Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

July 15, 2020 R46452

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and
July 15, 2020
Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302
William J. Mallett
Federal highway, public transportation, and intercity passenger rail programs are authorized
Specialist in
through FY2020 under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94).
Transportation Policy
During the 116th Congress, transportation bills including provisions related to climate change

have moved forward in both the House and the Senate. In August 2019, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works reported the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019

(ATIA; S. 2302), which would reauthorize the highway infrastructure elements of surface
transportation programs from FY2021 through FY2025. In July 2020, the House of Representatives passed the Investing in a
New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation (INVEST) in America Act as part of the larger Moving Forward
Act (H.R. 2). The INVEST in America Act would provide an extension of existing highway, public transportation, and
intercity passenger rail programs for one year (FY2021) and a subsequent four-year reauthorization of modified programs
(FY2022-FY2025). S. 2302 and H.R. 2 include both mitigation policies and programs that aim to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from surface transportation and adaptation policies and programs that seek to make the surface
transportation system more resilient and less vulnerable to the impacts of actual or expected future climate change.
Recent changes in the earth’s climate and expected future changes are strongly related to the emission of GHGs from man-
made sources. Transportation accounted for 28% of GHG emissions in the United States in 2018, the larges t amount of any
economic sector. These GHG emissions come mainly from highway travel, with passenger cars and light-duty trucks
responsible for about 59% of the total, and heavy- and medium-duty trucks responsible for another 23%. GHG emissions
from transportation peaked in 2005, but have risen over the past few years in part because of increased passenger travel and
goods movement; emissions growth has been somewhat mitigated by improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. Data are likely
to show a continued increase of transportation emissions in 2019, but a drop in 2020 due to the disruptions related to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
GHG emissions from surface transportation are largely a function of vehicle fuel efficiency, the carbon content of fuel used,
and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). There are several current federal policies that address GHG emissions, but emissions
reduction was not a primary goal when they were enacted. Moreover, many of these policies and programs are not typically
addressed in surface transportation reauthorization legislation. For example, vehicle fuel efficiency standards were enacted
mainly to address dependence on foreign oil and are typically undertaken in energy legislation.
Both S. 2302 and H.R. 2 include funding and policy changes that address GHG emissions primarily from a transportation
infrastructure perspective. For instance, both bills include new programs aimed at reducing carbon pollution by funding
infrastructure projects that would reduce highway vehicle travel. In the Senate bill this program would be authorized at $700
million per year and in the House bill at almost $2.1 billion per year. Both bills also include new programs to fund alternative
fueling infrastructure, $200 million per year in the Senate bill and $350 million per year in the House bill. H.R. 2 would also
authorize major increases in funding for public transportation and intercity passenger rail programs. For public transportation
funding, for example, H.R. 2 would increase the authorized amount from $12.2 billion per year in the FAST Act to $21.4
billion per year.
Impacts from actual or expected future climate change are likely to include higher average temperatures, greater extremes of
temperature, more precipitation overall with an increase in intensity and variation, and a rise in sea level. Existing surfac e
transportation infrastructure may be vulnerable to a changing climate because it was constructed for sea level and weather
extremes that are being or are likely to be exceeded in the future. Adaptation measures are actions taken to reduce the
vulnerabilities and increase the resilience of the transportation system to these effects.
Currently, there is no dedicated surface transportation funding for adaptation and resilience projects, although existing
program funding in many cases can be used to assess the potential impacts of climate change and to apply adaptation
strategies. Both S. 2302 and H.R. 2 would create a new highway program for resilience projects. The Senate bill would
authorize about $1 billion per year and the House bill would authorize almost $1.6 billion per year. Both bills would also
require greater consideration of climate change in transportation planning.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

Introduction
Surface transportation is a major source of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, one of the
main greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing to climate change. At the same time, the effects of
climate change, such as extreme heat and sea level rise, pose a threat to highways, bridges, and
public transportation infrastructure.
The authorization of federal highway, public transportation, and intercity passenger rail programs
in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94) expires on September
30, 2020. Committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate have taken
reauthorization of surface transportation programs as an opportunity to propose policies and
programs that address climate change.
In August 2019, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works unanimously reported
the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 (ATIA; S. 2302), which would
reauthorize the highway infrastructure elements of surface transportation programs from FY2021
through FY2025. In July 2020, the House of Representatives passed the Investing in a New
Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation (INVEST) in America Act as part of the
larger Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2). The INVEST in America Act would provide an extension of
existing highway, public transportation, and intercity passenger rail programs for one year
(FY2021) and a subsequent four-year reauthorization of modified programs (FY2022-FY2025).
S. 2302 and H.R. 2 include both mitigation policies and programs that aim to reduce GHG
emissions from surface transportation and adaptation policies and programs that aim to make the
surface transportation system more resilient to the impacts of actual or expected future climate
change and to reduce its vulnerability to the harmful effects of future climate change. This report
begins with a discussion of transportation sector emissions and mitigation, and then moves to a
discussion of climate change adaptation.
Transportation and GHG Emissions
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that since 2017, transportation has
emitted more GHGs than any other sector of the U.S. economy. In 2018, transportation accounted
for approximately 28% of the total (Figure 1).1 Total GHG emissions from transportation were
about 5% less in 2018 than in 2005, but have risen each year since a recent low in 2012, in part
because of increased passenger travel and goods movement; the effects of greater vehicle mileage
have been somewhat mitigated by improvements in fuel efficiency. Data are likely to show a
continued increase of transportation emissions in 2019, but a drop in 2020 due to the disruptions
related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

1 If GHG emissions from the electric power industry are distributed to end-use sectors, emissions from the industrial
sector were higher than those from transportation through 2018.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 6

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

Figure 1. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector
1990-2018

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018, table
2-10, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2018.
Passenger cars and light-duty trucks were responsible for about 59% of the transportation sector’s
GHG emissions in 2018, and heavy- and medium-duty trucks for another 23%. Since 2009, when
the economy began to grow after the recession that began in 2007, GHG emissions from heavy-
and medium-duty trucks have risen by almost 16%. Over that period, GHG emissions from
passenger cars and light-duty trucks dropped by 1% (Figure 2).
Almost al GHG emissions from the transportation sector are due to the release of CO2 from the
combustion of gasoline and diesel. Other GHGs, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), from air
conditioning coolant, make up only about 3% of emissions from the sector.
GHG emissions from surface transportation are a function of vehicle fuel efficiency, the carbon
content of fuel used, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT is a product of vehicle trips and trip
distance, which themselves are related to a broader set of factors that include land use and the
attractiveness of alternative transportation modes such as public transportation and bicycling.
Places that are close together, such as homes and workplaces, wil generate less travel, al else
being equal. Greater use of alternative modes, similarly, wil reduce the number of vehicle trips.
For freight transportation, VMT is determined by the distance between where goods are
produced, consumed, imported, and exported; the types of goods involved; and the speed and cost
of different modes, such as trucking, rail, and water transportation.2

2 Ralph Sims et al., “Chapter 8: T ransport,” in Ottmar Edenhofer et al. (eds.), Mitigation of Climate Change:
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Inte rgovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
2014, at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 7

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

Figure 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation in the United States
1990-2018

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018, table
2-13, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2018.
Note: “Other” includes buses, motorcycles, ships and boats, rail, pipelines, and lubricants.
Vehicle travel, and thus transportation GHG emissions per capita, are related to gross domestic
product (GDP) per capita. Countries with lower GDP per capita, such as India and China, emit
less GHG per capita from transportation than the United States. Nevertheless, there are major
differences between countries with similar incomes. For example, the United States has about
three times the transportation emissions per capita than Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom
(Figure 3).
A prominent reason that GHG emissions per person from transportation are higher in the United
States is the much greater amount of driving. For example, annual VMT per capita in the United
States is about twice that in Great Britain.3 Moreover, American cars and light trucks tend to be
less fuel-efficient than those in other high-income countries. In 2013, for example, light-duty
vehicles in the United States required, on average, 9 liters of gasoline equivalent to travel 100
kilometers, 80% more than in Japan, the country that had the most fuel-efficient fleet.4

3 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 2018, table VM-1; U.S. Census Bureau; Department for
T ransport, Transport Statistics, Great Britain, 2018; Office for National Statistics, Overview of the UK Population:
August 2019.
4 Global Fuel Economy Initiative, LDV Fuel Economy and G20, https://www.globalfueleconomy.org/data-and-
research/publications/ldv-fuel-economy-and-g20.
Congressional Research Service
3

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

Figure 3. CO2 Emissions from Transportation per Capita, Selected Countries
2014

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Transport Forum,
“Performance Indicators: Energy and Environment,” https://www.itf-oecd.org/search/statistics-and-data.
Mitigating GHG Emissions from Surface Transportation
Economists general y agree that broad, market-based policies, such as a cap and trade system or
carbon tax, are likely to be the most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions across al economic
sectors.5 A carbon tax would place a price on GHG emissions. A cap and trade system would
place a cap on emissions and al ow the market to determine the price of emissions.6 Instead of an
economy-wide system, however, most countries, including the United States, employ “an array of
greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typical y aimed at
specific technologies or sectors.”7 Many subsidies and restrictions have been specifical y aimed at
the transportation sector.8
Motor vehicle fuel taxes might be considered a crude form of carbon tax in surface transportation,
and a factor in the amount of driving and the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles in other
countries. In 2018, the average of U.S. state taxes weighted by fuel volume combined with the
federal tax on a gal on of gasoline was 45 cents. The equivalent tax was $2.39 per gal on in
Japan, $3.83 in the United Kingdom, and $4.36 in Italy.9 Federal taxes on gasoline and diesel in

5 Peter Howard and Derek Sylvan, Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Policy
Integrity, New York University School of Law, December 2015, p. 15, at https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/
expertconsensusreport.pdf.
6 CRS Report R45472, Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th through 116th
Congresses, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
7 Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock, “T he Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 32, No. 4, Fall 2018, pp. 53-72.
8 David L. Greene and Stephen Plotkin, Reducing Greenhouse Gases from U.S. Transportation, Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, January 2011.
9 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2018, table IN-1, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 9 Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

the United States have been collected largely to raise funds for infrastructure construction, not
with the purpose of controlling GHG emissions.10 They have sometimes been considered in
surface transportation authorizing legislation.11
Several other current federal policies that address GHG emissions from transportation were not
put in place for that purpose, and are not typical y addressed in surface transportation
reauthorization legislation. For example, vehicle fuel economy is regulated by the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and, by extension, the GHG standards, administered by EPA. The
CAFE standards were established in the 1970s under the authority of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended, primarily to reduce dependence on imported oil. The GHG
standards were promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Neither of
these standards is likely to be taken up in the surface transportation reauthorization.
Further, while recent surface transportation acts have encouraged the development and use of
alternatively powered vehicles, the GHG emissions attributable to those vehicles over their
service lives depend upon the power sources used to refine raw materials, manufacture vehicle
components, and fuel the vehicles’ engines or charge their batteries. These policies, along with
tax incentives and grants for the domestic development and manufacture of alternative fueled
vehicles, are typical y dealt with in energy bil s.12
Surface transportation programs do in some respects encourage the deployment of alternative
fueled vehicles. For example, the Federal Transit Administration’s program that provides funding
for buses includes a discretionary set-aside for buses that are alternatively fueled. The original
motivation for this was to meet air quality goals, but such policies may help reduce GHGs from
surface transportation.
Policies aimed at reducing VMT have been enacted for several reasons, particularly congestion
reduction and the attainment of ambient air pollution standards. The Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program, part of the Federal-Aid Highway Program, provides
federal funding for projects that contribute to the attainment of ambient air pollution standards for
ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. This typical y involves projects that reduce
pollutant emissions from passenger cars and trucks in ways that may contribute to lower GHG
emissions. Other surface transportation programs that may contribute indirectly to the reduction
of GHG emissions include the Transportation Alternatives Program, which funds projects such as
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and the federal public transportation program.
GHG Mitigation Provisions in H.R. 2 and S. 230213
Both H.R. 2 and S. 2302 would authorize funding for new programs that aim to reduce or
mitigate GHG emissions from surface transportation (Table 1). H.R. 2 also would authorize large
increases in funding for public transportation and intercity passenger rail that may contribute to a

policyinformation/statistics/2018/in1.cfm.
10 Prior to this, federal taxes on gasoline and diesel were typically used for general purposes. CRS Report RL30304,
The Federal Excise Tax on Motor Fuels and the Highway Trust Fund: Current Law and Legislat ive History, by Sean
Lowry.
11 Motor fuels tax provisions in past surface transportation bills have been reported by the House Ways and Means
Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.
12 CRS Report R42566, Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal
Program s, by Lynn J. Cunningham et al.
13 Although they are not wholly equivalent terms, the bills appear to use the terms “carbon,” “carbon dioxide,” and
“greenhouse gas emissions” interchangeably. T his report employs the terms as they are used in the respective bill texts.
Congressional Research Service
5

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

reduction in GHGs. In the Senate, public transportation programs are under the jurisdiction of the
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and intercity passenger rail programs are under
the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Neither committee has
acted on reauthorization legislation.
The bil s would authorize both formula programs, with funds distributed to the states according to
a formula laid out in law, and discretionary programs, for which U.S. Department of
Transportation agencies determine grant awards according to evaluation criteria in law. Not al
programs that may influence GHG emissions are detailed here. For example, both bil s would
reauthorize the CMAQ program that seeks to reduce air pollutants from surface transportation.
However, the comparisons below do include detail on other policy changes that appear to be
directly related to reducing GHG emissions.
Table 1. Proposed New Funding Programs Related to Reducing GHG Emissions
Average Annual Authorization
Program
(millions of dollars)
America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (S. 2302)
Carbon Reduction Incentive Program
700
Formula
600
Discretionary
100
Alternative Fueling Infrastructure Program
200
Port Emissions Reduction Program
74
Congestion Relief Program
40

INVEST in America Act (H.R. 2)

Carbon Pol ution Reduction Program
2,085
Alternative Fueling Infrastructure Program
350
Community Climate Innovation Program
250
Active Transportation Connectivity
Program
63
Gridlock Reduction Program
63
Source: H.R. 2 (as passed by the House of Representatives on July 1, 2020) and S. 2302 (as
reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on August 1, 2019) .
Notes: Average annual authorizations are based on five years (FY2021-FY2025) for S. 2302
and four years (FY2022-FY2025) for H.R. 2.
Highway Programs for GHG Reduction Projects
 S. 2302 (§1403) would establish formula and discretionary grant Carbon
Reduction Incentive programs to support projects and planning that reduce on-
road mobile sources of CO2 emissions. Eligible projects might include
ridesharing programs, truck stop electrification, and incident management
programs. Funding would average $600 mil ion annual y for the formula
program and $100 mil ion annual y for the discretionary program. The Senate bil
would also establish a discretionary grant program to support projects that would
Congressional Research Service
6

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

reduce GHG and air pollutant emissions at ports by reducing truck idling
(§1402). Funding would average $74 mil ion annual y.
 H.R. 2 (§1213) would establish a formula program, the Carbon Pollution
Reduction (CPR) Program, to fund surface transportation projects that reduce
GHG emissions to meet new, state-established GHG emission performance goals
established at 23 U.S.C. §150. High-performing states would be al owed to
transfer funds from the CPR Program to the more flexible Surface Transportation
Program (STP). Low-performing states would be required to transfer 10% of
their STP funds to the CPR Program. Funding for this program would average
$2.1 bil ion per year. H.R. 2 (§1304) would also establish a discretionary
Community Climate Innovation Grant Program to fund surface transportation
projects that reduce GHG emissions. Funding would be $250 mil ion per year.
Highway Programs Related to Alternative Fueling
 S. 2302 (§1401) would establish a discretionary grant program to support the
construction and operation of alternative fueling infrastructure (electric,
hydrogen, and natural gas) along designated alternative fuel corridors. Funding
would average $200 mil ion annual y.
 H.R. 2 (§1303) would establish a discretionary program for alternative fueling
infrastructure in designated corridors, including electric, hydrogen, natural gas,
and propane. Funding would be $350 mil ion per year.
Highway Programs for Highway Congestion Reduction
 S. 2302 (§1404) would establish a discretionary grant program for highway
congestion reduction projects that may indirectly reduce transportation
emissions. Funding would average $40 mil ion annual y.
 H.R. 2 (§1306) would establish a discretionary Gridlock Grant Reduction
Program, with at least half of the funds set aside for projects that address freight
congestion. For freight-related projects the reduction of GHG emissions is an
evaluation factor. Funding would be $250 mil ion for FY2022 only.
Non-Motorized Programs
 S. 2302 (§1109(a)) would increase the annual amount of Surface Transportation
Program Block Grant Program funds set aside for the Transportation Alternatives
Program from an average of $844 mil ion per year under the FAST Act to an
annual average of $1.249 bil ion. S. 2302 (§1208) would also require the use of
some state planning and research and metropolitan planning funding for the
development of “safe and accessible options for multiple travel modes for people
of al ages and abilities.”
 H.R. 2 (§1309) would establish a discretionary Active Transportation
Connectivity Grant Program for projects related to walking and bicycling.
Funding would be $250 mil ion for FY2024 only. H.R. 2 would also increase
funding of the Transportation Alternatives Program, a set-aside of Surface
Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) funding. Funding for FY2020 is
$850 mil ion. Funding under H.R. 2 would average $1.5 bil ion per year.
Congressional Research Service
7

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

Freight Programs
 S. 2302 would al ow for funding for highway and freight programs—both the
existing National y Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program (known as
the INFRA Grants Program) (§1110) and National Highway Freight Program
(§1114)—to be used for water transportation projects, such as locks, dams, and
marine highways, if a project is expected to reduce on-road mobile source
emissions. A diesel engine emissions reduction program, administered by the
Department of Energy, would be reauthorized (§1408).
 H.R. 2 (§1301) would change eligibility of the INFRA Grants Program to include
major public transportation and intercity passenger rail projects. Section 1212
would modify the goals of the National Highway Freight Program to specifical y
include reducing GHG emissions.
Other Highway Programs
 H.R. 2 (§1302) would establish a discretionary program for community
transportation investment grants. These grants would be for projects to improve
surface transportation safety, asset condition, accessibility, and environmental
quality. GHG emissions reductions would be one evaluation factor. Funding
would be $600 mil ion per year.
Public Transportation and Intercity Passenger Rail Program
 H.R. 2 would authorize major increases in funding for public transportation and
intercity passenger rail programs and make other changes that could be
considered climate change mitigation provisions, assuming that the funding leads
to a rise in ridership that replaces trips made by private vehicles. Section 2101
would authorize an increase in public transportation funding from $12.2 bil ion
per year to $21.4 bil ion per year. Section 2201 would create a discretionary grant
program for transit agencies that increase bus frequency or succeed in increasing
ridership. As is traditional y the case, H.R. 2 would authorize about 80% of the
funding for the public transportation programs from the mass transit account of
the Highway Trust Fund and the other 20% from the general fund.
 H.R. 2 would increase dedicated funding for the purchase of low- and no-
emission buses and related infrastructure from $55 mil ion per year to about $430
mil ion per year.
 H.R. 2 would also authorize major increases in intercity passenger rail funding,
including a large increase for Amtrak. In FY2020, intercity passenger rail
programs were authorized at $2.2 bil ion from the general fund. H.R. 2 would
authorize $11.9 bil ion per year on average from the general fund.
Other Provisions
 S. 2302 (§1510) would establish a federal interagency working group to develop
a strategy to transition the vehicle fleets of federal agencies to hybrid-electric
vehicles, plug-in electric drive vehicles, and alternative fueled vehicles.
 H.R. 2 would add GHG reduction to the list of national performance goals
(§1403) and add specific references to GHG reduction throughout the federal
highway and public transportation programs. H.R. 2 (§1201) would also place
new requirements on the use of National Highway Performance Program funds
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 13 Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

for building new capacity for single-occupant vehicles. These requirements
would include demonstrating progress toward state of good repair on National
Highway System roads in the state and a comparative economic analysis of
alternatives such as operational and public transportation improvements.
 H.R. 2 (§1403) would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish
measures of transportation access for use in statewide and metropolitan planning
processes. States and metropolitan planning organizations would be required to
assess how transportation projects planned would affect the overal level of
transportation system access.
Adaptation to Climate Change in Surface
Transportation
Impacts from actual or expected future climate change are likely to include higher average
temperatures, greater extremes of temperature, more precipitation overal with an increase in
precipitation intensity and greater variation, and a rise in sea level. While the consequences of
some of these changes may depend to some extent on other human activities, such as urban
development patterns, they are likely to include more frequent periods of extreme heat; fewer
days below freezing; more coastal, riverine, and flash flooding; and more droughts and wildfires.
Intense precipitation could lead to more mudslides, particularly following droughts and
wildfires.14
Existing surface transportation infrastructure can be vulnerable to climate change because it was
constructed for sea level and weather extremes that are being or are likely to be exceeded in the
future. If the effects of climate change become more pronounced, as studies anticipate, the
impacts of extreme weather on surface transportation infrastructure and operations are likely to
increase in magnitude, duration, and frequency. For example, an increase in the number of very
hot days may cause more damage to bridges because of greater thermal expansion of bridge
joints. More intense precipitation and flooding could result in more road washouts, bridge scour,
and roadside mudslides. Not al the effects of climate change wil be negative for transportation
infrastructure. For example, a warmer climate could reduce road pavement deterioration in some
places due to less freezing, snow, and ice.15
The effects of climate change on surface transportation, both in terms of the infrastructure and its
operation (Table 2), wil vary according to the type of climate event, the type of transportation
asset, and its location. A rise in sea level and storm surge, for example, would most likely affect
transportation systems along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, particularly in specific places that are
susceptible to land subsidence, erosion, and the loss of wetlands. Higher average temperatures
may reduce travel disruption due to snow and ice, but may also cause more freeze-thaw cycles
that damage infrastructure in northern states. In Alaska, warming is shortening the ice road season
and thawing permafrost. The loss of permafrost could lead to road and bridge damage through
foundation settlement, slope instability, and shoreline damage.

14 T ransportation Research Board, Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme
Weather Events, and the Highway System : Practitioner’s Guide and Research Report, NCHRP Report 750, 2014.
15 T ransportation Research Board, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation , Special Report 290,
2008.
Congressional Research Service
9

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

Table 2. Climate Change and Examples of the Effects on Surface Transportation
Example of Effects on
Example of Effects on
Potential Climate Change
Operations
Infrastructure
Increase in very hot days
More potential buckling of public
Greater thermal expansion of
transportation rail (slow orders)
bridge joints
Decrease in very cold days
Reduced travel disruption due to
Decreased damage to roads and
snow and ice
bridges from road salt
Increases in Arctic temperatures
Shorter season for ice roads
More subsidence of road beds due
to thawing of permafrost
Sea level rise and storm surge
More interruption of services in
Greater damage to coastal roads,
coastal areas due to flooding of
bridges, and rail lines
roads, bridges, and rail lines
Increase in extreme precipitation
Increase in weather-related delays
Increase in road washouts,
events
landslides, bridge scour
Increase in droughts and wildfires
More disruption due to poor
Fire destruction of roads, bridges,
visibility and rerouting
and rail infrastructure
Change in seasonal precipitation
More interruption of services due
Increase in road washouts,
and flooding patterns
to flooding of roads, bridges, and
landslides, bridge scour
rail lines
Increases in hurricane intensity
More frequent and more extensive
Destruction of roads and bridges
emergency evacuations
Source: CRS, based on Transportation Research Board, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation,
Special Report 290, 2008, Annex 3-1.
“Adaptation” is action to reduce the vulnerabilities and increase the resilience of the
transportation system to the effects of climate change.16 Adaptation and resilience options for
surface transportation systems include structural and nature-based engineering and policy-based
activities. For example, highway bridges can be engineered structural y to withstand the threats of
higher wind and water. Nature-based engineering may involve reducing climate vulnerabilities
through activities such as wetland restoration, construction of artificial reefs, and beach
restoration. Policy-based activities include changing maintenance practices, such as more
frequent cleaning of drains, and improving operations plans for weather emergencies.17
Currently, there is no dedicated surface transportation funding for adaptation and resilience
projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has stated that federal-aid highway funds
can be used to assess the potential impacts of climate change and to apply adaptation strategies.18
Likewise, federal transit funding administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) can be
used for adaptation projects. Both FHWA’s and FTA’s Emergency Relief programs, which

16 T here is no consensus on the definitions of “adaptation” and “resilience.” FHWA defines adaptation as “adjustment
in natural or human systems in anticipation of or response to a changing environment in a way that effectively uses
beneficial opportunities or reduces negative effects” and resilience as “the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to
changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions.” See Federal Highway
Administration, “T ransportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather
Events,” FHWA Order 5520, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm.
17 Federal Highway Administration, Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, 3rd Edition, FHWA-HEP-
18-020, 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/adaptation_framework/.
18 Federal Highway Administration, “ Eligibility of Activities to Adapt to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events
Under the Federal-Aid and Federal Lands Highway Program,” Memorandum, September 24, 2012, at
https://www.fhwa.dot .gov/federalaid/120924.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 14 Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

provide funds for rebuilding after natural disasters, also al ow some spending on resiliency
features.19 Moreover, several aspects of federal law, regulation, and policy require state and local
agencies that manage surface transportation assets to consider the effects of climate change.
FHWA, in cooperation with state departments of transportation, has sponsored vulnerability
assessments and conducted research into making surface transportation more resilient to climate
change.20 FTA has conducted similar research in cooperation with transit agencies.21
Adaptation and Resilience Provisions in S. 2302 and H.R. 2
Both H.R. 2 and S. 2302 would create new programs dedicated to highway infrastructure
adaptation and resilience (Table 3). H.R. 2 does not include similar dedicated programs for public
transportation or intercity passenger rail infrastructure.
Table 3. Proposed New Funding Programs for Infrastructure Adaptation and
Resilience
Average Annual Authorization
Program
(millions of dollars)
America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (S. 2302)
PROTECT Grant Program
986
Formula
786
Discretionary
200
Disaster Relief Mobilization Pilot Program
1

INVEST in America Act (H.R. 2)

Predisaster Mitigation Program
1,563
Source: H.R. 2 (as passed by the House of Representatives on July 1, 2020) and S. 2302 (as
reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on August 1, 2019) .
Notes: Average annual authorizations are based on five years (FY2021-FY2025) for S. 2302
and four years (FY2022-FY2025) for H.R. 2.
Definitional Issues
 S. 2302 (§1103) would add definitions to Title 23 of the U.S. Code, including
“resilience” and “natural infrastructure.” Resilience would be defined as “a
project with the ability to anticipate, prepare for, or adapt to conditions or
withstand, respond to, or recover rapidly from [weather and natural disaster]
disruptions.” Natural infrastructure would be defined as infrastructure that “uses,
restores, or emulates natural ecological processes.”
 H.R. 2 (§1103) would add definitions to 23 U.S.C. §101(a) including
“adaptation,” “climate change,” “evacuation route,” “greenhouse gas,” “natural

19 CRS Report R45298, Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems, by Robert
S. Kirk and William J. Mallett .
20 Federal Highway Administration, “Resilience Pilots,” at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/
resilience/pilots/.
21 Federal T ransit Administration, Transit and Climate Change Adaptation: Synthesis of FTA-Funded Pilot Projects,
August 2014.
Congressional Research Service
11

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

infrastructure,” “protective feature,” “repeatedly damaged facility,” and
“resilience.” It also would add “assessing resilience” to the definition of
“construction.”
Highway Programs for Adaptation and Resilience Funding
 S. 2302 (§1407) would establish a grant program, the PROTECT Grant Program,
to support adaptation and resilience projects, such as constructing more resilient
infrastructure, natural infrastructure, and a more resilient transportation system,
including improved evacuation routes and access to routes to important facilities,
such as hospitals. Funding would average $986 mil ion annual y, with $786
mil ion distributed to the states by formula and $200 mil ion distributed
competitively. Discretionary grants would be awarded for planning, resilience,
community resilience and evacuation routes, and at-risk coastal infrastructure.
The program would also be intended encourage the development of resilience
improvement plans. Section 1505 would also create a disaster relief mobilization
pilot program to help communities “develop disaster preparedness and disaster
response plans that include the use of bicycles.”
 S. 2302 would make certain “protective features” designed to mitigate the risk of
recurring damage from extreme weather events, flooding, or other natural
disasters eligible expenses under the federal highway program. The federal
government would pay up to 100% of the cost of projects such as raising
roadway grades, stabilizing slopes, and adding bridge scour protection; for most
other types of highway construction, the states would be required to pay at least
10% or 20% of the cost. The Senate bil would make natural infrastructure, added
in the definitions section, eligible for federal highway funding. S. 2302 would
also add resilience as an additional consideration for funding in the INFRA
Grants Program.
 S. 2302 (§1105) would add to the purposes of the National Highway Performance
Program (NHPP) “to provide support for measures to increase the resiliency of
Federal-aid highways and bridges on and off the National Highway System to
mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, extreme weather events, flooding, or other
natural disasters.” The Senate bil would al ow up to 15% of the annual
apportionment of NHPP funding to be used for resilience features for a highway
or bridge that is not part of the National Highway System. A new discretionary
highway bridge funding program (§1119) would include resilience and benefits
to nonvehicle users and public transportation as evaluation factors.
 H.R. 2 (§1202) would establish a Predisaster Mitigation Program to enhance the
resilience of the transportation system, including strengthening infrastructure and
improving evacuation routes. Funding distributed by formula would average $1.6
bil ion per year. H.R. 2 also would add resilience to the goals and eligibilities of
programs throughout the surface transportation program.
 H.R. 2 (§1201) would add to the purpose of the National Highway Performance
Program (23 U.S.C. §119) “to increase the resilience of Federal-aid highways
and bridges.” It would make “Projects on or off the National Highway System to
enhance resilience of a transportation facility, including protective features,”
eligible for funding from the program.
Congressional Research Service
12

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

Highway Emergency Relief Program
 S. 2302 (§1523) would add wildfire and sea level rise to the definition of natural
disaster in the Highway Emergency Relief program, and explicitly make
economical y justifiable resilience features eligible for funding as part of repair
and reconstruction projects.
 H.R. 2 (§1203) would make changes to the Emergency Relief Program to provide
specific authority for betterments “including protective features to increase the
resilience of the facility.” This section would also authorize funding from the
general fund for a Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Pilot program. Funds from the
pilot program would be for cost-effective resilience projects.
Planning Provisions
 S. 2302 (§1405) would add adaptation strategies to the required contents of the
National Freight Strategic Plan and state freight plans.
 H.R. 2 (§§1201, 1401, and 1402) would make changes to state and metropolitan
planning requirements to include an analysis of the effects of climate change,
such as specific references to resilience and conducting a vulnerability
assessment.
Research
 S. 2302 (§3003) would create a Data Integration Pilot Program that would
“provide research and develop models that integrate, in near-real-time, data from
multiple sources.” In so doing, the Secretary of Transportation would be required
to “address the safety, resiliency, and vulnerability of the transportation system to
disasters.” Section 3005 would add to the requirements of an infrastructure needs
report the inclusion of resilience needs (23 U.S.C. §503(b)(8)(A)).
 H.R. 2 (§1621) would require a climate-resilient infrastructure study to be
conducted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). H.R. 2 (§1303) would
also require a TRB study on developing a national electric vehicle charging
network.

Author Information

William J. Mallett

Specialist in Transportation Policy

Congressional Research Service
13

Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302

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
R46452 · VERSION 1 · NEW
14

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jul. 15, 2020

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Economic Policy

Transportation Policy

Energy Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON