oct. 23, 2000
Dept. of Transportation and Related
$720,000,000

Agencies Appropriations, 2001
P.L. 107-117 Jan. 10, 2002
Dept. of Defense and Emergency
$175,000,000

Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery
from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on
the United States Act, 2002
P.L. 107-206 Aug. 2, 2002
2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for
$265,000,000

Further Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States
P.L. 108-324 Oct. 13, 2004
Military Construction Appropriations and
$1,202,000,000

Emergency Hurricane Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2005
P.L. 108-447 Dec. 8, 2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
$741,000,000

P.L. 109-148 Dec. 30, 2005
Dept. of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
$2,750,000,000
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza Act,
2006
P.L. 109-234 June 15, 2006
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

$702,362,500
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006
P.L. 110-28
May 25, 2007
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care,

$871,022,000
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007
P.L. 110-161 Dec. 26, 2007
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008

$195,000,000
P.L. 110-329 Sept. 30, 2008 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,

$850,000,000
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009
P.L. 112-55
Nov. 18, 2011 Consolidated and Further Continuing
$1,622,000,000
Appropriations Act, 2012
P.L. 113-2
Jan. 29, 2013
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013
$1,920,900,000
P.L. 114-254 Dec. 10, 2016
Further Continuing and Security Assistance
$1,004,017,000
Appropriations Act, 2017
P.L. 115-31
May 5, 2017
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017

$528,000,000
P.L. 115-123 Feb. 9, 2018
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
$1,374,000,000
P.L. 116-20
June 6, 2019
Additional Supplemental Appropriations for
$1,650,000,000
Disaster Relief Act, 2019
Source: FHWA, Office of Program Administration.
Notes: P.L. 113-2 provided $2.022 bil ion. Amount shown reflects 5% rescission due to sequestration.
Congressional Research Service

17

Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems

Table A-2. Appropriated Funds for the FTA ER Program: 2012-2020
Highway
Public Law
Date Enacted
Title of Appropriations Act
Trust Fund
General Fund
P.L. 113-2
Jan. 29, 2013
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013
$10,355,000,000
P.L. 115-123
Feb. 9, 2018
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018

$330,000,000
P.L. 116-20
June 6, 2019
Additional Supplemental Appropriations for

$10,542,000
Disaster Relief Act, 2019
Source: P.L. 113-2, P.L. 115-123, P.L. 116-20 and FTA.
Notes: P.L. 113-2 provided $10.9 bil ion. Amount shown reflects 5% rescission due to sequestration .

Author Information

Robert S. Kirk
William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Transportation Policy

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 n ot 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.

Congressional Research Service
R45298 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
18

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Oct. 9, 2020

HTML · PDF

20% changed

Aug. 29, 2018

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Environmental Policy

Transportation Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com

Raw Metadata: JSON