TRANSPORTATION 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Limited Improvement in 

Bridge Conditions over the 

Past Decade, but Financial 

Challenges Remain

Statement of Phillip R. Herr, Managing Director

Physical Infrastructure

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Transportation, Housing, and Urban 

Development, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday, June 13, 2013

GAO-13-713T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-713T, testimony before 

the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, 

and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 

Senate 

June 13, 2013 

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

Limited Improvement in Bridge Conditions over the 

Past Decade, but Financial Challenges Remain

Why GAO Did This Study

The May 23, 2013 collapse of a section 

of the Interstate 5 bridge over the 

Skagit River, north of Seattle, 

Washington, underscores the 

importance of maintaining the nation’s 

infrastructure and the economic impact 

that a bridge failure can have on a 

region. This testimony addresses (1) 

what is known about the current 

condition of the nation’s bridges and 

impact of federal funding for bridges 

and (2) a preliminary look at recent 

changes to the surface transportation 

and bridge program made by MAP-21. 

The Act consolidated a number of 

highway programs, including the 

former Highway Bridge Program. This 

testimony is based on prior GAO 

reports, updated with publicly available 

bridge data and information. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any new 

recommendations. In 2008, GAO 

recommended that the Secretary of 

Transportation work with Congress to 

identify and define national goals for 

the federal bridge program, develop 

and implement performance measures, 

identify and evaluate best tools and 

practices, and review and evaluate 

funding mechanisms to align funding 

with performance. GAO closed this 

recommendation as implemented 

based on the provisions contained in 

MAP-21. 

What GAO Found

There has been limited improvement in bridge conditions in the past decade, but 

a substantial number of bridges remain in poor condition. Of the 607,380 bridges 

on the nation’s roadways in 2012, 1 in 4 was classified as deficient. Some are 

structurally deficient and have one or more components in poor condition and 

others are functionally obsolete and may no longer be adequate for the traffic 

they serve. Data indicate that the number of deficient bridges has decreased 

since 2002 even as the number of bridges has increased. The impact of the 

federal investment in bridges is difficult to measure. For example, while 

Department of Transportation (DOT) tracks a portion of bridge spending on a 

state-by-state basis, the data do not include state and local spending, thus 

making it difficult to determine the federal contribution to overall expenditures. 

Understanding the impact of federal investment in bridges is important in 

determining how to invest future federal resources. 

There has been progress in clarifying federal goals and linking federal surface 

transportation programs—including bridges—to performance. DOT worked with 

Congress which adopted provisions in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP-21), including provisions that move toward a more 

performance-based highway program. MAP-21 specified that National Highway 

Performance Program funds may only support eligible projects—including bridge 

projects—on the National Highway System. The Act also required the Secretary 

of Transportation, in consultation with states and others, to establish 

performance measures for bridge conditions. However, although there has been 

progress in these areas, Congress and the administration need to agree on a 

long-term plan for funding surface transportation. As we noted in our 2013 High 

Risk Update, continuing to fund a Highway Trust Fund shortfall through general 

revenues may not be sustainable without balancing revenues and spending from 

the fund. 

Trends in Number and Condition of Bridges, 2002 through 2012 

Note: Deficient bridges include both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. 

View GAO-13-713T for key components. For 

more information, contact Phillip R. Herr at 

(202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. 
Page 1 GAO-13-713T 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss GAO’s work examining the 

nation’s highways and bridges. The surface transportation system is 

critical to the U.S. economy and affects the daily lives of most Americans, 

moving both people and freight. The May 23, 2013, collapse of a section 

of the Interstate 5 bridge over the Skagit River, north of Seattle, 

Washington, underscores the importance of maintaining the nation’s 

infrastructure and the economic impact that a bridge failure, such as this 

one, can have on a region. According to Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) information, the Skagit River Bridge is a major commercial route 

between the U.S. and Canada and serves an average of 71,000 vehicles 

per day. Commercial truck traffic comprises about 11 percent of these 

vehicles, transporting goods between the two countries. Overall, there are 

over 600,000 bridges in the U.S. surface transportation system. However, 

the system—including bridges—is under growing strain, and the cost to 

repair and upgrade it to meet current and future demands is estimated in 

the hundreds of billions.

My testimony today describes: (1) the current condition of the nation’s 

bridges and effects of federal funding for bridges and (2) a preliminary 

look at the recent changes to the surface transportation and bridge 

program made by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP-21), along with key financial challenges. This statement is drawn 

from prior work that we completed from 2008 through 2010 regarding 

surface transportation programs.1

 

1 GAO, Highway Bridge Program: Condition of Nation’s Bridges Shows Limited 

Improvement, but Further Actions Could Enhance the Impact of Federal Investment, 

The reports and testimonies cited in 

this statement contain more detailed explanations of the methods used to 

conduct our work. We conducted our work on these products in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

GAO-10-930T (Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2010), and GAO, Highway Bridge Program: 

Clearer Goals and Performance Measures Needed for a More Focused and Sustainable 

Program, GAO-08-1043 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.10, 2008).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-713T 

Bridges vary substantially in their size and use, including daily traffic 

volumes. In 2012, there were 607,380 bridges in the United States, which 

carried the nation’s passenger car, truck, bus transit, and commercial 

vehicle traffic over waterways, highways, railways, and other road 

obstructions. Bridge ownership is fairly evenly split between states (48 

percent) and local government agencies (50 percent). State agencies are 

responsible for 77 percent of the nation’s bridge deck area. The federal 

government owns less than 2 percent of the nation’s bridges, primarily on 

federally-owned land.

Bridge safety emerged as a high-priority issue in the United States in the 

1960s, following the collapse of the Silver Bridge between Ohio and West 

Virginia, which killed 46 people. That collapse prompted national 

concerns about bridge condition and safety and highlighted the need for 

timely repair and replacement of bridges. Congress responded by 

establishing the National Bridge Inspection Program (NBIP) to ensure 

periodic safety inspection of bridges and the Highway Bridge Program 

(HBP) was established to provide funding and assist states in replacing 

and rehabilitating bridges.

The NBIP established the National Bridge Inspection Standards, which 

detail how bridge inspections are to be completed and with what 

frequency.2 After inspection, a bridge may be classified as deficient for 

one of two reasons: the bridge has one or more components in poor 

condition (classified as “structurally deficient”) or the bridge has a poor 

configuration or design that may no longer be adequate for the traffic it 

serves (classified as “functionally obsolete”).3 Structurally deficient 

bridges often require maintenance and repair to remain in service. In 

contrast, functionally obsolete bridges do not necessarily require repair to 

remain in service and therefore are unlikely to be state transportation 

officials’ top priority for rehabilitation or replacement.4

 

2 23 C.F.R. part 650.

Bridge sufficiency 

3 During an inspection, bridge inspectors rate bridge components using a numerical 

system to describe the condition of the component. Using the data collected by state and 

local governments during bridge inspections, FHWA classifies bridges in two key ways, by 

determining whether bridges are not deficient or deficient and by calculating a sufficiency 

rating.

4 Bridges are typically classified as functionally obsolete as a result of changing traffic 

demands or changes in design standards since construction and are not structurally 

unsound. 

Background
 

Page 3 GAO-13-713T 

ratings are calculated using a formula that reflects structural adequacy, 

safety, serviceability, and relative importance. Based on an inspection, 

each bridge is assigned a sufficiency rating from a low of 0 to a high of 

100.5 For example, in the National Bridge Inventory, the Skagit River 

bridge was classified as functionally obsolete with a sufficiency rating of 

46. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), classifying 

a bridge as deficient does not necessarily mean that it is likely to collapse 

or that it is unsafe. If proper vehicle weight restrictions are posted and 

enforced, deficient bridges can continue to serve most traffic conditions. If 

a bridge is determined to be unsafe, it must be closed to traffic.6

President Obama signed MAP-217 into law in July 2012, consolidating a 

number of existing highway programs, including the Highway Bridge 

Program. Bridge projects are now funded through the National Highway 

Performance Program (NHPP) or the Surface Transportation Program 

(STP). MAP-21 divides each state’s total annual federal-aid 

apportionment principally between NHPP and STP.8 Estimated funding 

authorized under MAP-21 in fiscal year 2013 are over $21 billion for 

NHPP and about $10 billion for STP.

There has been limited improvement in bridge conditions in the past 

decade, but substantial numbers of bridges remain in poor condition. Of 

the 607,380 bridges on the nation’s roadways in 2012, 1 in 4 was 

classified as deficient. Data indicate that the total number of deficient 

bridges decreased since 2002, even as the total number of bridges 

increased. From 2002 to 2012, the number of bridges increased from 

591,243 to 607,380. During that same time period, the total number of 

deficient bridges decreased by 23,357. (See fig. 1.) In our prior work, we 

found that the average sufficiency rating of all bridges—including both 

 

5 FHWA assigns each bridge in the national bridge inventory a rating between 0 and 100, 

indicating its sufficiency to remain in service. A rating of 100 represents an entirely 

sufficient bridge, while a rating of 0 represents an entirely insufficient bridge. FHWA 

documents state that sufficiency ratings are not intended to be an accurate representation 

of priority for bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects. 

6 DOT, 2006 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and 

Performance (Washington, D.C., Jan. 22, 2007).

7 Pub. L No. 112-141. 126 Stat 405 (2012)

8 Codified as positive law at 23 U.S.C. §§ 104(b), 119(d)(2).

Bridge Conditions 

Show Limited 

Improvement, but the 

Impact of Federal 

Investment Is Difficult 

to Determine
 

Page 4 GAO-13-713T 

deficient and non-deficient bridges—also improved slightly. Specifically, 

the average sufficiency rating for all bridges increased from 75 to 79 on 

the sufficiency rating’s 100-point scale from 1998 to 2007.9

Figure 1: Trends in Number and Condition of Bridges, 2002 through 2012

Note: Deficient bridges include both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. 

Our prior work has found that the impact of the federal investment in 

bridges is difficult to measure.10

 

9 However, in that same period, the amount of bridge deck that is deficient has increased 

by 39 million square feet, or 4 percent.

For example, while FHWA tracks a 

portion of bridge spending on a state-by-state basis, the data do not 

10 GAO-08-1043. 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-713T 

include (1) states’ spending on bridges located on local roads and (2) 

most local governments’ spending on bridges, thus making it difficult to 

determine the federal contribution to overall bridge expenditures. This 

lack of comprehensive information on state and local spending makes it 

impossible to determine the impact of the federal investment in bridges. 

Understanding the impact of the federal investment is important not only 

to understand the outcomes of past spending but also to determine how 

to sensibly invest future federal resources.

There has been progress in clarifying federal goals and linking federal 

surface transportation programs to performance. In 2008, we reported 

that the federal bridge program needed clearer goals and performance 

measures to create a more focused and sustainable program. We 

recommended that the Department of Transportation (DOT) work with 

Congress to identify specific goals in the national interest. Subsequently, 

DOT worked with Congress which adopted provisions in MAP-21, 

including provisions that move toward a more performance-based 

highway and transit program. MAP-21 also specified that NHPP funds 

may only support eligible projects—including bridge projects—on the 

National Highway System.11 However, for both NHPP and STP, funding 

for bridge construction, replacement, and rehabilitation projects is listed 

among a broader category of eligible highway projects and activities that 

must be identified in a state transportation plan. Our prior work had also 

recommended that DOT incorporate best tools and practices into the 

federal bridge program. MAP-21 described the importance of using 

performance-based bridge management systems to assist states in 

making timely investments; however, it does not require states to do so.12

MAP-21 also required the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation 

with states and others, to establish performance measures for bridge 

conditions, among other areas, and required states and others to 

 

11 The National Highway System is a 220,000-mile network of rural and urban roads 

serving major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation 

facilities, and major travel destinations. It includes the Interstate System, the Strategic 

Highway Network, and others.

12 A bridge management system is a system of formal procedures and methods for 

gathering and analyzing bridge data to predict future bridge conditions, estimate 

maintenance and improvement needs, determine optimal policies, and recommend 

projects and schedules within budget and policy constraints.

Progress Has Been 

Made in Clarifying the 

Federal Government’s 

Surface 

Transportation Focus 

and Linking Programs 

to Performance 

Measures, but 

Challenges Remain
 

Page 6 GAO-13-713T 

establish performance targets for those measures and to report their 

progress in achieving the targets.13

Although there has been progress in clarifying federal goals and linking 

federal surface transportation programs to performance, Congress and 

the administration need to agree on a long-term plan for funding surface 

transportation. As we noted in our 2013 High Risk Update related to 

financing the surface transportation system,

In addition, MAP-21 links funding to 

performance by requiring states to take corrective action should progress 

toward their targets be insufficient and to spend a specified portion of 

their annual federal funding to improve bridge conditions should 

conditions fall below minimum standards set by the Secretary.

14 continuing to fund a 

Highway Trust Fund shortfall through general revenues may not be 

sustainable given competing demands and the federal government’s 

fiscal challenges.15

Calls for increased investments come at a time when traditional 

transportation funding sources are eroding. Funding is further 

complicated by the federal government’s financial condition and fiscal 

outlook. Meanwhile, the nation’s inventory of bridges continues to age, 

including some considered to require costly, large-scale bridge projects. 

As many of the nation’s bridges built in the 1960s and 1970s age, the 

number in need of repair or rehabilitation is expected to increase.

We believe a sustainable solution is based on 

balancing Highway Trust Fund revenues and spending. New revenues 

from users can come only from taxes and fees. Ultimately major changes 

in transportation spending, revenues, or both, will be needed to bring the 

two into balance.

16

 

13 Performance measures are also required for areas such as pavement conditions, 

injuries and fatalities, and congestion.

Additionally, in our previous work, some state officials explained that 

certain large-scale bridge projects—often the most traveled, urban 

bridges on interstate corridors—are too expensive to be implemented with 

14 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013).

15 Most funding authorized under MAP-21 is drawn from the Highway Trust Fund.

16 In our prior work, we reported that the average age of bridges in 2007 in the National 

Bridge Inventory was approximately 35 years, that the average age of bridges with a 

sufficiency rating of 80 or less was 39 years, and that the average age of bridges with a 

sufficiency rating less than 50 was 53 years. See GAO-08-1043. 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-713T 

bridge program funds alone.17 For example, Washington state DOT 

officials explained that costly “mega projects”—those that have an 

estimated total cost greater than $500 million—that emerge as top 

priorities through their prioritization process may be delayed by a lack of 

funds. Transportation officials in Washington state and other states we 

visited acknowledged that existing bridge mega projects could easily 

exhaust a state’s entire federal-aid apportionment for many years, 

potentially to the detriment of all other bridge needs in that state. Without 

agreement on a long-term plan for funding surface transportation, 

program fiscal sustainability remains a challenge.

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions you may have.

For further information on this statement, please contact Phillip R. Herr at 

(202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

were Heather MacLeod, Assistant Director; Brian Chung; Bert Japikse; 

Delwen Jones; Les Locke; SaraAnn Moessbauer; and Josh Ormond.

 

17 GAO-08-1043. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgements

(546061)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.