Highway Bridges: Linking Funding to Conditions May Help Demonstrate Impact of Federal Investment
Published: 2016-09-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The nation's 612,000 bridges are critical elements of the surface transportation system, but the entire system is under growing strain and funding it is on GAO's High Risk List. While state and local governments own and maintain most of the nation's bridges, the federal government provides some funding for them, administered by FHWA. In 2012, legislative changes consolidated the bridge-funding program into other highway programs, giving states more flexibility in how to allocate funds.
GAO was asked to review the funding and management of bridges. This report examines trends, over the past 10 years, in (1) the condition and (2) the funding of the nation's bridges, as well as (3) how states fund and manage their bridge programs, given the 2012 legislative changes. GAO analyzed FHWA's bridge conditions and funding data; reviewed applicable laws, relevant FHWA program guidance, and federal guidance on performance measures; and interviewed federal officials and transportation officials from 24 states and D.C., selected to include those with large bridge inventories, among other factors.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Bridge conditions have generally improved nationwide from 2006 to 2015, based on GAO analysis of federal bridge data. For example, the percentage of structurally deficient bridge deck area (the surface area that carries vehicles) decreased from 9 percent to 7 percent nationwide during this period. The number of structurally deficient bridges also decreased from 13 percent to 10 percent nationwide. However, some states have substantially higher percentages of structurally deficient deck area than others. Bridge conditions may become more challenging to address as bridges age, because the number of bridges and amount of total deck area increased dramatically from the 1950s through the 1970s, generally with a 50-year design life. Analysis of federal bridge data shows that the amount of structurally deficient deck area is greatest for bridges built from 1960 through 1974, indicating an expected need for additional maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation.
Federal funds obligated for bridge projects have remained relatively stable from 2006 to 2015, between $6 billion and $7 billion annually in most years. During this period, the use of federal funds on bridges shifted somewhat from building new bridges to projects that preserve existing bridges, such as bridge rehabilitation or preventative maintenance. While the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates total funds dedicated to bridges and collects data on bridge conditions nationwide, it does not track the linkage between federal funds and changes in bridge conditions. GAO has previously reported that linking performance outcomes with resources invested can help agencies to more clearly determine how changes in invested resources may result in changes to performance. Using such performance measures would help FHWA demonstrate the link between federal funding and outcomes for bridges.
Officials from the selected 24 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) reported little change in the way they have funded and managed bridges since 2012. Officials from 21 states and D.C. reported bridge funding has been stable since the federal bridge program was consolidated in 2012. Officials from 3 states reported an increase in bridge funding since that time. The general stability in bridge funding may be a result of the long time frame for planning bridge projects; for example, bridge funding cycles can be 5 years or longer, a time span that means any changes would not be apparent for several years. Officials from 10 states mentioned increased flexibility in their ability to use federal funds for bridge projects. Changes from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act provided states flexibility to determine whether to spend federal highway funds on bridges or other highway needs. Further, officials from 18 states and D.C. reported that they have not changed how they prioritize bridge projects relative to other transportation projects. With respect to challenges, officials from 14 states described inadequate funding as a challenge, and officials from 13 states reported aging bridges as a challenge. For many of these states, the challenge of maintaining aging bridges is intertwined with the challenge of inadequate funds.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOT direct FHWA to develop measures on the linkage between the federal funding of bridges and the desired outcomes—maintained or improved bridge conditions—and report results to Congress. DOT concurred with our recommendation. DOT also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Bridges are critical elements of the nation’s transportation system,  supporting commerce, economic vitality, and personal mobility. In 2015,  the United States had nearly 612,000 bridges comprising over 4-billion  square feet of total deck area. Bridge safety first 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, a collapse that killed  46 people. Congress responded to national concerns by establishing the  first federal bridge program in 1970, which provided a funding mechanism  to assist states in replacing unsafe bridges on the federal-aid highway  system. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), within the federal  Department of Transportation (DOT), both: (1) administers the program  that supports the construction, maintenance, and preservation of the  nation's bridges and (2) oversees the implementation of the National  Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), among other duties. While federal  funding is provided to state governments to help improve highway  infrastructure, state and local governments own and maintain most of the  nation’s highways and bridges. State-level DOTs are responsible for  ensuring bridge inspections are completed and compiling data in a  national inventory on bridge conditions within their states according to  federal standards.
Funding the nation’s surface transportation system is on GAO’s High Risk  List. Our work has shown that the system is under growing strain, and  the cost to repair and upgrade the system to meet current and future  demands is estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We had  also found that the buying power of motor fuel and other truck-related  taxes that support the Highway Trust Fund—the major source of federal  surface transportation funding—are eroding and a long-term sustainable  plan for funding surface transportation is needed. In 2012, after over 40  years of having a dedicated federal bridge program, provisions in the  Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) altered the  sources of federal funds to use for bridge activities and projects and gave  states more flexibility in determining how to allocate highway funds. You  asked us to review bridge funding and management. This report  examines:   1.  trends, over the past 10 years, in the condition of the nation’s bridges;   2.  trends, over the same period, in federal funding of the nation’s bridges  and how FHWA monitors the linkage between this funding and  outcomes; and   3.  changes since the enactment of MAP-21 in how selected states fund  and manage their bridge programs, including any challenges they  face.
To conduct this work, we reviewed applicable laws and relevant FHWA  program guidance. To determine trends in the condition of the nation’s  bridges, we reviewed and analyzed FHWA’s National Bridge Inventory  (NBI) data from calendar years 2006 through 2015. To determine trends  in funding the nation’s bridges, we reviewed and analyzed data on federal  obligations for bridge projects in FHWA’s Fiscal Management Information  System (FMIS) from fiscal years 2006 through 2015. We assessed the  reliability of the data that we used by reviewing documentation and  interviewing FHWA officials on data verification and found the data to be  reliable for our purposes. We interviewed FHWA officials on bridge  conditions and funding and reviewed Office of Management and Budget’s  (OMB) guidance and leading practices we have previously identified  related to tracking, through performance measures, the linkage between  funding and outcomes and compared current activities to this guidance  and these leading practices. To determine how states fund and manage  their bridge programs, including any challenges they face, we interviewed  representatives from the American Association of State Highway and  Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National Association of  County Engineers (NACE), state officials from 24 states and the District of  Columbia (D.C.), and local government transportation officials from 10  agencies. We selected this non-generalizable sample of states because  they have large bridge inventories and receive relatively high levels of  federal surface transportation funding and for geographic dispersion.  From the selected states, we further selected 5 states for site visits,  based on similar selection criteria, in order to obtain additional  information. We selected California, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and  Washington for site visits. In these states, we met with state  transportation officials, FHWA Division Office officials, and officials from  two local government transportation agencies from each state based on  recommendations from state officials. Appendix I contains more detailed  information on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2015 to September  2016 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. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Federal programs for bridge construction, reconstruction, and repair are  authorized in surface transportation acts. In 2012, MAP-21 consolidated a  number of existing highway formula programs, including the Highway  Bridge Program (HBP). Bridge projects are now generally funded through  the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface  Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP). MAP-21 included a  number of statutory requirements related to transforming the surface  transportation system to a performance-based approach. For instance,  MAP-21 directed DOT to establish performance measures related to  highway safety, asset condition, and highway system performance,  among other things. In some cases, MAP-21 required DOT to use the  rulemaking process to implement performance-based requirements. In  2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), which  reauthorized surface transportation programs, largely maintained current  program structures, including MAP-21’s overall performance- management approach. The FAST Act also expanded the eligibility of  NHPP funds to be used for reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration,  rehabilitation, or preservation of a non-National Highway System (non- NHS) bridge if the bridge is on a Federal-aid highway.
FHWA is the agency charged with oversight of the condition of the  nation’s bridges. FHWA administers the federal-aid highway program that  provides about $40 billion each year to states to design, construct, and  preserve the nation’s roadway and bridge infrastructure. These funds are  distributed through annual apportionments established by statutory  formulas. FHWA oversees the federal-aid highway program primarily  through its 52 Division Offices located in each state, D.C., and Puerto  Rico. FHWA Division Offices have 10 to 61 staff each, depending on the  size of the state’s highway program and other factors. As of June 2016,  FHWA had approximately 2,800 staff—about two-thirds in the field and  the remaining third at FHWA headquarters.
FHWA distributes and tracks federal funds for highway and bridge  projects and collects some data to estimate annual spending by state and  local governments on highway and bridge projects. Specifically, FHWA  tracks federal-aid highway program obligations in FMIS, for individual  project segments or contracts. This allows FHWA to collect and report  information on the types of activities (such as obligations for the  construction of new bridges) funded with Highway Trust Fund monies.
Although federal funding is provided to states to help improve highway  infrastructure, state and local agencies own and maintain most of the  nation’s bridges. State and local agencies typically provide matching  funds on bridge projects that receive federal funding and may contribute  funds beyond their match amount. State-level DOTs are responsible for  ensuring bridge inspections are completed and for inventorying bridges  within their states according to federal standards (except for tribally or  federally owned bridges). State DOTs and local-planning organizations  have discretion in determining how to allocate available federal funds  among various projects and are responsible for selecting highway  projects, including bridge projects.
FHWA collects some data to estimate annual spending by state and local  governments on highway and bridge projects. Specifically, FHWA  requests that state DOTs submit several forms to the Office of  Transportation Policy Studies on a regular basis, such as:
Form 532, State Highway Expenditures—submitted annually, it  requests the total spent on all highways by the state, including  bridges; bridges are not separately reported.
Form 536, Local Highway Finance Report—submitted biennially, it  requests the total spent on all highways by all units of the state’s local  governments. Bridges are not separately reported. Acknowledging  difficulties in obtaining data from local agencies, FHWA recommends  that states use sampling and estimation to prepare this form, such as  collecting data from a selection of local governments and then  expanding the sample to generate statewide totals.
Form 534, State Highway Capital Outlay and Maintenance  Expenditures—submitted annually, it requests bridge-specific and  other highway outlays. This form is designed to complement the data  in Form 532 by classifying the highway expenditures of states into  improvement types, such as new construction and rehabilitation,  among other things.
As part of its oversight role, FHWA collects information from states on  bridge conditions and maintains this data in its NBI database. Bridges that  receive low inspection ratings on specific bridge elements are classified  as deficient. Bridges may be classified as deficient for one of two  reasons:
A structurally deficient bridge has one or more structural components,  such as the deck that directly carries vehicles, in poor condition.  Structurally deficient bridges often require maintenance and repair to  remain in service.
A functionally obsolete bridge has a configuration or design that may  no longer be adequate for the traffic it serves, such as being too  narrow or having inadequate overhead clearance. Functionally  obsolete bridges do not necessarily require repair to remain in  service. A bridge that is both structurally deficient and functionally  obsolete is listed as structurally deficient in the NBI.
In this report, we assess the conditions of bridges classified as  structurally deficient by both the total deck area and number of bridges.  Analysis of conditions based on the total number of bridges without  considering the size of bridges can create an incomplete picture. A state  may have a large number of deficient bridges, but if the deficient bridges  are small bridges, the total deck area in need could still be relatively low.  In comparison, another state could have very few deficient bridges, but if  those deficient bridges are large, the total deck area in need could be  much higher. Bridges may vary significantly in size and generally, the  needs of larger bridges are more costly than those of smaller bridges.  Measuring the total deck area, which accounts for the size of a bridge,  provides more information than counting the number of bridges (see fig.  1).
section_title: Bridge Conditions Have Generally Improved Nationwide over the Past 10 Years Bridge Conditions Have Generally Improved, but Improvements Vary by State
paragraphs: We found that bridge conditions, as indicated by data in the NBI, have  improved nationwide over the past 10 years, as measured by total deck  area and number of bridges that are structurally deficient. The percentage  of structurally deficient deck area and bridges declined along the same  trajectory from 2006 to 2015. Specifically, the deck area on bridges  classified as structurally deficient decreased from 9 percent to 7 percent,  and over the same time period, structurally deficient bridges, by number  of bridges, decreased from 13 percent to 10 percent (see fig. 2).
Bridge owners have broad discretion in determining how to address  bridge needs, but statutory requirements enacted in 2012 directed that  states allocate some federal funds to bridges if states do not meet  specified standards. FHWA does not issue guidance on which bridges to  target with federal funds, such as specifically targeting structurally  deficient bridges. However, MAP-21 contained a penalty provision  where any state whose percentage of total deck area of bridges on the  NHS classified as structurally deficient exceeds 10 percent for 3 years in  a row must devote funds (equal to 50 percent of the state’s fiscal year  2009 HBP apportionment) to eligible projects on bridges on the NHS until  they meet this minimum threshold. FHWA officials told us they plan to  use bridge condition data from 2014 through 2016 to determine if a  penalty is to be applied to the states, and begin imposing this penalty in  2017 if needed.
Despite overall improvements, among states there is variation in bridge  conditions. Specifically, our review of 2015 NBI data shows that some  states have substantially higher percentages of deck area on bridges  classified as structurally deficient than others have (see fig. 3). For  example, 21 percent of the total deck area in Rhode Island, affecting 23  percent of the 766 bridges in the state, is structurally deficient. While in  Texas, less than 2 percent of the total deck area, affecting less than 2  percent of the state’s 53,209 bridges, is structurally deficient.
Most but not all states have made some improvements in reducing their  percentage of deck area on bridges classified as structurally deficient  over the past 10 years. Forty-one states, D.C., and Puerto Rico reduced  the percentage from 2006 to 2015. Rhode Island had the greatest  reduction, going from over 40 percent to over 20 percent of total deck  area on bridges that are structurally deficient. However, in 9 states the  percentage increased from 2006 to 2015. Delaware had the highest  increase in the percentage of deck area on bridges classified as  structurally deficient, going from 2 percent to almost 6 percent. GAO  has reported that reducing structurally deficient bridges may not always  be a state’s highest priority. For example, a state may have other  priorities for bridge projects such as seismic retrofitting. According to  AASHTO representatives, states use their judgment in deciding how to  prioritize their funding for bridge projects. See appendix II for more  information about the percentages of bridges and total deck area that are  structurally deficient in each state.
subsections: section_title: Bridge Conditions May Become More Challenging to Address as Bridges Age
paragraphs: The number of bridges and amount of total deck area increased  dramatically from the 1950s through 1970s. The average age of bridges  nationwide is 45 years, based on our analysis of NBI data. According to  FHWA, the design life of the majority of existing bridges is 50 years,  though bridges have life spans that are dependent on factors such as  materials, environment, level of use, and level of maintenance. Also  according to FHWA, new design guidelines and construction materials  may raise the expected service life of new bridges to 75 years or longer.  However, states and other bridge owners are faced with significant  challenges in addressing the needs of existing bridges. In the 1950s, at  the beginning of the Interstate-era, through the 1970s, the number of  bridges constructed in the United States as well as the total square  footage of bridge deck constructed increased greatly (see fig. 4).
Analysis of NBI data indicates that the large number of bridges built  during that time has led to an increase in the need to address those  bridges that are now structurally deficient. Specifically, as shown in figure  5, the levels of structurally deficient total deck area are greatest for those  built from 1960 through 1974, during which years the total deck area of  bridges built in the United States peaked. The increased total deck area  of bridges built after the 1950s suggest that an increase in bridges with  structural deficiency may be expected and thus would increase the need  for bridge maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation.
section_title: Federal Bridge Funding has Been Stable in the Last 10 Years, but the Effects of Expended Resources Are Unclear
subsections: section_title: Federal Funds Obligated for Bridge Projects Have Generally Remained Stable
paragraphs: Federal funds obligated for bridges have remained relatively stable over  the last 10 years, between $6 billion and $7 billion annually in most years  (see table 1). However, total federal obligations for bridges were notably  higher in 2 years (2009 to 2010) due to an influx of funds from the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Prior  to 2013, the majority of obligations for bridges came from the HBP. Since  2013, such obligations have mostly come from the NHPP and STP.
In the last 10 years, federal obligations have shifted somewhat from  building new bridges to projects that preserve existing bridges. Based on  our analysis comparing 2006 to 2015 obligations, the types of  improvements made to bridges have somewhat changed (see fig. 6). For  example, fewer federal obligations were directed to bridge replacements  in 2015 than in 2006 (decreasing from 57 percent in 2006 to 48 percent in  2015). Also, fewer obligations went toward new bridges in 2015 than in  2006 (from 15 percent to 13 percent). Additionally, more obligations went  toward bridge rehabilitation work—major work required to restore the  structural integrity of a bridge or necessary to correct major safety  defects—in 2015 than in 2006 (this increased from 23 percent of  obligations in 2006 to 28 percent in 2015). Finally, the percentage of  obligations used for preventative maintenance increased from 2006 to  2015 (from 6 percent to 11 percent). This is partly because more  preventative maintenance activities such as bridge cleaning, painting  steel bridges, sealing concrete, and repairing or replacing deck joints,  became eligible for federal bridge program funding in 2006.
Based on data collected from state and local governments, FHWA  reported that total estimated spending on bridges increased in recent  years, from about $11.5 billion in 2006 up to about $17.5 billion in 2012  (see table 2). Analysis of this FHWA data suggests that state and local  funding for bridges has increased.
section_title: FHWA Does Not Link Bridge Funding to Changes in Bridge Conditions
paragraphs: FHWA tracks both the condition of bridges and the funding targeted to  them, as described below.
As part of its oversight role, FHWA seeks to ensure that states comply  with the NBIS, which details the process for and frequency of bridge  inspections. FHWA also collects bridge condition data from states  and maintains the NBI, the primary source of information on the  nation’s bridges. The NBI contains information on each bridge, such  as its location, size, age, condition, and inspection dates.
FHWA (1) maintains data on total federal obligations dedicated to  bridges each year; (2) periodically estimates the contributions from  state and local agencies through data collection efforts; and (3)  periodically reports to Congress its estimates of total funds dedicated  to bridges (including state and local funds) in its Conditions &  Performance Report, issued roughly every 2 years. The report also  estimates future-spending needs to maintain or improve current  conditions and performance.
However, FHWA currently lacks a mechanism for tracking the relationship  between the invested funds and the corresponding outcomes— maintained and improved bridge conditions. Given that FHWA already  estimates total funds dedicated to bridges and collects data on bridge  conditions nationwide, it has the information needed to create  performance measures that would demonstrate the link between federal  funding and the outcomes for bridges. According to leading practices for  government management identified by OMB and GAO, agencies should  not only have and report performance measures but also use them to link  outcomes with resources invested. Specifically, the Government  Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the GPRA  Modernization Act of 2010 establish the framework for performance  management in the federal government. Under this framework, federal  agencies are required to, among other things, assess whether relevant  programs and activities are contributing as planned to established  goals. Further, MAP-21 included a declaration on the importance of  accountability and linking performance outcomes to investment  decisions. We have reported that linking performance outcomes with  information on resources invested (i.e., data on the resources used to  produce an outcome, including costs) can help agencies to more clearly  understand how changes in invested resources may result in changes to  performance.
We have also reported that an effective way to show the relationship  between resources invested and outcomes is for agencies to use  efficiency measures. These measures are typically defined as the ratio  of two elements: a program’s inputs (such as its costs or hours worked by  staff), to its outputs or outcomes (see fig. 7).
OMB has issued guidance with examples of meaningful performance  measures, including some efficiency measures:  for the Forest Service, cost per acre of environmentally important  forest protected (provides costs per acre, including actual program  obligations and other dedicated funds);  for the Patent and Trade Office, cost per patent processed (provides  costs per patent, including staff expenses and overhead costs); and  for the Office of Child Support Enforcement, total child support dollars  collected per dollar of program expenditures (provides outcomes— dollars in child support collected—per total administrative  expenditures including staff expenses).
However, determining inputs—or invested resources—for efficiency  measures can be challenging when there are non-federal entities  contributing resources. Despite the usefulness of efficiency measures, we  have acknowledged that many of the outcomes for which federal  programs are responsible are part of broader efforts involving federal,  state, local, and other partners, and thus it can be difficult to isolate a  particular federal program’s contribution to the broader outcomes. This  is the case for highway programs, since funds from federal, state and  local sources all contribute to maintained or improved asset conditions.  However, federal guidance exists that may help. To assist agencies in  implementing the GPRA framework, OMB issued guidance about how  federal agencies might address the challenge of developing performance  measures for programs that co-mingle funds from different sources (i.e.,  federal, state, and local funds) in support of a broad goal. The guidance  acknowledged that it can be difficult to assess the marginal impact of the  federal investment for programs where combined co-mingled funding  contributes to the same broad performance outcome, but recommended  that agencies should nonetheless seek to assess the marginal impact of  the federal investment to the overall outcomes. OMB guidance noted that  in such cases, the resource inputs from non-federal partners may be  relevant in assessing the effectiveness of programs matched by federal  assistance. OMB suggested that in such cases, agencies should consider  crafting two performance measures of efficiency: one measure reporting  unit costs in terms of output per federal dollar spent and another measure  reporting unit costs in terms of the output per combined dollars spent.
FHWA officials told us that they have not developed measures linking  resources to outcomes. This is mostly due to limitations of the previous  version of their financial tracking system, FMIS. Specifically, officials  explained that prior to the most recent version of FMIS (Version 5), which  was launched in October 2015, data were collected on a project segment  level that may have included multiple bridges. Thus, it was not possible to  directly compare federal obligations on bridge projects to outcomes, in the  form of bridge conditions found in the NBI. However, when asked, officials  said that such a comparison could be possible with the newest version of  FMIS by creating a connection between FMIS and the NBI and showing  what happens to bridge conditions when federal obligations change over  time. Using such performance measures would help FHWA to  demonstrate the link between federal funding and outcomes for bridges.  As FHWA has reported in recent budget requests, states face increasing  challenges in finding sufficient funding for their infrastructure needs. In  addition, as GAO has previously reported, bridge infrastructure—like most  of the nation’s physical infrastructure—is under strain. Steady increases  in road usage, congestion, and the aging of the nation’s bridges will likely  continue to present challenges in the future.
section_title: Selected States Reported Little Change in the Way They Fund and Manage Highway Bridges, and Identified Various Challenges Related to Funding and Aging Bridges
subsections: section_title: Selected States Reported That Bridge Funding Has Generally Not Changed but That Flexibility of Funding Has Increased
paragraphs: Most of the state government officials we interviewed reported that,  consistent with FHWA data, bridge funding has been stable since the  federal bridge program was consolidated into other programs in 2012. We  interviewed officials from 24 states and D.C., and officials from 21 states  and D.C. told us there had been no change in funding their bridge  programs in the last 4 years. Officials from 3 states reported an overall  increase in bridge funding since that time, although officials from 2 of  those states indicated that the increase in bridge funding was not  necessarily a result of federal changes.
The general stability in bridge funding may be a result of the long time  frame for programming bridge projects, which could create a lag in  funding levels’ response to policy changes. AASHTO representatives told  us it is difficult to judge the impact of federal statutory changes on bridges  because of the long-term nature of infrastructure projects. Ten states and  D.C. provided us with examples of bridge-programming cycles of 5 years  or greater. For example, Ohio DOT officials told us that they program their  bridge projects 6 years into the future. Through this process, state  officials determine their project needs and request a planned allocation  for the 6th year of the funding cycle. With this type of long-term planning  and budgeting process, it may take several years for a change in federal  policy to have a noticeable effect on bridge projects’ funding.
Officials from some selected states reported increased flexibility in their  ability to use federal funds for bridges. In addition to allowing states the  flexibility to determine whether to spend federal highway funds on bridges  or other highway needs, changes provided by MAP-21 gave states  flexibility to use federal funds for a greater range of bridge projects. Prior  to MAP-21, only bridges that met certain criteria—such as being rated  below a certain threshold or not having received federal funds in the  previous 10 years—could receive federal funds. Officials from 10 of the  24 states and D.C. mentioned the increased flexibility in using highway  funds for bridge projects since MAP-21. See table 3 for examples of how  states used the increased flexibility.
section_title: Selected States Have Not Changed How They Prioritize Bridges Relative to Other Transportation Projects
paragraphs: Officials from most selected states told us there have been no changes in  prioritizing bridges relative to other transportation assets. Specifically,  officials from 18 states and D.C. reported that they give bridges the same  priority as they did prior to MAP-21. Officials from several of these states  said that bridges have remained a high priority because of safety  concerns. For example, an official from the New York DOT said that there  is a keen awareness of what happens when bridges are not maintained,  citing the state’s major bridge failures in the 1980s—the Mianus River  Bridge in 1983 and the Schoharie Creek Bridge in 1987, and thus bridges  have remained a priority over time in New York.
Though most states have reportedly not changed the way they prioritize  bridges, officials from 2 states told us that bridges’ relative priority may  change after they implement performance management principles. For  example, California officials told us they are transitioning toward a  performance-based management approach where the needs of different  transportation assets, including bridges and pavement, will be weighed  against each other in order to meet performance targets within budgetary  constraints. According to officials, a possible outcome is that local  agencies in California may need more funding to repair their pavement or  other assets to meet performance targets, which have yet to be  determined through the FHWA rulemaking process on performance  measures that is under way. Further, officials stated that these changes  could have an impact on future bridge funding and relative priority.  Likewise in Iowa, officials said that the state is moving toward using asset  management principles in future decision making, which will involve more  comparisons across different types of projects.
section_title: Selected State and Local Officials Reported That the Needs of Aging Bridges Outpace Available Funding, among Other Challenges
paragraphs: Officials from a majority of the states and local agencies we interviewed  cited inadequate funding as a challenge for their bridge programs. Of the  officials we interviewed from 24 states and D.C., officials from 14  described inadequate funding as a challenge. See table 4 for examples of  challenges of inadequate bridge funding cited.
Local agency officials also discussed inadequate funding as a challenge  for their bridge programs. Officials from 6 of the 10 local agencies we  interviewed mentioned that inadequate funding for bridges was a  challenge. For example, officials at the Oklahoma City Department of  Public Works reported that many needed bridge projects are delayed  because they lack sufficient funds. Further, they are only able to address  the most critical needs due to limited funding. Transportation officials in  Seattle, Washington, told us that the state DOT distributes a total of about  $35 million per year in federal funds to local agencies, which compete for  a part of those funds; however, the city’s highest priority bridge has a  replacement cost of about $350 million, which far surpasses what they  may receive. Given the gap in funding for large projects, officials said they  will be forced to close large bridges that are deemed unsafe if they are  unable to raise the funds needed to repair them.
Some state and local officials reported that many bridges are reaching the  end of their intended service life. According to officials from several states  and local agencies, most bridges were designed to last 50 years. Officials  from 13 of the states we interviewed reported aging bridges as a  challenge. For many of these states, the challenge of aging bridges is  intertwined with the challenge of inadequate funds. State DOT officials  stated that aging bridges require more costly maintenance and repairs  and many need to be replaced. See table 5 for examples of challenges  cited related to aging bridge inventories.
Other challenges were also cited by state DOT officials. See table 6 for  examples of challenges that were less frequently stated.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Bridge conditions have generally improved nationwide over the past  decade. However the increase in the number and size of bridges that are  approaching the limits of their design life will likely place a greater  demand on bridge owners in the near future, making it more difficult to  mitigate issues in a cost-effective manner. While FHWA collects  information on bridge conditions annually and maintains data on federal  obligations dedicated to bridges, it lacks performance measures  demonstrating the link between bridge funding and changes in bridge  conditions. This lack is in part because a limitation in the prior financial- tracking system, which did not allow the direct comparison of federal  obligations with bridge projects’ outcomes. However, with recent  improvements to FMIS, FHWA has the information needed to create an  efficiency measure or measures to demonstrate the link between federal  funding and the outcomes for bridges. This information can support  Congress in making informed choices about how to best invest the limited  available resources in maintaining or improving the condition of the  nation’s bridges.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation  direct the FHWA Administrator to develop an efficiency measure or  measures that demonstrate the linkage between the federal funding of  bridges and the desired performance outcomes, such as maintained or  improved bridge conditions, and report the resulting information to  Congress.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment. In  written comments, reproduced in appendix III, DOT concurred with our  recommendation. In addition, DOT provided technical comments that we  incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or Goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this statement. The names of GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses the funding and management of bridges and  examines: (1) trends, over the past 10 years, in the condition of the  nation’s bridges; (2) trends, over the same period, in federal funding of  the nation’s bridges and how FHWA monitors the linkage between this  funding and outcomes; and (3) changes since MAP-21 in how selected  states fund and manage their bridge programs, including any challenges  they face.
To determine trends in the condition of the nation’s bridges, we reviewed  and analyzed FHWA’s National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data from calendar  years 2006 through 2015. We limited our review of NBI data to bridges  that are located on public roads and that are at least 20 feet in length. We  obtained NBI data for bridges during the selected calendar years for an  aggregate of all records and by state, including all 50 states; District of  Columbia (D.C.); and Puerto Rico. Specifically, we reviewed data by  number of bridges and total deck area, looking at deficiency status and  year of bridge construction, among other data. We calculated total deck  area based on a formula using structure length and deck width—or in the  case of culverts (structures with fill over them), approach roadway width— using NBI data.
To determine trends in funding the nation’s bridges, we reviewed and  analyzed federal obligations data on bridge projects in FHWA’s Fiscal  Management Information System (FMIS) from fiscal years 2006 through  2015. Specifically, we obtained federal obligations data for bridge new  construction, bridge replacement, bridge rehabilitation, bridge  preventative maintenance, bridge protection, and bridge inspection and  related training. We analyzed the data by improvement codes and by  federal highway programs. In addition, we analyzed FHWA’s available  data on state and local governments’ spending for bridge projects by  reviewing data from the 2013 FHWA Conditions and Performance Report,  reviewing FHWA’s Highway Statistics Series of reports, and interviewing  FHWA officials. We assessed the reliability of the data that we used by  reviewing documentation and interviewing officials on data verification  and found the data to be reliable for our purposes. We also reviewed  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance and leading practices  we have previously identified related to tracking, through performance  measures, the linkage between funding and outcomes and compared  current activities to this guidance and these leading practices.
To determine how states fund and manage their bridge programs,  including any challenges they face, we interviewed representatives from  the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials  and the National Association of County Engineers. We also interviewed  state officials from 24 states and D.C. We selected this non-generalizable  sample of states because they have large bridge inventories, relatively  high levels of federal surface transportation funding, and for geographic  dispersion. The selected states were: California, Connecticut, Florida,  Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,  Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,  Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,  and Washington. From the selected states, we further selected 5 states  for site visits, based on selection criteria similar to that stated above, in  order to obtain additional information from each state. We selected  California, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington for site  visits. In these states, we met with state transportation officials, FHWA  Division Office officials, and officials from two local-government  transportation agencies from each state. We selected the non- generalizable sample of local agencies based on recommendations from  state officials of nearby local agencies that could accommodate our site  visit schedule. The selected local agencies were: Los Angeles County  (California); Placer County (California); City of Oklahoma City; Oklahoma  Cooperative Circuit Engineering District #7; City of Providence (Rhode  Island); Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority; City of Austin  (Texas); Williamson County (Texas); King County (Washington); and City  of Seattle (Washington).
section_title: Appendix II: Change in the Condition of Bridges, by State, from 2006 to 2015
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Transportation
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact:
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments:
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Heather MacLeod, Assistant  Director, Jessica Bryant-Bertail, Brian Chung, Danielle Ellingston, Dave  Hooper, Ying Long, SaraAnn Moessbauer, Josh Ormond, and Amy  Rosewarne made key contributions to this report.