The Cool Corridors Act of 2025 extends funding for the Healthy Streets program to prioritize installing green infrastructure like trees along transportation routes in heat-vulnerable communities to mitigate extreme heat and improve transit access.
Marilyn Strickland
Representative
WA-10
The Cool Corridors Act of 2025 aims to combat extreme heat and improve transportation safety by funding the installation of green infrastructure, like trees, along walking, biking, and transit routes. This legislation reauthorizes and updates the Healthy Streets program to prioritize these cooling projects in the most vulnerable and underserved communities. The Act defines "cool corridors" and establishes clear criteria for demonstration projects focused on heat mitigation and long-term maintenance.
The Cool Corridors Act of 2025 is basically a major refresh and extension of the existing Healthy Streets program, pushing its authorization all the way to 2030 (SEC. 3). The core mission here is simple: fight extreme heat along transportation routes using nature. This bill is about planting trees, putting up shade structures, and using cool pavement along streets, bike paths, and transit stops to make travel safer and infrastructure last longer (SEC. 2).
This legislation introduces a key concept: the “cool corridor.” Think of it as a designated travel path—like the street you walk down to catch the bus—that gets a heat makeover. These corridors are upgraded with trees and other natural solutions specifically designed to drop the temperature (SEC. 4). The bill also defines “heat mitigation strategies” broadly, covering everything from planting trees and using reflective pavement to putting up shade at bus stops. Crucially, it emphasizes maintaining the green infrastructure we already have, meaning fewer dead roadside trees (SEC. 4).
If you live in a neighborhood that feels like an oven in the summer because there’s zero tree cover, this bill is focused on you. The funding criteria mandate that projects must prioritize disadvantaged communities suffering from high heat and low tree coverage (SEC. 4). This is a direct attempt to address the urban heat island effect, which often hits low-income areas the hardest. For the average commuter, this means that the walk or bike ride to the train station in July might actually become bearable, potentially improving public health outcomes and reducing heat-related illnesses.
The bill also expands who can apply for these grants. It’s no longer just state DOTs and transit agencies. Now, non-profits like local tree stewardship organizations and environmental asset managers can apply directly for funds, provided they have experience maintaining green infrastructure (SEC. 4). This opens the door for hyper-local groups who know their communities best to lead these projects.
One of the smartest parts of this Act is the focus on sustainability. It requires that every project includes a solid plan for long-term maintenance and sustainability (SEC. 4). We’ve all seen tree planting initiatives fail because nobody watered the saplings after year one. This bill tries to fix that by requiring detailed stewardship plans and even allowing funds to be used for job training related to urban forestry. This means new green jobs and a better chance that the trees planted today will actually be providing shade in ten years.
For those of us who rely on public transit, the funds can be used to integrate cooling infrastructure at bus stops and transit hubs (SEC. 4). Imagine waiting for the 7:00 am bus under a dedicated shade canopy instead of baking on a cracked concrete pad. The bill also requires grant recipients to report annually on how much the temperature actually dropped and how the project improved infrastructure resilience, meaning we get real data on whether these investments are working (SEC. 4).
While the intent is great, there are a couple of points to watch. First, the bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to approve tree planting plans to ensure they don't block traffic views or create safety hazards (SEC. 4). While safety is paramount, this gives the Secretary a potentially subjective veto power over project specifics, which could slow down or complicate greening efforts if the definition of “hazard” is applied too strictly. Second, the success of the prioritization effort hinges on how the term “disadvantaged communities” is defined and applied by the agencies involved. If that definition isn't clear and consistent, the funding might not always reach the areas that need heat relief the most.