	Introduction

Despite steady urbanization, some 71% of U.S. road mileage is in rural areas. Rural roads received about 37% of federal highway funds during FY2009-FY2015, although they accounted for about 30% of annual vehicle miles traveled. According to Federal Highway Administration statistics, 2.9 million miles, or 71%, of the 4.1 million miles of public-access roads in the United States are rural roads. About 23% of the nation's rural roads are eligible for federal funding under the Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP). Although rural roads account for 71% of road mileage, only about 30% of annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are on rural roads. The most recent report, with data for 2012, found that pavement conditions on the Federal-Aid highways were generally better in rural areas with 92.8% of rural miles traveled being on roads of acceptable ride quality compared with 78.1% for urban roads. Bridges on the least-used rural roads, rural minor collectors or rural local roads, account for 76% of these structurally deficient rural bridges. Since 2000 the number of rural bridges that are structurally deficient has declined by 41% (from 75,793 in 2000 to 44,678 in 2017). When officials determine that a bridge is unsafe, they are to close it to traffic immediately. Most federal highway funds are apportioned to the states by formula. The department stated in April 2018 that "underinvestment in rural transportation systems has allowed a slow and steady decline in the transportation routes that connect rural American communities," and that it "intends to award a greater share of BUILD Transportation Discretionary Grant funding to projects located in rural areas that align well with the selection criteria than to such projects in urban areas." New Interstate Highway Construction

A number of organizations have called for a major expansion of lane miles on the Interstate System and other National Highway System roads in rural areas. Without a net increase in federal spending, expanding the system to include lightly traveled rural collector and local roads would cause the states to spread their federal funds more thinly across the expanded network. Closing lightly used roads and bridges or pulverizing their pavement back to gravel could save maintenance and resurfacing costs, allowing states and counties to devote their funds to maintaining a smaller, more heavily used network of local roads. Congress could consider providing an incentive for pulverizing underused paved rural roads or permanently closing underused rural bridges that have nearby alternatives. Congress could increase funding for safety projects on rural roads by altering the rules for state use of HSIP grants or by eliminating the ability of states to transfer HSIP funds to other highway programs. It asserts that transportation can shape development but cannot create development where there is no demand.
Of the nation's 4.1 million miles of public access roads, 2.9 million, or 71%, are in rural areas. Rural roads account for about 30% of national vehicle miles traveled. However, with many rural areas experiencing population decline, states increasingly are struggling to maintain roads with diminishing traffic while at the same time meeting the needs of growing rural and metropolitan areas.
Federal highway programs do not generally specify how much federal funding is used on roads in rural areas. This is determined by the states. Most federal highway money, however, may be used only for a designated network of highways. While Interstate Highways and other high-volume roads in rural areas are eligible for these funds, most smaller rural roads are not. It is these roads, often under the control of county or township governments, that are most likely to have poor pavement and deficient bridges.
Rural roads received about 37% of federal highway funds during FY2009-FY2015, although they accounted for about 30% of annual vehicle miles traveled. As a result, federal-aid-eligible rural roads are in comparatively good condition: 49% of rural roads were determined to offer good ride quality in 2016, compared with 27% of urban roads. Although 1 in 10 rural bridges is structurally deficient, the number of deficient rural bridges has declined by 41% since 2000. When it comes to safety, on the other hand, rural roads lag; the fatal accident rate on rural roads is over twice the rate on urban roads.
The Federal Highway Administration has generally urged states to select highway projects based on a broad view of transportation benefits; the FHWA has asserted that transportation can shape development but cannot create development where there is no demand. However, an April 2018 statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) contended "underinvestment in rural transportation systems has allowed a slow and steady decline in the transportation routes that connect rural American communities." DOT said that it intends to favor rural areas in awarding discretionary grants for highway projects.
If it seeks to focus on the condition of rural roads and bridges, Congress could expand the network of federal-aid highways to include more local roads; could create new programs that would specifically target transportation in rural areas; and/or could fund an expansion of the Interstate System. Without an increase in overall funding levels, however, such measures might cause states to spread their federal highway funds across wider networks of highways, making it more difficult for them to marshal the funds needed to undertake large and costly projects. Alternatively, given the population loss in some rural areas, Congress might provide incentives for states and counties to close or pulverize underused roads back to gravel and close underused and structurally deficient rural bridges, encouraging them to devote more of their resources to more heavily used roads.