Based on information gathered during bridge inspections and reported to  the NBI, the HBP classifies bridge conditions as deficient or not; assigns  each bridge a sufficiency rating reflecting its structural adequacy, safety,  serviceability, and relative importance; and uses that information to  provide funding for states to improve bridges. Deficient bridges include  those that are structurally deficient, with one or more components in poor  condition, and those that are functionally obsolete, with a poor  configuration or design that may no longer be adequate for the traffic they  serve. All bridges are grouped into one of two general categories: Federal-aid  highway bridges and bridges not on Federal-aid highways. State DOTs Exercise Discretion in Determining How to Use HBP Funds and Select Bridge Projects for Funding

The HBP affords state DOTs discretion in determining how to use their  HBP funds, and as a result, states use HBP funds and select bridge  projects in a variety of ways. Thus, states have  the flexibility to use HBP funds on bridge projects that may not  immediately reduce their inventory of deficient bridges. Some deficient bridge projects can be cost-prohibitive. Some states have also  developed tools and approaches beyond those required by the HBP—such  as bridge management systems, element-level inspections, state-specific  condition ratings, and various prioritization approaches—to help them  gauge bridge conditions and further inform their selection of bridge  projects for funding. Available Data Indicate That the Overall Condition of the Nation’s Bridges Has Improved, but the Impact of the HBP Is Difficult to Determine

Bridge conditions, as measured by the number of deficient bridges and  average sufficiency rating, improved from 1998 through 2007. 1). 2). 3). 4). First, the impact of the federal investment  in the HBP is difficult to measure in part because there are no  comprehensive data for state and local spending on bridges. Second, the impact of the HBP is also difficult to measure because HBP  funds can, in some cases, be used for a variety of bridge projects without  regard to a bridge’s deficiency status or sufficiency rating. The HBP Lacks Focus, Performance Measures, and Sustainability

The HBP, while generally helping to improve bridge conditions, does not  fully align with our principles for re-examining surface transportation  programs in that the bridge program lacks focus, performance measures,  and 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 seismic retrofitting, preventive  maintenance, and many other activities, thus expanding the federal  interest to potentially include almost any bridge in the country. Finally, the 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,  replacement and the recent growth in construction costs. Observations on Proposed Bridge Legislation

Our work on the HBP can provide some perspective on several provisions  in the proposed legislation under review by this committee, the National  Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008 (S. 3338). The legislation would also require DOT to  strengthen bridge inspection standards, adopt a risk-based process for  prioritizing certain bridge rehabilitation and replacement projects, and  require that states develop 5-year performance plans for bridge  inspections and for the rehabilitation or replacement of deficient bridges. To improve the focus, performance, and sustainability of the HBP, the  report we are releasing at this hearing recommends that the Secretary of  Transportation work with Congress to take the following actions:  identify and define specific national goals for the HBP;    determine the performance of the program by developing and  implementing performance measures related to the goals for the HBP; identify and evaluate best tools and practices that can potentially be  incorporated into the HBP, such as bridge management systems; and review and evaluate HBP funding mechanisms to align funding with  performance and support a targeted and sustainable federal bridge  program.
Why GAO Did This Study

The August 1, 2007, collapse of a Minnesota bridge raised nationwide questions about bridge safety and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) prioritization of bridge resources. The Highway Bridge Program (HBP), the primary source of federal funding for bridges, provided over $4 billion to states in fiscal year 2007. This testimony, based on a report GAO is releasing today, addresses (1) how states use HBP funds and select bridge projects for funding, (2) what data indicate about bridge conditions and the HBP's impact, and (3) the extent to which the HBP aligns with principles we developed, based on our prior work and federal laws and regulations, for reexamining surface transportation programs. The testimony also discusses the implications of our work for related sections of proposed legislation under review by this committee, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008 (S.3338).

What GAO Found

As context for understanding GAO's findings on the HBP, based on information gathered during bridge inspections that are generally conducted every 2 years, the HBP classifies bridge conditions as deficient or not; assigns each bridge a sufficiency rating reflecting its structural adequacy, safety, serviceability, and relative importance for public use; and uses that information to distribute funding to states to improve bridges. Deficient bridges include those that are structurally deficient, with one or more components in poor condition, and those that are functionally obsolete, with a poor configuration or design that may no longer be adequate for the traffic they serve. Use of HBP funds and project selection: The HBP affords states discretion to use HBP funds and select bridge projects in a variety of ways. Some states are focused on reducing their number of deficient bridges, while other states are pursuing different bridge priorities. For example, California has focused on seismically retrofitting bridges, a safety concern for that state. Furthermore, some states have developed tools and approaches for selecting bridge projects that go beyond those required by the HBP--such as bridge management systems and state-specific bridge condition rating systems. Bridge conditions and impact of HBP: Bridge conditions, as measured by the number of deficient bridges and average sufficiency rating of all bridges, improved from 1998 through 2007. However, the impact of the HBP on that improvement is difficult to determine because (1) the program provides only a share of what states spend on bridges and there are no comprehensive data for state and local spending on bridges and (2) HBP funds can, in some cases, be used for a variety of bridge projects without regard to a bridge's deficiency status or sufficiency rating. Alignment of HBP with GAO principles: The HBP does not fully align with GAO's principles in that the program lacks focus, performance measures, and sustainability. For example, the program's statutory goals are not focused on a clearly identified federal interest, but rather have expanded from improving deficient bridges to supporting seismic retrofitting, preventive maintenance, and many other projects, thus expanding the federal interest to potentially include almost any bridge in the country. In addition, the program lacks measures linking funding to performance and is not sustainable, given the anticipated deterioration of the nation's bridges and the declining purchasing power of funding currently available for bridge maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement. The results of our work are generally consistent with provisions of S.3338 that call for a risk-based prioritization process for selecting bridge projects, 5-year performance plans, and bridge management systems. Our work does raise some questions about the legislation's focus on all deficient bridges because some deficient bridges do not need immediate repairs to carry traffic safely.