The Cool Corridors Act of 2025 amends the Healthy Streets program (established in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) to extend authorization through 2030 and broaden eligible grantees to include transit agencies, State DOTs, local school districts, and nonprofit stewardship organizations. It directs grant funding to linear greening—tree canopy, shade structures, reflective surfaces—and to ancillary activities such as smart sensors, workforce development, and long-term stewardship plans targeted at pedestrian, bicycle, and transit routes.
For practitioners, the bill shifts Healthy Streets from a short-term demonstration focus toward a sustained, multimodal cooling strategy tied to transportation right-of-ways and school zones, while adding explicit maintenance duties, safety specifications for plantings, interagency coordination, and annual reporting metrics. The Department of Transportation must also produce a five-year evaluation with recommendations on folding the program into the core surface transportation block grant structure under 23 U.S.C. 133.
At a Glance
What It Does
Extends the Healthy Streets program to 2030 and expands eligible grantees to include State/local transit agencies, State DOTs, local educational agencies, and stewardship organizations. It authorizes grants for planning, planting and maintaining tree canopy and green infrastructure, installing shade structures and sensors, and funding workforce development tied to heat mitigation along transportation corridors.
Who It Affects
State and local transportation agencies, transit operators, school districts, urban forestry nonprofits, municipalities with high heat vulnerability, and contractors performing planting, maintenance, and sensor deployment. Federal agencies (EPA, USDA, HUD, DOE) are pulled into coordination and guidance roles.
Why It Matters
This bill embeds nature-based cooling into transportation project funding, formalizes stewardship and maintenance obligations, and creates performance reporting that could justify making the program permanent and integrating it into routine federal surface transportation funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act revises the Healthy Streets program to make cooling infrastructure—trees, shade structures, reflective surfaces—an explicit and funded part of transportation corridor projects. Instead of only short-term pilots, the bill extends authorization through 2030 and clarifies that grants may support everything from corridor planning to long-term maintenance.
That means applicants must not only plant trees or build shelters but also plan for watering, upkeep, and coordination with local land managers.
Eligibility expands beyond municipal departments to include State and local transit agencies, State DOTs, local educational agencies (school districts) and nonprofit groups experienced in maintaining green infrastructure. Grant awards may fund installation of sensors and data tools to monitor temperature and performance, community engagement, workforce training tied to urban forestry jobs, and integration of cooling measures into existing or planned multimodal projects—particularly around schools, bus stops, transit hubs, and neighborhood pedestrian corridors.The bill adds new definitional clarity: a "cool corridor" is a transportation route intentionally enhanced to lower surface and ambient temperatures and maintained over time; "heat mitigation strategies" explicitly include planting, vegetative infrastructure, cool surfaces and shade structures.
Applicants must submit plans that seek state or local approval to avoid conflicts with future development. Grant criteria prioritize disadvantaged communities affected by high heat or low tree canopy, projects that improve access to transit, and those with sustainability and funding-leverage plans.Operationally, recipients are required to maintain trees funded by grants (watering and upkeep as needed) and to submit annual reports on temperature reduction, resilience gains, health and equity outcomes, cost–benefit analyses, and community engagement.
The Secretary of Transportation must coordinate with EPA, DOE, HUD, USDA (Forest Service), and federal climate science resources and provide technical assistance, species-selection guidance, and model project templates. Finally, DOT must deliver a five-year evaluation to Congress with recommendations for permanent authorization and potential integration of the program into the 23 U.S.C. 133 surface transportation block grant.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to reauthorize Healthy Streets through 2030 (replacing the prior 'through 2026' language).
Adds new eligible grantees: State and local transit agencies, State departments of transportation, local educational agencies, and nonprofit tree/greenspace stewardship organizations.
Defines 'cool corridor' and 'heat mitigation strategies' to include tree canopy, shade infrastructure, reflective surfaces, and stewardship measures that ensure long-term functionality.
Requires grantees to secure state/local review before implementation, to assume responsibility for tree maintenance (watering/upkeep), and to incorporate workforce development and sensor/data deployments where appropriate.
Mandates annual reporting on temperature reduction, resilience and equity outcomes and a DOT report to Congress within five years evaluating the program and recommending whether to fold it into the surface transportation block grant under 23 U.S.C. 133.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the 'Cool Corridors Act of 2025.' This is the formal label; it signals the bill’s focus on cooling measures tied to transportation corridors rather than a broader urban forestry program.
Findings and purpose
Lists Congress’s findings on extreme heat, inequitable tree canopy, and the effectiveness of locally driven programs, then sets policy goals: promote cooling infrastructure along corridors, increase safety and accessibility for non-drivers, extend infrastructure life, and prioritize communities with disproportionate heat exposure. The findings provide the legislative rationale used to justify prioritization criteria and grant purposes later in the text.
Reauthorization timeline
Amends an IIJA provision to extend Healthy Streets authorization from 'through 2026' to 'through 2030.' This simple technical change lengthens the federal funding window for corridor cooling projects and creates space for the five-year evaluation to inform longer-term funding decisions.
Eligibility, definitions, and authorized uses
Expands the list of eligible entities to explicitly include transit agencies, State DOTs, local educational agencies, and stewardship organizations, and inserts two new statutory definitions—'cool corridor' and 'heat mitigation strategies.' It also explicitly authorizes grants for planning, planting and maintaining tree canopy, installing shade structures and sensors, workforce development, and integrating cooling infrastructure into multimodal transportation projects, putting both construction and ongoing stewardship squarely within grant scope.
Application requirements and prioritization criteria
Adds a requirement that proposed projects undergo state or local review to avoid conflicts with other developments, and expands prioritization criteria to favor projects in disadvantaged communities impacted by high heat or low canopy, projects that improve access to transit/schools/jobs, those with long-term maintenance plans, those leveraging additional funding, and projects that target minimal-maintenance species or workforce training. These provisions create a stronger emphasis on readiness, equity, and sustainability in award decisions.
Interagency coordination, technical assistance, planting specs, and reporting
Requires DOT to coordinate with EPA, DOE, HUD, USDA (Forest Service) and federal climate science entities, and to provide technical assistance, species-selection guidance, and model templates to grantees. If grants fund tree planting, recipients must avoid obstructing traffic views and must carry out maintenance duties. Grantees must submit annual reports on temperature reduction, resilience, health/equity outcomes, cost-benefit analysis, and community engagement. DOT must also complete a five-year evaluation with recommendations on permanent authorization and integration into the 23 U.S.C. 133 block grant program.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents of heat-vulnerable neighborhoods — The bill prioritizes projects in communities with low tree canopy and high heat exposure, improving shade, reducing ambient temperatures, and improving access to transit and schools.
- Local transit agencies and school districts — New eligibility allows these agencies to seek federal funds for shade at bus stops, transit hubs, and school zones, directly tying cooling investments to operational transit infrastructure.
- Urban forestry nonprofits and stewardship organizations — Explicit inclusion as eligible grantees creates a clearer funding pathway for groups that manage long-term tree care and community engagement, expanding workforce development opportunities.
- Contractors and local green-industry employers — Authorized funding for planting, sensor installation, and maintenance supports jobs in urban forestry, irrigation, and data services linked to corridor projects.
Who Bears the Cost
- Grant recipients (local governments, transit agencies, nonprofits) — Recipients are responsible for ongoing maintenance (watering, upkeep) and must secure state/local approvals, increasing operational costs and administrative burden post-installation.
- State and local permitting authorities — The bill requires project review and coordination to avoid conflicts with planned developments, adding review workload and potential project delays.
- Utility owners and transportation project planners — Tree placement and shade structures must not obstruct traffic views or infrastructure; coordinating plantings around utilities and sightlines may require redesigns or mitigations that raise project costs.
- Department of Transportation and coordinating federal agencies — DOT must provide guidance, technical assistance, and a five-year evaluation; these tasks will require staff time and interagency coordination that are not explicitly budgeted in the text.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between rapid deployment of visible cooling infrastructure in high-need communities and the program’s insistence on long-term stewardship, safety constraints, and interagency approvals: accelerating installations addresses immediate heat risks, but without reliable, funded maintenance and careful coordination with transportation/utility planning, those short-term gains risk becoming costly failures over time.
The bill ties federal grant awards to long-term maintenance responsibilities without creating a new, dedicated maintenance fund. That shifts the financing burden to local recipients or to the success of leveraging additional funding, which may disadvantage smaller jurisdictions that win installation grants but lack recurring operating budgets.
The maintenance requirement is sensible from a stewardship perspective but raises the real risk that planted trees will be neglected once grant-funded installation ends, undermining projected heat-mitigation benefits.
Species selection and placement rules—intended to avoid sightline obstruction and minimize maintenance—create trade-offs between rapid canopy gains and public-safety constraints (utilities, stormwater impacts, root conflicts with sidewalks). The statutory requirement for state/local review reduces conflicts with future development but may slow implementation in places with fragmented permitting regimes.
Measurement and reporting requirements (temperature reduction, health outcomes, cost–benefit analyses) are ambitious but depend on standardized metrics, baseline data, and sensor deployment; without clear measurement protocols and funding for data systems, grantees may produce inconsistent evaluations, complicating the five-year federal assessment and any decision to integrate the program into existing block grants.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.