Hubbry Logo
National Bridge InventoryNational Bridge InventoryMain
Open search
National Bridge Inventory
Community hub
National Bridge Inventory
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
National Bridge Inventory
National Bridge Inventory
National Bridge Inventory
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is a database, compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, with information on all bridges and tunnels in the United States that have roads passing above or below them. That is similar to the grade-crossing identifier number database, compiled by the Federal Railroad Administration, which identifies all railroad crossings. The bridge information includes the design of the bridge and the dimensions of the usable portion. The data is often used to analyze bridges and to judge their condition. The inventory is developed for the purpose of having a unified database for bridges to ensure the safety of the traveling public, as required by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968.[1] It includes identification information, bridge types and specifications, operational conditions, bridge data including geometric data and functional description, and inspection data. Any bridge more than 20 ft (6 m) long used for vehicular traffic is included.[2]

Description

[edit]

Identification information addresses the bridge location uniquely, classifies the type of the routes carried out on and/or under the structure, and locates the bridge within the spatial location. Each bridge is given a number by the highway department of the respective state or agency that maintains the bridge. The method of assigning numbers differs from one state to the next but provides a unique number for each bridge in the state.[3]

The bridge inventory is developed for having a unified database for bridges, including the identification information; bridge types and specifications; operational conditions; and bridge data including geometric data, functional description, inspection data, etc. Bridge type and specifications classify the type of the bridge. That part provides defined standard categories for classification of the bridges. It also identifies the material of the bridge components, deck, and deck surface. Operational conditions provide information about the age of the structure and construction year, rehabilitation year, type of services and traffic carried over, and/or under the structure number of the lanes over and/or under the bridges, average daily traffic, average daily truck traffic and information regarding to bypass, detours. Furthermore, the bridge inventory contains information regarding to inspection data, ratings assigned by inspectors, and appraisal results.[3]

Condition ratings

[edit]

The NBI includes a structural evaluation of deck, superstructure, substructure, and culvert on a 0-9 scale:[2]

Description Code
NOT APPLICABLE N
EXCELLENT CONDITION 9
VERY GOOD CONDITION – no problems noted. 8
GOOD CONDITION – some minor problems. 7
SATISFACTORY CONDITION – structural elements show some minor deterioration. 6
FAIR CONDITION – all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour. 5
POOR CONDITION – advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. 4
SERIOUS CONDITION – loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. 3
CRITICAL CONDITION – advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless the bridge is closely monitored, it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken. 2
"IMMINENT" FAILURE CONDITION – major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service. 1
FAILED CONDITION – out of service – beyond corrective action. 0

Code "N" (NOT APPLICABLE) is used for item 62 (culvert rating) when the structure is a bridge or for items 58, 59, and 60 (deck, superstructure rating, substructure rating, and respectively) when the structure is a (bridge length, i.e. 20 ft) culvert.

The term "functionally obsolete" has been removed from published NBI data, as it is no longer tracked.[4] Prior to 2016, the term was a collective designation for bridges ranked as a code 3 or lower.

The NBI can classify bridges as "structurally deficient," which means that the condition of the bridge includes a significant defect, which often means that speed or weight limits must be put on the bridge to ensure safety; a rating of 4 or lower on any of items 58, 59, 60, or 62 (deck, superstructure, substructure, and culverts, respectively) qualifies a bridge as "structurally deficient."[4]

In December 2008, 72,868 bridges in the United States (12.1%) were categorized as "structurally deficient," representing an estimated $48 billion in repairs, and 89,024 (12.2%) were rated "functionally obsolete," representing an estimated $91 billion in replacement costs.[5]

Some bridges are also identified as "fracture critical,"[1] which means that the failure of a single major tension member or member element will cause a significant portion or the entire bridge to collapse because of the lack of redundancy. Fracture-critical designs can leave bridges vulnerable to collisions with ships or large trucks, as in the I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapse in 2013 and the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in 2024.

Issues and usage

[edit]

The NBI was subjected to scrutiny and questions after new actions revealed that it might be outdated or inaccurate. Federal officials attempted to order emergency inspections of all steel truss bridges after a major bridge collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007. However, it was found that many records in the NBI were inaccurate or out of date.[6]

The NBI is used for federal funding purposes. A "bridge sufficiency rating" is calculated, which is based 55% on the structural evaluation, 30% on the obsolescence of its design, and 15% on its importance to the public. As of 2008, a score of 80 or less is required for federal repair funding or 50 or less for federal replacement funding.[7]

Since the NBI data is widely used by researchers and practitioners,[8][9] the Federal Highway Administration made it available in 2021 in a relational database, Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP).[10]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

National Bridge Inventory

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is a comprehensive database compiled and maintained by the (FHWA) that catalogs structural, operational, and condition data for all public highway bridges and tunnels spanning at least 20 feet in length across the nation's approximately 620,000 such structures. Data is submitted annually by state departments of transportation, federal agencies, and tribal governments, encompassing details such as deck area, load capacity, composition, age, inspection ratings, and maintenance history. Established under the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) enacted on April 27, 1971, the NBI originated from federal mandates requiring systematic inventories and biennial inspections to address safety risks exposed by incidents like the 1967 collapse, enabling uniform oversight of bridge integrity nationwide. The program's core purpose is to support empirical assessment of bridge conditions through standardized coding—such as sufficiency ratings that integrate structural adequacy, functionality, and serviceability—for prioritizing repairs, allocating federal highway funds under programs like the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, and ensuring compliance with safety regulations. In recent years, the NBI has transitioned to the Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory (SNBI), finalized in 2022, which enhances data granularity with element-level inspections and improved analytics to better track deterioration trends and predict risks, reflecting ongoing refinements to causal factors in bridge longevity like material fatigue and environmental exposure. This evolution underscores the inventory's role in evidence-based infrastructure management, though analyses of historical NBI records have highlighted persistent challenges, including a rising proportion of deficient bridges due to deferred maintenance and aging stock built predominantly before 1960. Publicly accessible via FHWA datasets, the NBI informs policy decisions on resilience against loads, scour, and seismic events, serving as a foundational tool for federal-state coordination in averting failures.

History and Establishment

Legislative Origins

The collapse of the Silver Bridge spanning the Ohio River between Point Pleasant, West Virginia, and Gallipolis, Ohio, on December 15, 1967, killed 46 people and revealed critical gaps in bridge monitoring and maintenance practices across states. This disaster, attributed to a structural failure in an eyebar-chain suspension bridge built in 1928, underscored the absence of uniform federal oversight, as inspections varied widely by jurisdiction with no national mandate for frequency or methodology. The event directly influenced subsequent congressional efforts to impose standardized safety protocols. In response, enacted the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-495, 82 Stat. 815), signed by President on August 23, 1968. Section 26 of the act required the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe uniform standards for inspecting all highway bridges on Federal-aid systems, including procedures for determining safety, maximum inspection intervals of two years, and qualifications for inspection teams. It further directed each state to inventory Federal-aid bridges, laying the groundwork for a to assess conditions and allocate resources based on empirical risk data. The (FHWA) implemented these provisions through the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), first published on April 27, 1971, as the inaugural federal bridge safety initiative. The NBIS mandated biennial inspections by qualified personnel, detailed reporting on structural integrity, and state submission of inventory data to FHWA, forming the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) as a systematic repository for bridge attributes, locations, and condition metrics. This framework prioritized causal factors like load capacity and deterioration over anecdotal assessments, enabling data-driven federal funding decisions under subsequent authorizations such as the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970's Special Bridge Replacement Program.

Initial Implementation and Expansion

Following the enactment of the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) on April 27, 1971, pursuant to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, state transportation agencies commenced regular inspections of highway bridges and submitted initial data reports to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This implementation established a uniform national framework for bridge safety assessments, requiring biennial inspections and inventory coding to track conditions, with the FHWA compiling submissions into the inaugural National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. The first NBI report, released in November 1971, cataloged approximately 563,500 bridges and identified 88,900 as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, highlighting widespread infrastructure vulnerabilities stemming from deferred maintenance and design limitations. Initially limited to bridges on Federal-aid highway systems—those eligible for federal funding—the NBI's scope expanded in 1979 to include all public road bridges exceeding 20 feet in length, irrespective of functional classification or funding source. This broadening, driven by congressional directives under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, increased the inventory's comprehensiveness, enabling a fuller national assessment of bridge risks and supporting expanded federal aid for rehabilitation beyond replacement programs. Subsequent refinements, including standardized coding guides revised in 1977 and 1980, facilitated more detailed data elements on deck area, load capacity, and serviceability, while the inventory's scale grew to over 618,000 entries by 2021 through consistent state reporting and inclusion of newly constructed or inventoried structures. These developments enhanced the NBI's utility for prioritizing investments and monitoring long-term trends, though early data inconsistencies across states underscored challenges in uniform implementation.

Scope and Data Collection

Coverage and Inventory Criteria

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) encompasses all highway bridges subject to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), as defined under 23 CFR Part 650, Subpart C. These include structures erected over depressions or obstructions—such as waterways, highways, or railways—that support traffic loads via a deck or passageway, with a minimum length exceeding 20 feet (6.1 meters) measured along the roadway centerline or between under-copings of abutments, spring lines of arches, or extreme ends of openings. Coverage extends to bridges on all public roads open to public travel, irrespective of whether they lie on or off Federal-aid highways, and applies uniformly across state, federal, tribal, county, municipal, or private ownership, provided the structure connects to public roads at both ends or is maintained by a public authority. Inventory criteria mandate that state transportation departments, federal agencies, and tribal governments compile and maintain records for every qualifying bridge, capturing details such as structural type, location (via /), functional classification, and deck area. This includes temporary bridges, those under construction but partially open to traffic, and ly accessible private or toll bridges; for instance, multiple pipes qualify if the clear distance between openings is less than half the diameter of the smaller contiguous opening. Exclusions apply to structures under 20 feet in length, those buried under fill (e.g., standard culverts without open spans), and private bridges not integrated into the network or closed to use, ensuring the database focuses on assets posing risks to highway travel. Data submission to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) occurs annually, with specifications outlined in the Specification for the National Bridge Inventory (SNBI), which standardizes coding for over 100 items to facilitate oversight of bridge safety and condition nationwide. As of the 2022 SNBI update, inventory records must reflect precise measurements, such as NBIS bridge length (item B.G.01) at or above 20.0 feet, and incorporate element-level details for National Highway System bridges to support granular risk assessment. This framework, rooted in 23 U.S.C. § 144(h), prioritizes empirical structural data over shorter spans or non-public assets, which may fall under separate state or local inventories.

Inspection Standards and Processes

The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), codified at 23 CFR Part 650 Subpart C, mandate minimum requirements for the safety inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges located on public roads, defined as structures with a span greater than 20 feet between abutments or extreme ends of openings. These standards, originally established by in 1968 and last comprehensively updated in 2022, apply to bridges on Federal-aid highways, tribally owned roads, federally owned lands, and private bridges connected to public roads, including temporary and under-construction bridges carrying . The NBIS emphasize visual and hands-on assessments to identify structural deficiencies, with procedures aligned to Section 4.2 of the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, incorporating tools such as unmanned aircraft systems where appropriate. State transportation departments, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments bear primary responsibility for implementing NBIS, including developing written procedures, maintaining a registry of qualified inspectors, and ensuring load ratings and scour evaluations are performed. Personnel qualifications are stringent: program managers must be licensed or possess at least 10 years of bridge inspection experience, supplemented by comprehensive FHWA-approved training and 18 hours of every 60 months; team leaders require similar credentials, such as a with 6 months of experience or 5 years of equivalent experience plus training. Load ratings must be conducted by or under the supervision of a , while underwater inspections demand FHWA-approved . Critical findings, defined as condition ratings of 2 or lower indicating imminent , trigger immediate written reports to owners and the FHWA. Inspection processes encompass routine, , nonredundant steel tension member (NSTM, formerly fracture critical), and special in-depth evaluations, with initial inspections required within 3 months of a bridge opening to traffic and load postings evaluated within 30 days if deficiencies warrant. Routine inspections involve comprehensive visual and tactile examinations of structural elements, appurtenances, and substructures, often using access equipment for hands-on verification, while inspections focus on submerged components every 60 months unless conditions necessitate more frequent checks. NSTM inspections occur at least every 24 months to assess tension members lacking redundancy, with redundancy demonstrations permitted via nationally recognized methods like those in the AASHTO Guide Specifications. Scour appraisals and seismic vulnerability assessments are integrated, distinguishing observed scour from potential vulnerabilities. Frequencies are risk-adjusted under 2022 NBIS revisions: routine intervals default to 24 months but can extend to 48 months via Method 1 (simplified risk factors like age and condition) or Method 2 (rigorous panel review), with service inspections midway for extensions beyond 48 months; underwater intervals default to 60 months, extendable to 72 months similarly. Intervals shorten to 12 months for bridges exhibiting serious deficiencies (ratings ≤3), with tolerances of up to 2 months for intervals ≤24 months or 3 months otherwise. Owners must document policies for extensions and notify the FHWA of implemented risk-based programs. Inspection results feed directly into the National Bridge Inventory through standardized coding per the FHWA's Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory (SNBI), with element-level data mandatory for National Highway System bridges and updates required within 3 months of inspections or status changes, submitted annually to the FHWA. The 2022 SNBI updates, effective March 2022, refine data items for scour, overtopping, and seismic risks to enhance oversight and funding decisions.

Condition Assessment Framework

Rating Scales and Metrics

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) utilizes a standardized condition rating scale for evaluating key bridge components during biennial inspections, as mandated by federal regulations under 23 U.S.C. 144(d). This assesses the physical integrity and functionality of elements such as the deck, , substructure, culverts, and channel protection, based on visual inspections supplemented by where applicable. Ratings reflect the extent of deterioration, section loss, spalling, cracking, or other defects, with higher values indicating superior condition and lower values signaling increasing risk of structural compromise.
RatingDescription
9Excellent condition; no defects or problems noted.
8Very good condition; only minor deterioration observed.
7Good condition; some minor problems present but not requiring immediate repair.
6Satisfactory condition; structural elements show minor deterioration with no significant impact on capacity.
5Fair condition; primary elements sound but with minor section loss, cracking, or spalling.
4Poor condition; advanced section loss, deterioration, deterioration, or spalling evident.
3Serious condition; loss of section or spalling seriously affects primary components.
2Critical condition; advanced deterioration of primary components requires immediate attention.
1"Imminent" failure condition; major deterioration or section loss presents danger of collapse.
0Failed condition; bridge out of service and beyond economical repair.
These ratings apply specifically to NBI Item 58 (deck condition), Item 59 (, including beams and girders), Item 60 (substructure, including piers and abutments), Item 61 (channel and , assessing erosion and stability), and Item 62 (culverts). For decks, ratings emphasize surface integrity and ; superstructures focus on load-carrying members; substructures evaluate foundation stability, often incorporating scour effects; channels rate bank and flow adequacy; and culverts assess barrel and invert deterioration. Inspectors code "N" (not applicable) for culverts on structural items 58-60 and for non-waterway bridges on Item 61. Derived metrics include the FHWA-calculated Bridge Condition Classification (Item B.C.12), which categorizes bridges as "Good" if the lowest rating among deck, , substructure, and is 7-9; "Fair" for 5-6; or "Poor" for 0-4. Scour condition (Item B.C.11) uses a parallel 0-9 scale, with 9 indicating no scour vulnerability (e.g., foundations on ) and lower ratings reflecting observed or potential hydraulic instability, triggering critical designations under 23 CFR 650.305 if foundations are undetermined or unstable. The Sufficiency Rating (Item 67), a composite metric ranging from 0 to 100, quantifies overall bridge adequacy for federal eligibility by integrating four factors: structural adequacy and (up to 55% weight, derived from the lowest of Items 59, 60, or 62 adjusted for inventory load rating); serviceability and obsolescence (up to 30%, penalizing substandard , clearances, and adequacy per Items 58, 68, 69, 71); essentiality for public use (up to 15%, scaled by average daily traffic and strategic network status); and special reductions for obsolescence or features if the subtotal exceeds 50%. The formula, computed by FHWA software, yields values above 80 typically indicating superior sufficiency, while those below 50 signal potential replacement needs, though it does not directly measure current risk. Element-level , quantifying defects by severity (minor, moderate, major) and extent (isolated, some, widespread), further refines these ratings but is aggregated into the 0-9 scale for NBI reporting.

Classification of Deficiencies

The National Bridge Inventory classifies bridge deficiencies primarily into two categories: structurally deficient (SD) and functionally obsolete (FO). A bridge is deemed structurally deficient if it exhibits significant deterioration or damage in key load-carrying elements, or if waterway or alignment issues pose severe risks, as determined by specific condition and appraisal ratings. This classification triggers requirements for monitoring, restrictions, or repairs, though not all SD bridges are closed to traffic. Structurally deficient status is assigned when the lowest condition rating among the deck, , substructure, or (coded as items B.C.01, B.C.02, B.C.03, or B.C.04 in the SNBI) is 4 or below on a 0-9 scale, where 4 denotes poor condition with widespread moderate defects affecting strength. Additionally, an appraisal rating of 2 or less (critical inadequacy) for adequacy (B.C.09) or approach roadway alignment (B.C.13) contributes to SD classification, indicating severe threats like frequent overtopping or alignment hazards. These thresholds reflect empirical assessments from biennial inspections mandated under the National Bridge Inspection Standards, prioritizing causal factors like , fatigue, or hydraulic scour over subjective interpretations. Functionally obsolete bridges are those failing to meet current geometric, clearance, or capacity standards due to outdated design relative to modern traffic demands, without necessarily involving structural decay. FO status arises from appraisal ratings of 3 or less (serious deficiencies) in deck geometry (B.C.71), underclearances (B.C.72), approach roadway alignment (B.C.13), or channel condition (B.H.12), where 3 signifies major defects causing noticeable operational impacts like reduced speeds. Unlike SD, FO emphasizes functional mismatches, such as insufficient lane widths or vertical clearances built to pre-interstate era specifications, often traceable to historical construction practices rather than wear. Bridges may qualify as both SD and FO if criteria for each are met independently, with overall condition summarized in item B.C.12 as "P" (poor) for ratings of 4 or below, distinguishing it from "F" (fair, 5-6) or "G" (good, 7-9). These classifications inform federal funding priorities under programs like the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, but data inconsistencies in state reporting can affect national aggregates, as noted in FHWA audits.
Rating TypeScale DescriptionSD ThresholdFO Threshold
Condition (Deck, Superstructure, Substructure, Culvert)0 (failed) to 9 (excellent); lower numbers indicate increasing deterioration≤4 (poor or worse)N/A
Appraisal ( Adequacy, Approach Alignment)0 (failed) to 9 (superior); focuses on adequacy vs. standards≤2 (critical)≤3 (serious) for geometry/clearance items
Appraisal (Deck Geometry, Underclearances, Channel)0-9; assesses functional fitN/A≤3 (serious deficiencies)

Historical Condition Changes

The proportion of U.S. bridges classified as structurally deficient—defined in the National Bridge Inventory as those with at least one major component (deck, superstructure, or substructure) rated 4 or lower on the 0-9 condition scale—has declined substantially since the late 1980s. In 1990, approximately 138,000 bridges, or about 24% of the total inventory, were structurally deficient. By 2001, this figure had fallen to around 14% of nearly 600,000 bridges. The downward trend continued through the 2010s, with the percentage dropping to 9% by 2017 from 12% a decade earlier, driven by federal and state investments in inspections, repairs, and replacements under programs like the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. This improvement occurred despite an aging bridge stock, with the average age rising from about 38 years in 1996 to 42 years by 2019, as maintenance efforts prioritized high-risk structures identified through biennial inspections mandated by the National Bridge Inspection Standards. By deck area—a measure weighting larger, higher-traffic bridges—the share of structurally deficient bridges decreased from 8.9% in 2004 to 5.6% around 2019. Recent data show further modest reductions: 46,154 structurally deficient bridges (7.5% of the inventory) in 2021, declining to 42,067 by 2024, reflecting ongoing but incremental progress amid funding constraints and increasing load demands. Component-specific trends reveal differential deterioration rates captured in NBI ratings. Decks, exposed to and , have historically shown higher rates of poor conditions (ratings ≤4) compared to substructures, which benefit from subsurface protection; for instance, national averages indicate deck ratings lagging superstructures by 0.5-1 point on average across inspections from the onward. Overall, the shift toward Good (ratings ≥7), (5-6), and Poor (≤4) categorizations post-2017 has highlighted that while structurally deficient bridges decreased, about 37% of the required major rehabilitation by 2019, underscoring persistent fair-to-poor conditions in non-deficient structures.
YearTotal Bridges (approx.)Structurally DeficientPercentage SD
1990570,000137,865~24%
2001600,000~84,00014%
2017614,000~55,0009%
2021617,00046,1547.5%
2024~620,00042,067~6.8%

Current National Overview

As of the 2024 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data submission, the maintains records for 623,218 bridges spanning public roads, with conditions assessed based on deck, , and substructure ratings. These bridges carry an average daily traffic volume exceeding 4 trillion vehicles annually, underscoring their critical role in national transportation . The inventory excludes federally owned bridges but includes those in the 50 states, District of Columbia, and territories, focusing on structures with spans greater than 20 feet. Condition ratings classify 44.1% of bridges (274,859 structures) as good, indicating minimal deterioration and no immediate needs beyond routine upkeep; 49.1% (306,279) as fair, with some component deterioration that may worsen without intervention; and 6.8% (42,080) as poor, reflecting serious defects in one or more major components requiring priority attention or load restrictions. This poor-condition subset aligns closely with legacy definitions of structurally deficient bridges, numbering 42,067 in 2024—a decline of 324 from 2023—driven by targeted repairs and replacements under programs like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Condition CategoryNumber of BridgesPercentage
Good274,85944.1%
Fair306,27949.1%
Poor42,0806.8%
While the proportion of poor bridges has stabilized below 7% since , the category's expansion highlights deferred risks, with over 40% of the now exceeding 50 years in age and vulnerable to accelerated degradation from traffic loads and environmental factors. analyses emphasize that condition trends reflect state-level inspection variances and funding allocations, with no uniform national collapse risk but localized hotspots in rural and older urban networks.

Applications and Policy Impact

Federal Funding and Decision-Making

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) provides the (FHWA) with standardized data on bridge conditions, deck areas, and deficiencies, enabling allocation of federal funds, oversight of bridge programs, and informed decision-making on infrastructure investments. This database supports analyses for funding eligibility, performance measures under 23 U.S.C. § 150, and prioritization of repairs for structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges, ensuring resources target verifiable safety and maintenance needs. Under the (IIJA) of 2021, the Bridge Formula Program (BFP) apportions approximately $5.5 billion annually from fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to states for bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, protection, and construction. Apportionments follow a statutory formula allocating 75% based on estimated replacement costs for bridges in poor condition and 25% for rehabilitation costs of bridges in fair condition, directly utilizing NBI-reported deck areas and condition ratings as of December 31, 2020, alongside average unit costs from 2016–2020. Each state receives a minimum of $45 million yearly, with 15% post-apportionment set aside for off-system bridges, promoting data-driven distribution that reflects empirical condition data rather than discretionary preferences. The Bridge Investment Program (BIP), also established by the IIJA, awards competitive discretionary grants totaling up to $16 billion through fiscal year 2026 to address bridges in poor condition, emphasizing safety, efficiency, and reliability. Applicants for large bridge projects (over $100 million) and smaller bridge projects must submit benefit-cost analyses via FHWA's BIP Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool, which incorporates data on bridge conditions, traffic volumes, and deficiencies to quantify project benefits against costs. Grants cover up to 50% of costs for large projects (minimum $50 million award) or 80% for smaller ones (minimum $2.5 million), with selections prioritizing projects that demonstrably reduce NBI-tracked deficiencies. Beyond specific programs, FHWA leverages NBI data for ongoing oversight, verifying state compliance with National Bridge Inspection Standards and monitoring fund expenditures to prevent misallocation, while condition metrics inform congressional reporting and adjustments to under 23 CFR 490, Subpart D. This reliance on empirical ratings—such as deck, , and substructure scores classifying bridges as good (7–9), fair (5–6), or poor (0–4)—ensures decisions prioritize causal factors like load capacity and vulnerability assessments over subjective criteria.

Public Access and Analytical Tools

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data, comprising records on over 624,000 public bridges, is made publicly available through the (FHWA) website in the form of annual ASCII files submitted by states, federal agencies, and tribal governments, enabling users to download comprehensive datasets for analysis. Element-level data, detailing specific structural components, is similarly downloadable to support detailed condition assessments. These raw files, updated as of June 2025, adhere to standardized formats adjusted for performance measures under federal regulations. Public access extends to integrated platforms such as the Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) InfoBridge, a FHWA-maintained repository that facilitates querying of NBI-linked through interactive features including bridge selection via mapping, historical performance trends, and predictive models. Complementary datasets are hosted on federal portals like Data.gov and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' National Transportation Atlas Database, where NBI records are queryable and exportable for broader transportation research. Analytical tools leveraging NBI data include the One-Stop Bridge Data platform, which aggregates historical NBI records from onward with other metrics for performance evaluation and visualization. The FHWA's Bridge Investment Program Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool, an Excel-based application, incorporates NBI-derived condition and traffic data to quantify project benefits and costs for funding applications under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These resources promote transparency in bridge management while relying on user expertise to interpret underlying inspection variabilities across reporting entities.

Criticisms and Limitations

Data Reliability and Reporting Issues

Studies have identified missing, erroneous, and logically conflicting data within the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), undermining its utility for . For instance, automatic detection methods revealed structural condition ratings improving without recorded maintenance or reconstruction for 37 bridges in and 669 bridges in between 2013 and 2014. Inconsistent structural evaluations compared to neighboring bridges affected 5.7% of bridges (3,034 total) and 3.8% of bridges (883 total) in analyses of spatial outliers. Spatial data accuracy poses significant challenges, with approximately 28% of NBI records lacking valid latitude and longitude coordinates, 2% of geolocated bridges positioned outside their designated counties, and around 30% featuring invalid or inaccurate locations overall. Geo-coding accuracy is higher for bridges on interstates and principal arterials but declines to fair or poor levels for lower-functional-class roads due to incomplete systems and narrative descriptions. These errors can mislead field inspectors and result in misallocated funds. Inspection variability introduces further uncertainty, as condition ratings depend on subjective assessments by diverse state inspectors, leading to inconsistencies across agencies and potential underestimation of deterioration. The (FHWA) acknowledges ongoing quality issues and conducts periodic reviews to refine processes, as outlined in the 2022 Specifications for the , which aim to standardize data through the SNBI framework. However, state-level reporting differences persist, with some analyses noting thousands of spatial outliers in categories like structural evaluation (3,917 bridges) and scour criticality (12,704 bridges).

Misinterpretations of Risk and Safety

Public discourse surrounding the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) frequently equates "structurally deficient" bridges with imminent safety hazards or high collapse risk, a misconception that overlooks the technical definition and operational context. Per (FHWA) standards, structural deficiency occurs when at least one major component—deck, , substructure, or culverts—earns a condition rating of 4 (poor) or below on the NBI's 0-9 scale, or when specific appraisal ratings signal substantial functional limitations. FHWA emphasizes that this status indicates components requiring repair or replacement to prevent further deterioration but does not denote unsafety; many such bridges remain open to traffic with load postings, speed limits, or routine inspections ensuring capacity exceeds demand. In 2024, 42,067 U.S. bridges, or 6.8% of the total inventory exceeding 620,000 structures, qualified as structurally deficient. These bridges sustain an estimated 178 million daily vehicle crossings, with catastrophic failures exceedingly rare—averaging fewer than two per year nationwide since the , often tied to exceptional events like scour or overload rather than routine deficiency. Media amplification of raw deficiency counts, particularly following incidents like the 2007 collapse (which involved a design flaw and failure despite prior inspections), has perpetuated narratives of widespread peril, disregarding that NBI ratings assess visible condition, not probabilistic load-to-capacity margins or site-specific hazards such as seismic vulnerability or hydraulic inadequacy. A related misinterpretation conflates structural deficiency with functional , the latter designating bridges failing modern design criteria (e.g., narrow lanes or insufficient clearance) without implying physical decay. NBI data lacks integrated risk modeling—focusing on deterministic condition thresholds over failure probabilities—prompting critics to argue that unnuanced reliance on deficiency tallies skews public perception and policy toward blanket interventions rather than targeted mitigations for high-exposure assets. This oversight can inflate perceived urgency, as evidenced by reports blending the categories to claim over 220,000 bridges need major work, potentially diverting funds from empirically riskier subsets like those in flood zones.

Recent Reforms and Developments

Legislative and Regulatory Updates

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA), enacted on November 15, 2021, established the Bridge Investment Program (BIP), which allocates over $40 billion through fiscal year 2026 for bridge projects eligible based on data from the (NBI), including replacements, rehabilitations, and preservations of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. The law also created the Bridge Formula Program (BFP), replacing the prior Highway Bridge Program and distributing funds proportionally to states' shares of NBI-listed bridges as of December 31, 2020, with a focus on off-system bridges to enhance national inventory management. On May 6, 2022, the (FHWA) issued a final rule updating the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) under 23 CFR part 650, subpart C, to comply with statutory mandates from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and address implementation gaps identified since 2012. These revisions introduced stricter timelines for NBI data updates—requiring submission within 120 days of inspection or load rating changes—and mandated a tracking process for data accuracy, alongside enhanced requirements for inspection team qualifications, scour criticality assessments, and risk-based inspection intervals up to 48 months for low-risk bridges. A technical correction to the rule followed on September 22, 2022, clarifying definitions and procedural details without substantive changes. The 2022 NBIS updates facilitate the transition to the Structure National Bridge Inventory (SNBI) coding guide, with states required to submit SNBI-compliant data for the first time by March 2026, incorporating element-level condition data to improve NBI precision over prior general condition ratings. No major federal legislative amendments to NBI protocols have occurred since the IIJA as of October 2025, though FHWA continues biennial reviews under NBIS to incorporate like unmanned aerial systems for inspections.

Technological and Methodological Advances

The (FHWA) updated the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) on May 6, 2022, to incorporate technological advancements, research outcomes, and administrative experience, thereby modernizing data collection and inspection protocols for the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). These revisions emphasize risk-based inspection intervals, potentially extending beyond the standard 24 months for low-risk structures with FHWA approval, while promoting the evaluation of emerging tools to improve accuracy and efficiency. Unmanned aerial systems (UAS), commonly known as drones, represent a key methodological advance in NBI data gathering, enabling access to elevated or hazardous bridge components without or disruptions. FHWA guidance highlights UAS for capturing high-resolution and structural data, with state departments of transportation (DOTs) integrating these systems into routine inspections to generate verifiable inputs for NBI condition ratings. For instance, DOT's 2022 evaluation demonstrated UAS utility in four primary applications—pre-inspection scouting, supplemental visual inspections, crack detection, and post-event assessments—yielding denser datasets than traditional methods while reducing labor exposure to risks. Artificial intelligence (AI) and sensor fusion are emerging for automated analysis of NBI-relevant data, with drone-mounted multispectral sensors processing imagery in near-real-time to detect deterioration patterns like corrosion or cracking. A 2023 FHWA-supported framework developed AI algorithms for bridge and road inspections, correlating sensor data with NBI metrics to predict condition declines and prioritize maintenance. Complementary non-destructive evaluation techniques, such as ground-penetrating radar and ultrasonic testing, have been refined for underwater and substructure assessments, feeding precise measurements into NBI databases to mitigate subjective human error in ratings. The transition from the legacy NBI to the Structure National Bridge Inventory (SNBI), initiated in 2023, introduces standardized data schemas and web-based tools for seamless integration of advanced inspection outputs, enhancing and analytical depth. This shift supports lifecycle modeling and , with FHWA's bridge preservation roadmap underscoring data technologies for evidence-based decisions on load ratings and posting. By December 2024, updated load rating processes aligned with NBIS have incorporated finite element modeling and probabilistic methods, improving the fidelity of NBI-derived safety evaluations.

References

  1. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm
  2. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=57654b2d374c4a209cf10b757011b1e3
  3. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/ascii.cfm
  4. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/snbi/snbi_march_2022_publication.pdf
  5. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/national_bridge_inspection_standards.cfm
  6. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis.cfm
  7. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.cfm
  8. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/snbi/qanda/01.cfm
  9. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/snbi.cfm
  10. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/circ498/v1_C06.pdf
  11. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/38772/dot_38772_DS1.pdf
  12. https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/national-bridge-inventory-abd5a
  13. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.cfm
  14. https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/fhwa-marks-50th-anniversary-silver-bridge-collapse
  15. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/06/2022-09512/national-bridge-inspection-standards
  16. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-650/subpart-C
  17. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.pdf
  18. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/0650dsup.cfm
  19. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/guidance/hif18023.pdf
  20. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2010/table_01_02
  21. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/chapter_02/bridge_condition
  22. https://www.constructiondive.com/news/us-has-fewer-structurally-deficient-bridges-than-10-years-ago/530236/
  23. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/23cpr/chap6.cfm
  24. https://2021.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges-infrastructure/
  25. https://www.artba.org/news/slow-steady-progress-repairing-americas-bridges-according-to-latest-federal-government-data/
  26. https://www.nspe.org/career-growth/pe-magazine/may-2020/bridges-receive-grade-d-deficient
  27. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/condition24.cfm
  28. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/bfp.cfm
  29. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/bip/
  30. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/element.cfm
  31. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/ascii2025.cfm
  32. https://infobridge.fhwa.dot.gov/data
  33. https://geodata.bts.gov/datasets/national-bridge-inventory/about
  34. https://www.transportation.gov/utc/one-stop-bridge-data-new-online-tool-combines-multiple-datasets-bridge-performance-analysis
  35. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/bip/bca/
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303398211_Automatic_Logical_Inconsistency_Detection_in_the_National_Bridge_Inventory
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705816300984
  38. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%2528ASCE%25291084-0680%25282004%25299%253A1%252816%2529
  39. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a8976/just-how-fragile-are-americas-bridges-15526104/
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/structurally-deficient-bridge
  41. https://www.artba.org/news/new-data-shows-slow-steady-progress-repairing-americas-bridges/
  42. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/bip_factsheet.cfm
  43. https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf
  44. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/22/2022-20422/national-bridge-inspection-standards-technical-correction
  45. https://www.enr.com/articles/54100-fhwa-revamps-bridge-inspection-standards
  46. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-TD2-PURL-gpo156893/pdf/GOVPUB-TD2-PURL-gpo156893.pdf
  47. https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Programs/Research-Administration/Final-Reports/SPR-1713-Report.pdf
  48. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/72747
  49. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/73506/dot_73506_DS1.pdf
  50. https://www.assetintel.co/blogs/the-fundamentals-of-data-crosswalk-understanding-its-purpose-and-benefits
  51. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/loadrating/pubs/hif24113.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.