The steady drumbeat of bridge repairs across America continues to show progress, though the scale of need remains daunting. According to Federal Highway Administration data released June 15, 2025, some 41,685 public highway bridges were rated in poor condition—a modest improvement from 42,361 one year earlier.
These figures, drawn from the National Bridge Inventory, reflect structures where at least one primary component—deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert—earned a rating of 4 or less on FHWA’s assessment scale
Behind each poor rating lies a structure that communities depend on for daily commerce, emergency services, and basic connectivity.
“Citizens should have the ability to hear about these hard truths and make informed decisions about the future of their infrastructure—whether they opt to use private infrastructure funds or not,” wrote Bob Hellman, CEO of American Infrastructure Partners, in a recent analysis of infrastructure funding options.
The Financial Reality of Bridge Rehabilitation
The scope of America’s bridge challenge becomes clearer when viewed through a financial lens. FHWA’s 25th Conditions and Performance report to Congress identifies a $191 billion repair backlog specific to bridges, nested within an $852 billion highway repair backlog overall. Bridge rehabilitation must compete with pavement repairs, safety enhancements, and other critical transportation needs for limited public resources.
Federal efforts to address this backlog received substantial reinforcement through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The legislation created two major programs specifically targeting bridge improvements. The Bridge Formula Program channels $5.5 billion annually through fiscal year 2026, with distributions based on each state’s inventory of poor and fair bridges. Notably, at least 15% of each state’s allocation must support off-system bridges—those maintained by local rather than state agencies—with federal funding potentially covering 100% of project costs for these local structures.
The Bridge Investment Program adds another $12.5 billion over five years, awarded competitively for both large and smaller bridge projects. Federal cost shares under this program can reach 50% for major bridge grants and up to 90% for other categories, depending on project specifications and ownership structures.
A December 2024 Government Accountability Office review of the Bridge Investment Program found that while the program shows promise, the Department of Transportation should refine certain processes to improve consistency in how projects are solicited, evaluated, and selected. FHWA has concurred with these recommendations, recognizing that predictable award practices benefit both state transportation departments and local project sponsors.
Understanding the Persistent Gap
Despite these substantial federal investments, the persistence of roughly 42,000 bridges in poor condition reveals the complexity of infrastructure finance. Congressional Budget Office data shows that all levels of government spent $626 billion on transportation and water infrastructure in 2023, but bridge-specific funding must compete within this larger pool that includes operations, routine maintenance, and non-bridge capital needs.
When the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s bridge funding is distributed across states, it provides approximately $80 million per state annually over six years.
But as American Infrastructure Partners’ Hellman points out, “A single bridge costs about $100 million. That’s tantamount to getting enough money to paint the stuff that’s out there.”
The March 2024 collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge brought momentary attention to the infrastructure crisis, but public focus proved fleeting.
“It took four days for that disaster to go from the front page to page 14 in the newspapers,” Hellman observed.
This reality has prompted transportation agencies to explore complementary approaches to traditional grant funding. Among these, public-private partnerships have emerged as one method for accelerating project delivery while maintaining public ownership and control.
Private Capital as a Complementary Tool
American Infrastructure Partners is one of several firms working to support public agencies through alternative financing structures. The company’s approach focuses on collaboration with public owners rather than replacement of public funding.
“As private infrastructure investors, those of us in the business need to do more than react to an asset. We need to be reacting to a problem,” Hellman explained in discussing the industry’s evolving role. “Our industry needs to listen to what a community’s infrastructure problems are.”
Private Activity Bonds offer one mechanism, providing tax-exempt financing for qualified highway and surface freight projects. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act doubled the national cap for these bonds from $15 billion to $30 billion. As of mid-August 2025, the Build America Bureau reports $23.9 billion issued and allocated, with approximately $1.1 billion still available.
Learning from Partnership Models
Several high-profile bridge projects illustrate how these financing tools function in practice. The I-495 Capital Beltway HOT Lanes in Virginia combined Private Activity Bonds, a TIFIA loan, state funds, and private equity to reconstruct a complex corridor including more than 50 bridge and interchange structures. The project operated under a long-term concession while Virginia retained policy control over the facility.
The Goethals Bridge Replacement connecting New York and New Jersey employed an availability-payment structure where the public owner maintained toll-setting authority and operations control, while the private partner handled financing, construction, and long-term maintenance under strict performance standards.
Pennsylvania’s Rapid Bridge Replacement program bundled 558 bridges under a single design-build-finance-maintain contract. This approach allowed the state to accelerate delivery across multiple counties while locking in maintenance obligations for 25 years, with public ownership preserved throughout.
The firm’s South Norfolk Jordan Bridge replacement in Chesapeake, Virginia, came in at $143 million—nearly 30% below the state’s estimate—when the city lacked funds for the $200 million project. In Illinois, the Houbolt Road Extension addressed both transportation efficiency and environmental priorities, reducing CO2 emissions by 240.5 metric tons annually while redirecting truck traffic away from residential areas.
The Path Forward for America’s Bridges
The current moment presents both opportunity and urgency for bridge infrastructure. Federal programs can provide unprecedented resources through the Bridge Formula and Bridge Investment programs, offering predictable formula dollars and competitive grants for high-impact projects. States that direct these funds toward cost-effective rehabilitation and preservation strategies can continue reducing the inventory of poor-condition bridges.
FHWA’s P3 Toolkit, GAO oversight of discretionary programs, and baseline analyses from the Congressional Budget Office all converge on common themes: evaluate options carefully, prioritize asset management outcomes, and maintain public involvement throughout procurement and operations. The tools exist; the challenge lies in matching the right approach to each specific need.
The focus on local solutions reflects the decentralized nature of American infrastructure ownership. With communities controlling the vast majority of infrastructure assets, solutions must emerge from collaboration between federal resources, state expertise, local knowledge, and when appropriate, supplemental private funding for public infrastructure.
Public programs are directing substantial resources toward critical structures. Private capital, when invited to partner and structured around clear public objectives, offers one pathway to accelerate delivery and long-term maintenance without altering fundamental questions of ownership and control. The core decisions remain public, and the most successful outcomes emerge when each tool is selected based on careful analysis of the specific challenge at hand.
