Highway Bridge Program
Condition of Nation's Bridges Shows Limited Improvement, but Further Actions Could Enhance the Impact of Federal Investment Gao ID: GAO-10-930T July 21, 2010One in four bridges in the United States is either structurally deficient and in need of repair, or functionally obsolete and is not adequate for today's traffic. The Highway Bridge Program (HBP), the primary source of federal funding for bridges, provided about $7 billion to states in fiscal year 2010. This testimony addresses (1) the current state of the nation's bridges and the impacts of the HBP and (2) the extent to which the HBP aligns with principles GAO developed to guide the re-examination of surface transportation programs. This testimony is based on prior GAO reports, updated with bridge data and information provided by agency officials.
There are over 600,000 bridges on the nation's roadways, of which one in four is deficient in some sense. Data indicate that the total number of deficient bridges has decreased over the past 12 years, even as the total number of bridges has increased, because of a reduction in the number of structurally deficient bridges. However, the impact of the federal investment in the HBP is difficult to measure, in part because there are no comprehensive and complementary data for state and local bridge spending. The lack of comprehensive information on state and local spending makes it impossible to (1) distinguish the impact of HBP funding from other funding to improve bridge conditions and (2) determine the extent to which states may be substituting increased HBP funding for state and local funds that they would otherwise have spent on bridges. Evaluating the impact of the HBP is important not only to understand the outcome of past spending but also to determine how to sensibly invest future federal resources. The HBP does not fully align with GAO's principles for re-examining surface transportation programs in that the program lacks focus, performance measures, and fiscal sustainability. The program's statutory goals are not focused on a clearly identified national interest but rather have expanded from improving deficient bridges to supporting preventive maintenance and many other projects, thus expanding eligibility to include almost any bridge. In addition, the program lacks measures linking funding to performance and does not utilize new tools such as bridge management systems. Fiscal sustainability also remains a challenge given the nearly $30 billion in additional revenues added to the Highway Account since fiscal year 2008. GAO is not making any new recommendations. In 2008, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Transportation work with Congress to (1) identify and define national goals for HBP, (2) develop and implement performance measures, (3) identify and evaluate best tools and practices, and (4) review and evaluate HBP funding mechanisms to align funding with performance. DOT generally agreed with these recommendations and has taken some actions to work with Congress to address issues GAO raised regarding the HBP, but much work remains. GAO provided a draft of this testimony to FHWA for review. We incorporated FHWA comments, as appropriate.
GAO-10-930T, Highway Bridge Program: Condition of Nation's Bridges Shows Limited Improvement, but Further Actions Could Enhance the Impact of Federal Investment
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-930T
entitled 'Highway Bridge Program: Condition of Nation's Bridges Shows
Limited Improvement, but Further Actions Could Enhance the Impact of
Federal Investment' which was released on July 21, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, July 21, 2010:
Highway Bridge Program:
Condition of Nation's Bridges Shows Limited Improvement, but Further
Actions Could Enhance the Impact of Federal Investment:
Statement of Phillip R. Herr, Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-10-930T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-930T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
One in four bridges in the United States is either structurally
deficient and in need of repair, or functionally obsolete and is not
adequate for today‘s traffic. The Highway Bridge Program (HBP), the
primary source of federal funding for bridges, provided about $7
billion to states in fiscal year 2010. This testimony addresses (1)
the current state of the nation‘s bridges and the impacts of the HBP
and (2) the extent to which the HBP aligns with principles GAO
developed to guide the re-examination of surface transportation
programs. This testimony is based on prior GAO reports, updated with
bridge data and information provided by agency officials.
What GAO Found:
There are over 600,000 bridges on the nation‘s roadways, of which one
in four is deficient in some sense. Data indicate that the total
number of deficient bridges has decreased over the past 12 years, even
as the total number of bridges has increased, because of a reduction
in the number of structurally deficient bridges. However, the impact
of the federal investment in the HBP is difficult to measure, in part
because there are no comprehensive and complementary data for state
and local bridge spending. The lack of comprehensive information on
state and local spending makes it impossible to (1) distinguish the
impact of HBP funding from other funding to improve bridge conditions
and (2) determine the extent to which states may be substituting
increased HBP funding for state and local funds that they would
otherwise have spent on bridges. Evaluating the impact of the HBP is
important not only to understand the outcome of past spending but also
to determine how to sensibly invest future federal resources.
The HBP does not fully align with GAO‘s principles for re-examining
surface transportation programs in that the program lacks focus,
performance measures, and fiscal sustainability. The program‘s
statutory goals are not focused on a clearly identified national
interest but rather have expanded from improving deficient bridges to
supporting preventive maintenance and many other projects, thus
expanding eligibility to include almost any bridge. In addition, the
program lacks measures linking funding to performance and does not
utilize new tools such as bridge management systems. Fiscal
sustainability also remains a challenge given the nearly $30 billion
in additional revenues added to the Highway Account since fiscal year
2008.
Figure: Trends in Number and Condition of Bridges, 1998 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Year: 1998;
Deficient bridges: 186,706;
All bridges: 582,875.
Year: 1999;
Deficient bridges: 183,647;
All bridges: 585,469.
Year: 2000;
Deficient bridges: 180,447;
All bridges: 586,75.
Year: 2001;
Deficient bridges: 177,352;
All bridges: 589,288.
Year: 2002;
Deficient bridges: 174,737;
All bridges: 590,257.
Year: 2003;
Deficient bridges: 172,439;
All bridges: 591,336.
Year: 2004;
Deficient bridges: 169,811;
All bridges: 592,901.
Year: 2005;
Deficient bridges: 167,606;
All bridges: 594,616.
Year: 2006;
Deficient bridges: 164,826;
All bridges: 596,842.
Year: 2007;
Deficient bridges: 162,984;
All bridges: 599,319.
Year: 2008;
Deficient bridges: 161,892;
All bridges: 600,905.
Year: 2009;
Deficient bridges: 159,739;
All bridges: 602,977.
Increase in all bridges, 1998-2009: 20,102.
Decrease in deficient bridges, 1998-2009: 26,967.
Note: Deficient bridges include both structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete bridges.
Source: GAO analysis of 2009 FHWA data.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is not making any new recommendations. In 2008, GAO recommended
that the Secretary of Transportation work with Congress to (1)
identify and define national goals for HBP, (2) develop and implement
performance measures, (3) identify and evaluate best tools and
practices, and (4) review and evaluate HBP funding mechanisms to align
funding with performance. DOT generally agreed with these
recommendations and has taken some actions to work with Congress to
address issues GAO raised regarding the HBP, but much work remains.
GAO provided a draft of this testimony to FHWA for review. We
incorporated FHWA comments, as appropriate.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-930T] or key
components. For more information, contact Phillip R. Herr at (202) 512-
2834 or herrp@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to participate in this hearing on
federal efforts to address the condition of our nation's bridges.
Bridges are critical elements of the nation's transportation network,
which supports commerce, economic vitality, and personal mobility.
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), it is
authorized through the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) to provide
approximately $7 billion to states in fiscal year 2010. This program
provides funding to states for a variety of activities that improve
the condition of their bridges.[Footnote 1] In addition to HBP
funding, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery
Act) provided $26.7 billion to the highway infrastructure investment
to restore, repair, and construct highways and bridges and for other
eligible uses, such as maritime industry projects.
Since the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on
August 1, 2007, there have been calls for increased federal investment
in bridge infrastructure. Calls for increased investment coincide with
strains on traditional funding for infrastructure projects, as
evidenced by recent shortfalls and subsequent infusions of additional
revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, which funds the HBP and other
highway programs. Surface transportation funding has been on our high-
risk list for several years.[Footnote 2] We have also recently called
for a fundamental re-examination of surface transportation programs
and commitments to address emerging needs by eliminating outdated or
ineffective programs, more sharply defining the federal role in
relation to state and local governments, and modernizing certain
programs.[Footnote 3]
My testimony today addresses (1) the current state of the nation's
bridges and impacts of the HBP and (2) the extent to which the HBP
aligns with principles we developed to guide the re-examination of
surface transportation programs.[Footnote 4] My testimony is based on
prior GAO work, including our 2008 report and testimony on the HBP, as
well as updated data and information.[Footnote 5]
For our prior reports, we interviewed a range of federal, state, and
local transportation officials, including officials in six states that
we visited (California, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington); analyzed data in FHWA's National Bridge Inventory (NBI),
the primary source of information on the nation's bridges; and
compared HBP practices to re-examination principles identified in our
previous work. Those principles include identifying clear federal
goals and roles, incorporating performance and accountability into
funding decisions, using best tools and approaches, and ensuring
fiscal sustainability. More detail on scope and methodology is
available in each prior report. To update this report, we analyzed
FHWA data and interviewed relevant officials. GAO provided a draft of
this testimony to FHWA for review and comment. FHWA provided technical
comments, which were incorporated, as appropriate. We conducted all
our work 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.
Background:
Bridges vary significantly in their size and use, including daily
traffic volumes. In 2009, there were 602,977 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. The number of bridges owned 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, which carry 88 percent of the average daily
traffic crossings. 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 what is now
known as the HBP to provide funding and assist states in replacing and
rehabilitating bridges. Both of these programs generally define
eligible bridges as publicly owned, over 20 feet in length, and
located on public roads.[Footnote 6] Although the NBIP and HBP are
separate programs, they are linked by the data collected through
bridge inspections.
The NBIP establishes the National Bridge Inspection Standards, which
details how bridge inspections are to be completed, by whom, and with
what frequency. For example, state departments of transportation
(state DOT) carry out the federal-level policies, procedures, and
requirements for inventory, inspection, bridge load ratings, quality
assurance, and reporting. Routine bridge inspections are generally
conducted every 2 years by state bridge inspectors, but with FHWA
approval, the inspection interval may be extended to 4 years on
certain bridges. Bridges also may be inspected more often than every 2
years, when past inspection findings justify an increase. Inspectors
must report bridge condition information to the NBI, maintained by
FHWA headquarters.[Footnote 7]
Based on information gathered during inspections and reported to the
NBI, the HBP classifies bridge conditions as deficient or not, assigns
a sufficiency rating, and uses that information to provide funding to
states. A bridge may be classified as deficient for one of two
reasons: a structurally deficient bridge has one or more components in
poor condition, while a functionally obsolete bridge has a poor
configuration or design that may no longer be adequate for the traffic
it serves.[Footnote 8] Bridge sufficiency ratings are calculated using
a formula that reflects structural adequacy, safety, serviceability,
and relative importance. Each bridge is assigned a sufficiency rating
between 0 and 100. Bridges that are deficient and have a sufficiency
rating of 80 or less may be eligible for rehabilitation and bridges
that are deficient and have a sufficiency rating of less than 50 may
be eligible for replacement or rehabilitation (see figure 1).[Footnote
9] However, the HBP allows other activities to be funded with program
funds, regardless of a bridge's eligibility. These activities include
seismic retrofitting, scour countermeasures, and systematic preventive
maintenance projects.
Figure 1: FHWA's Process for Designating Bridges as Eligible for HBP
Funding:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Bridge Classification: Not deficient:
Bridges with acceptable condition, configuration and design; or:
Sufficiency Rating: 81-100;
Eligibility for Highway Bridge Program funds:
Not eligible: (Classified as Not Deficient and/or having a higher than
80 Sufficiency Rating).
Bridge Classification: Structurally Deficient:
Bridges in poor condition regardless of configuration or design; and;
Sufficiency Rating: 50-80;
Eligibility for Highway Bridge Program funds:
Eligible for rehabilitation (Classified as Structurally Deficient or
Functionally Obsolete with a Sufficiency Rating of 80 or less).
Bridge Classification: Functionally Obsolete:
Bridges with poor configuration or design regardless of condition; and;
Sufficiency Rating: 0-49;
Eligibility for Highway Bridge Program funds:
Eligible for replacement or rehabilitation (Classified as Structurally
Deficient or Functionally Obsolete with a Sufficiency Rating of less
than 50).
Sources: GAO and FHWA.
[End of figure]
The HBP gives states three key flexibilities in determining how to use
their HBP resources. First, as mentioned above, states have the
flexibility to use HBP funds not only for bridge replacement and
rehabilitation, but also for a broad array of purposes regardless of
bridge eligibility. Second, states have flexibility in determining how
to split HBP resources between state and locally owned bridges. Aside
from a requirement to distribute funds equitably, the only HBP
requirement applicable to states' allocation of program funds is that
states must set aside a minimum (15 percent) on non-Federal-aid
highway bridges.[Footnote 10] Third, states may also spend HBP funds
on other, nonbridge transportation priorities by transferring up to 50
percent of their annual HBP funding to other core Federal-aid highway
programs, though a penalty is invoked by reducing the state's HBP
funds in the succeeding year by the amount transferred.[Footnote 11]
Planning for how HBP funds are spent is generally under the control of
state DOTs: once states select bridge projects, they apply to FHWA to
obligate funding to cover the federal share of the costs, which is
generally 80 percent of the project cost.[Footnote 12]
Bridge Conditions Have Improved, but the Impact of the HBP Is
Difficult to Determine:
Bridge Conditions Have Improved but a Significant Number of Bridges
Remain in Poor Condition:
Of the 602,977 bridges on the nation's roadways, one in four is
classified as deficient. Data indicate that the total number of
deficient bridges has decreased since 1998, even as the total number
of bridges has increased. From 1998 to 2009, the number of deficient
bridges declined by over 14 percent, from 186,706 to 159,739, even
with the addition of more than 20,000 new bridges to the NBI (see
figure 2).
Figure 2: Trends in Number and Condition of Bridges, 1998 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Year: 1998;
Deficient bridges: 186,706;
All bridges: 582,875.
Year: 1999;
Deficient bridges: 183,647;
All bridges: 585,469.
Year: 2000;
Deficient bridges: 180,447;
All bridges: 586,75.
Year: 2001;
Deficient bridges: 177,352;
All bridges: 589,288.
Year: 2002;
Deficient bridges: 174,737;
All bridges: 590,257.
Year: 2003;
Deficient bridges: 172,439;
All bridges: 591,336.
Year: 2004;
Deficient bridges: 169,811;
All bridges: 592,901.
Year: 2005;
Deficient bridges: 167,606;
All bridges: 594,616.
Year: 2006;
Deficient bridges: 164,826;
All bridges: 596,842.
Year: 2007;
Deficient bridges: 162,984;
All bridges: 599,319.
Year: 2008;
Deficient bridges: 161,892;
All bridges: 600,905.
Year: 2009;
Deficient bridges: 159,739;
All bridges: 602,977.
Increase in all bridges, 1998-2009: 20,102.
Decrease in deficient bridges, 1998-2009: 26,967.
Note: Deficient bridges include both structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete bridges. These data include bridges subject to
the "10-year rule," which limits bridge eligibility for HBP funds.
Source: GAO analysis of 2009 FHWA data.
[End of figure]
The decline in the overall number of deficient bridges--which includes
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges--is primarily
attributable to a reduction in the number of structurally deficient
bridges. Specifically, from 1998 through 2009, the number of
structurally deficient bridges decreased by 25 percent, from 96,263 to
72,388 (see figure 3). During that same period, the number of
functionally obsolete bridges decreased by 3 percent, from 90,443 to
87,351. The reduction in the number of structurally deficient bridges
may reflect state efforts to address deterioration or damage. Although
reducing or eliminating structurally deficient bridges may not always
be a state's highest priority, 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.
Figure 3: Number of Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete
Bridges, 1998 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Year: 1998;
Structurally deficient bridges: 96,263;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 90,443.
Year: 1999;
Structurally deficient bridges: 91,048;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 92,599.
Year: 2000;
Structurally deficient bridges: 89,369;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 91,078.
Year: 2001;
Structurally deficient bridges: 86,084;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 91,268.
Year: 2002;
Structurally deficient bridges: 83,966;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 90,702.
Year: 2003;
Structurally deficient bridges: 82,211;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 90,228.
Year: 2004;
Structurally deficient bridges: 79,888;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 89,923.
Year: 2005;
Structurally deficient bridges: 77,776;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 89,830.
Year: 2006;
Structurally deficient bridges: 75,378;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 89,448.
Year: 2007;
Structurally deficient bridges: 74,042;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 88,942.
Year: 2008;
Structurally deficient bridges: 72,868;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 89,024.
Year: 2009;
Structurally deficient bridges: 72,388;
Functionally obsolete bridges: 87,351.
Source: GAO analysis of 2009 FHWA data.
Note: These data include bridges subject to the "10-year rule," which
limits bridge eligibility for HBP funds.
[End of figure]
Additionally, in our prior work, we found that the average sufficiency
rating of all bridges--including both deficient and not 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. Further, while
structurally deficient bridges generally have lower sufficiency
ratings (average rating of 42 in 2007) than functionally obsolete
bridges (average rating of 69 in 2007), the average sufficiency
ratings of both types of deficient bridges improved slightly since
1998. In updating our prior work, FHWA officials indicated that bridge
sufficiency ratings have continued to improve (average rating of 80 in
2009).
In our Recovery Act work, a number of states have reported plans to
use highway infrastructure investment funds to improve bridge
conditions.[Footnote 13] Some of these plans include improvements to
deficient bridges. For example, Pennsylvania is using some Recovery
Act funds to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges in
the state, in part because a significant percentage (about 26 percent,
as of 2008) of the state's bridges is rated structurally deficient. As
of June 30, 2010, 29 percent of Recovery Act funds in Pennsylvania
were obligated for bridge improvement and replacement. Nationally,
about $3.2 billion of the $26.7 billion in highway Recovery Act funds
were obligated for bridge projects as of June 30, 2010. This includes
funding for 61 new bridge construction projects ($719 million), 644
bridge replacement projects ($1.3 billion), and 554 bridge improvement
projects ($1.2 billion).
HBP's Impact Is Difficult to Determine Due to Incomplete Information
on Spending, Expansion of Bridge Project Eligibility, and Limitations
in Bridge Condition Data:
The impact of the federal investment in the HBP is difficult to
measure in part because there are no comprehensive and complementary
data for state and local spending on bridges. For example, while FHWA
tracks a portion of bridge capital spending on a state-by-state basis,
the data do not include (1) state spending on bridges located on local
roads and (2) most local government spending on bridges, thus making
it difficult to determine the HBP contribution to overall bridge
expenditures. Also, while FHWA generates a single, national-level
estimate for total bridge expenditures at all government levels, this
estimate cannot be used to determine the impact of the HBP by state or
by bridge. In addition, while two of the state DOTs we visited as part
of our prior work had data on state bridge spending, none was able to
provide comprehensive data on total state and local investment in
bridges.[Footnote 14] Some officials we interviewed estimated that, in
their states, such spending ranged from the minimum match amount--
generally 20 percent of the HBP apportionment amount--to more than
four times the state's apportioned HBP funds. The lack of
comprehensive information on state and local spending makes it
impossible to (1) distinguish the impact of HBP funding from other
funding to improve bridge conditions and (2) determine the extent to
which states may be substituting increased HBP funding for state and
local funds that they would otherwise have spent on bridges. Our
previous work has shown that although the federal investment in HBP
and other Federal-aid highway programs has increased over time, this
investment has not resulted in commensurate increases in the nation's
federal, state, and local government spending on the highway system.
[Footnote 15] More specifically, we found in our previous work that as
the level of federal funding has increased since the mid-1990s, states
have not maintained their level of effort in highway spending, and
federal funds have increasingly been substituted for state funds. This
suggests that increased federal highway funding influences states and
localities to substitute federal funds for state and local funds they
otherwise would have spent on highways and bridges.
The impact of the HBP is also difficult to measure because available
bridge condition data cover only some of the improvements funded by
the program. As discussed earlier, states can and do use HBP funds for
a variety of activities in addition to rehabilitating and replacing
their deficient bridges. Therefore, simply measuring changes in the
number of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges does
not reflect the full impact of the program, since these measures do
not capture the impact of the HBP investment in the other eligible
activities--such as preventive maintenance--that do not necessarily
result in an immediate reduction in the number of deficient bridges.
Without quantifiable performance measures to track the full range of
outcomes for the HBP, it is difficult to measure the program's impact
across the range of activities funded and determine the extent to
which the program is serving its stated purposes.
Another difficulty in determining the impact of the HBP funding occurs
because the NBI does not readily permit changes in the condition of
bridges to be tracked across time. Each bridge in the NBI is assigned
an identifying number by the relevant state DOT. However, the
identifying number for a bridge at a specific location may change over
the life of that bridge. Such a change may occur when a state
renumbers, replaces, or closes and subsequently reopens a bridge. As a
result, it is difficult to track changes in the condition of any
specific bridge to determine if, for example, the same bridges that
were deficient in 1998 are still deficient today, to see how many
bridges have been replaced, or to determine the impact of new bridges
added to the inventory--which may not be funded by the HBP--on the
overall condition of the nation's bridges. In our Recovery Act work,
we have found that DOT is not currently assessing the impact of
Recovery Act funds used on highway transportation projects--including
funds that are being used to improve bridge conditions--but is
considering ways to better understand and measure impacts. For
example, the NBI could be used to help FHWA study the impact of
Recovery Act funds on the condition and performance of the nation's
bridges, including whether these funds improved the state of repair.
[Footnote 16]
Evaluating the impact of the HBP is important not only to understand
the outcomes of past spending, but also to determine how to sensibly
invest future federal resources. The number of bridges in need of
repair or rehabilitation is expected to increase as a large share of
the nation's bridges built in the 1960s and early 1970s age. In our
prior work, we reported that the average age of bridges in 2007 in the
NBI was approximately 35 years, the average age of bridges with a
sufficiency rating of 80 or less was 39 years (a deficient bridge with
this rating becomes eligible for rehabilitation), and the average age
of bridges with a sufficiency rating less than 50 was 53 years (a
deficient bridge with this rating becomes eligible for replacement).
[Footnote 17] This suggests that as the age of bridges in this group
rises, so will the number of HBP-eligible bridges. As a result, states
and local agencies may see a spike in their need for bridge
rehabilitation and replacement funding over the next 15 years. In our
work to update this report, FHWA officials indicated that bridge
conditions are continuing to improve despite the aging of bridges and
noted that other factors in addition to age--such as the original type
of design, maintenance, and climate--contribute to bridge conditions.
Also, the reduction in deficient deck area is an important measure of
the overall condition of the nation's bridges. According to FHWA data,
the structurally deficient deck area of bridges on all highway systems
has decreased by about 11 percent between 1998 and 2009. Nevertheless,
FHWA officials indicated that they expect these trends in bridge
conditions to continue as long as historical investment trends are
sustained. In this environment of increasing demand for limited
resources, it is especially important for FHWA and Congress to be able
to evaluate HBP's impact to ensure that the program is providing an
acceptable return on investment and addressing national transportation
needs.
The HBP Lacks Focus, Performance Measures, and Sustainability:
As we reported in 2008, the HBP does not fully align with our
principles for re-examining surface transportation programs in that
the bridge program lacks focus, performance measures, and
sustainability. These principles, which are based on our prior work
and federal laws and regulations, include:
* ensuring program goals are well defined and focused on the federal
or national interest;
* incorporating performance and accountability into funding decisions;
* employing the best tools and approaches to emphasize return on
targeted federal investment; and:
* ensuring fiscal sustainability.
First, HBP's goals are not focused on a clearly identified federal
interest. Over the years, the program's statutory goals have expanded
from improving deficient bridges to supporting activities like seismic
retrofitting and preventive maintenance, thus expanding eligibility
for HBP funds to include almost any bridge in the country. Our
previous work has emphasized the importance of identifying clear areas
of federal interest as a first step in determining program goals. For
example, if mobility is determined to be a key federal interest and a
primary goal, the HBP could be targeted toward heavily congested
bridges or ones that are important for economic competitiveness and
carry higher levels of freight than bridges that may serve relatively
few people or businesses each day. If rehabilitating and reducing
deficient bridges is determined to be a key federal interest, then the
program could be further targeted toward that goal.[Footnote 18] The
federal interest may also be greater in mega-bridge projects that are
too expensive for states to undertake without additional federal
assistance or in projects that cross state lines.[Footnote 19] Under
the current HBP structure, the federal share is generally 80 percent
of the total project costs. The cost-sharing arrangement could be
structured so that the level and share of federal funding reflects the
benefits the nation receives from investment in a bridge project;
however, in reality, this cost-sharing appears to reflect historical
levels of funding for many surface transportation programs without
reference to whether the cost share should vary by project or whether
state and local governments could assume more responsibility. Once the
federal interest has been determined, our principles suggest basing
the federal share of the cost of the bridge project on the level of
federal interest.
Second, there is no clear tie between HBP funding and performance. HBP
funds are apportioned to states without regard to program performance
because the HBP formula is based on a calculation of needed repairs to
deficient bridges, but the formula does not consider a state's efforts
or effectiveness in reducing its inventory of deficient bridges or
controlling costs. Because the federal formula does not factor in
other eligible program activities, such as systematic preventive
maintenance, there is no link between the apportionment formula and
the states' performance of these activities. Without performance
measures to link funding to performance, states lack an incentive to
improve the return on the federal investment and are not held
accountable for the results of their investments. Further, a bridge's
deficiency status and sufficiency rating may not be the best proxy for
bridge safety or risk. For example, states we visited in our prior
work and officials we spoke with identified other priorities for
bridge projects, such as seismic retrofitting, that are a greater
safety concern for their bridge programs. Also, as states reduce the
number of deficient bridges, they could become eligible for less HBP
funding, which has created a potential disincentive for states to
eliminate deficient bridges. Our work has shown that an increased
focus on performance and accountability for results can help the
federal government better target limited federal resources.
Third, the HBP generally lacks sufficient tools to determine the
results of the federal investment in bridges. In this regard, bridge
management systems, which are currently used by many states but not
required by law, may be useful for prioritizing projects and making
funding decisions to improve results and emphasize return on
investment. We have previously reported that states use bridge
management systems for gathering and analyzing bridge data to help
manage their bridge assets and more efficiently allocate limited HBP
resources among competing priorities. For example, states use these
systems to predict future bridge conditions, estimate maintenance and
improvement needs, determine optimal policies for rehabilitation and
replacement, and recommend projects and schedules within budget and
policy constraints. As previously mentioned, the HBP affords state
DOTs discretion in using their HBP funds, and as a result, states
select bridge projects and use HBP funds in a variety of ways.
Finally, HBP's fiscal sustainability remains a challenge in light of
aging bridge infrastructure, coupled with the declining purchasing
power of funding currently available for bridge maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement. Although transportation revenues
have, until recently, increased in nominal terms, the federal and
state motor fuel tax rates have not kept up with inflation. As a
result, according to federal DOT and FHWA data, the purchasing power
in real terms of revenues generated by federal and state motor fuel
taxes have been declining since 1990.[Footnote 20] To cover the
shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, from fiscal years 2008 through
2010 Congress transferred a total of $34.5 billion in additional
revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, including $29.7 billion into the
Highway Account. FHWA identified a bridge investment backlog of $98.9
billion in 2006, and projected that eliminating this backlog and
addressing future deficiencies as they arise would cost an estimated
$17.9 billion per year (in 2006 dollars). FHWA projects that
maintaining the backlog at its 2006 level would cost an estimated
$11.1 billion annually. Federal funding levels provided in the most
recent authorization were much lower than what FHWA estimated is
necessary to maintain that backlog, although state and local
governments provide additional funds for bridges. One tool that could
possibly improve the sustainability of the HBP is a maintenance-of-
effort requirement. The potential substitution of federal funds for
state and local funds under the HBP and other federal transportation
programs may be reduced by establishing a maintenance-of-effort
requirement, whereby state or local grantees would be required to
maintain their own level of funding for bridges in order to receive
federal funds. Such a requirement could discourage states and local
governments from substituting federal support for funds they
themselves would have spent. The Recovery Act contained a maintenance-
of-effort requirement for states and, as we reported, there have been
some challenges implementing it. The maintenance-of-effort provision
required DOT to invest a significant amount of time and work closely
with the states to ensure consistency across states on how compliance
with the act would be certified and reported. As a result, much of the
work--such as developing compliance and oversight processes, reporting
requirements, and identifying data for tracking purposes--has been
done that should ensure smoother implementation of similar
requirements.[Footnote 21] Addressing the HBP's future fiscal
sustainability is critical, given the overall fiscal imbalance facing
the nation and the lack of assurance that HBP funding is allocated to
projects that are in the federal interest and provide the best return
on investment.
Since our 2008 report, FHWA reports that it has taken a number of
steps to work with Congress to address our recommendations. According
to FHWA, efforts are under way to incorporate the underlying
principles we developed to guide the re-examination of surface
transportation programs, such as the need for specific national goals
and performance measures to gauge progress toward national goals,
encouraging states to use and share best tools and practices, and
aligning funding mechanisms to support program goals. Specifically,
FHWA initiated a program to collect information on the states' use of
bridge management systems and encourage states to share information
concerning bridge management practices. According to FHWA officials,
FHWA is continuing to work with Congress and the administration to
ensure that HBP or other bridge funding mechanisms align funding with
performance and support a targeted and sustainable federal program in
the next surface transportation reauthorization cycle. Without
addressing these issues, the fiscal sustainability of the future
transportation program will continue to be a challenge and the impact
of federal investments could be diminished.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy
to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
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; Jonathan
Carver; Bert Japikse; Delwen Jones; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Josh Ormond;
and John Stambaugh.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] States may use HBP funds for seven types of bridge-related
activities, including replacement, rehabilitation, painting, seismic
retrofitting, systematic preventive maintenance, installation of scour
countermeasures (to address the effects of sediment erosion around
bridge piers and abutments), and anti-icing or deicing activities.
[2] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January
2009).
[3] GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed
for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 6, 2008).
[4] These principles were developed in our earlier work on twenty-
first century challenges and were based on our institutional
knowledge, our extensive program evaluation and performance assessment
work for the Congress, and federal laws and regulations. See GAO, 21st
Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-325SP] (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 1, 2005) and High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-310] (Washington, D.C.: January
2007).
[5] GAO, Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and Performance
Measures Needed for a More Focused and Sustainable Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1043] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 10, 2008) and Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and
Performance Measures Needed for a More Focused and Sustainable
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1127T]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2008).
[6] The NBIP and the HBP generally apply to both Federal-aid highway
and non-Federal-aid highway bridges located on public roads. The NBIP
standards do not apply to pedestrian or railroad bridges, bridges on
private roads, or tunnels. FHWA encourages states to require private
organizations to inspect privately owned bridges according to those
standards. States are not responsible for the inspection of bridges
owned by federal agencies.
[7] In January 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Inspector General reported on inconsistencies in FHWA's enforcement of
bridge inspection standards and found that FHWA has little assurance
that states receiving Federal-aid highway funds comply with bridge
inspection standards. See DOT Inspector General, Assessment of FHWA
Oversight of the Highway Bridge Program and the National Bridge
Inspection Program, MH-2010-039 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2010).
[8] For purposes of counting, functionally obsolete bridges that are
also structurally deficient are recorded in the NBI as structurally
deficient.
[9] Bridges that are newly constructed, have been replaced, or had
major rehabilitation within the past 10 years are also not eligible.
This is referred to as the "10-year rule."
[10] Non-Federal-aid highway bridges are generally located on local or
rural roads that carry lower volumes of traffic.
[11] The majority of Federal-aid highway infrastructure funding is
distributed through seven major programs, often referred to as core
highway programs. These programs are the National Highway System
Program, Surface Transportation Program, Interstate Maintenance
Program, HBP, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the Equity Bonus
Program.
[12] The federal share for bridge projects on the Interstate System is
90 percent.
[13] GAO, Recovery Act: States' Use of Highway and Transit Funds and
Efforts to Meet the Act's Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-312T] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10,
2009) and Recovery Act: States' and Localities' Uses of Funds and
Actions Needed to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster
Accountability, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-604]
(Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2010).
[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1043].
[15] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and
Options For Future Program Design, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-802] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 31,
2004).
[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-604].
[17] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1043]. The age
of a bridge is based on the number of years since it was built or
reconstructed.
[18] DOT's Inspector General found that FHWA can not link expenditures
of HBP funds to improvements made to deficient bridges and recommended
that FHWA develop a data-driven, risk-based approach to bridge
oversight to strengthen its oversight of states' use of HBP funding.
DOT Inspector General, National Bridge Inspection Program: Assessment
of FHWA's Implementation of Data-Driven, Risk-Based Oversight, MH-2009-
013 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009).
[19] Mega-bridge projects are projects with an estimated total cost
greater than $500 million.
[20] GAO, Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making
Existing Road Infrastructure Perform Better, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-920] (Washington, D.C.: July 26,
2007).
[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-604].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
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 Web site,
[hyperlink, 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.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
