BridgeSafety
Rankings · 2025 NBI Release · Updated April 2026

Worst Condition Bridges

The 50 bridges with the lowest BridgeWatch Condition Scores in the FHWA National Bridge Inventory. The current low entry, IH 35 in Texas, scores 0/100. A low score means at least one primary component is rated Poor or worse on the federal 0-9 scale; it is not a closure determination.

How the Condition Score Works

The BridgeWatch Condition Score is a 0-to-100 composite drawn from three FHWA NBI fields: deck condition, superstructure condition, and substructure condition. Each component is rated 0 to 9 on the federal scale (9 Excellent, 7 Good, 5 Fair, 4 Poor, 0 Failed). Component ratings are normalized to 0-100, weighted roughly equally, and an age penalty is applied for bridges older than 50 years. Letter grades A through F are then assigned based on the composite. The full formula is documented on the methodology page.

A low Condition Score is a signal that the structure has triggered FHWA "structurally deficient" criteria on at least one component, making it eligible for federal replacement and rehabilitation funding under the Bridge Investment Program. State DOTs program work using their Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs); the timing of any specific repair depends on funding cycles and prioritization.

#BridgeStateScoreGradeBuiltTraffic
1IH 35Texas0F2007810K
2IH 10Texas0F2007406K
3IH 10Texas0F2007387K
4IH 10Texas0F2007387K
5INTERSTATE 405California0F1959374K
6IH 10/Campbell RdTexas0F2005373K
7I-75Georgia0F1964349K
8IH 10Texas0F2006333K
9I-75Georgia0F1965325K
10STATE ROUTE 91California0F1959319K
11STATE ROUTE 91California0F1959319K
12STATE ROUTE 91California0F1959319K
13I- 90 94 DAN RYANIllinois0F1961312K
14IH 635Texas0F1967310K
15I-85Georgia0F1958307K
16I-85Georgia0F1959303K
17IH 410Texas0F2008303K
18INTERSTATE 5California0F1958300K
19INTERSTATE 405California0F1966300K
20INTERSTATE 405California0F1966300K
21STATE ROUTE 91California0F1970300K
22I-85Georgia0F1957296K
23U.S. HIGHWAY 101California0F1958296K
24U.S. HIGHWAY 101California0F1958296K
25INTERSTATE 405California0F1963294K
26STATE ROUTE 91California0F1971290K
27U.S. HIGHWAY 101California0F1959289K
28INTERSTATE 80California0F1936288K
29Parkway N/SNew Jersey0F1952287K
30IH 410Texas0F2000287K
31INTERSTATE 405California0F1961285K
32U.S. HIGHWAY 101California0F1959285K
33I-85Georgia0F1963284K
34I-15Nevada0F1986280K
35I 15Nevada0F1964280K
36INTERSTATE 5California0F1958279K
37GSPNew Jersey0F1947278K
38INTERSTATE 210California0F1976269K
39INTERSTATE 10California0F1964268K
40INTERSTATE 405California0F1968266K
41IS 270Maryland0F1958265K
42IH 10Texas0F2006265K
43STATE ROUTE 91California0F1959265K
44INTERSTATE 5California0F1957264K
45STATE ROUTE 91California0F1970264K
46I-75Georgia0F1965263K
47INTERSTATE 405California0F1966263K
48INTERSTATE 405California0F1966263K
49INTERSTATE 405California0F1966263K
50I-75- RMPS- CR2038Georgia0F1963262K

What "Poor" Component Ratings Actually Look Like

NBI inspectors document specific physical observations behind each rating. A deck rated 4 (Poor) typically shows widespread spalling, exposed reinforcement, and significant transverse cracking. A superstructure rated 4 typically shows section loss in steel members, advanced deterioration of bearings, or significant cracking and deterioration in concrete elements. A substructure rated 4 typically shows scour around piers, settlement, or significant cracking and exposure of reinforcement in the abutments. These are condition observations, not engineering verdicts on remaining safe load capacity.

The ASCE Infrastructure Report Card publishes national context on the share of U.S. bridges in Poor condition and on funding levels relative to need. The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics publishes complementary data on freight loads and corridor-level traffic that helps explain why some Poor-rated bridges are higher rehabilitation priorities than others.

What This Ranking Cannot Tell You

Component ratings are observed, not predictive. The NBI does not publish a "probability of failure" estimate for any bridge, and BridgeWatch does not attempt to infer one. State DOTs use additional engineering analysis (load ratings, fatigue analysis, scour calculations) to determine operational restrictions; those analyses are not part of the public NBI dataset. If you have a specific concern about a bridge on the list above, the relevant state DOT and the FHWA bridge program are the authoritative sources for current operational status.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does "worst condition" mean here?

The list is ranked by the BridgeWatch Condition Score, a 0-100 composite that combines NBI ratings for deck (33%), superstructure (33%), and substructure (34%), with an age penalty applied for bridges older than 50 years. The lowest scores represent bridges where one or more of those primary load-carrying components is rated 4 ("Poor") or below on the FHWA 0-9 scale. The score is descriptive of inspection findings, not a predictor of failure.

Are the bridges on this list closed?

Most are not. NBI condition ratings describe observed physical condition; closure decisions are made by the owning state DOT. A low Condition Score makes a bridge eligible for federal Bridge Investment Program funding and state replacement programs, but the structure typically remains in service at posted load limits while rehabilitation or replacement work is programmed and funded. State DOTs and the FHWA bridge program are the authoritative sources for any operational restriction on a specific structure.

How is "structurally deficient" different from "low Condition Score"?

A bridge is "structurally deficient" under FHWA criteria when at least one of deck, superstructure, or substructure is rated 4 or lower on the NBI 0-9 scale. The BridgeWatch Condition Score is a 0-100 composite of the same three component ratings, so the two are correlated but not identical: a bridge with one Poor component but two Good components can have a moderate composite score while still meeting the federal "structurally deficient" definition.

How many U.S. bridges are structurally deficient?

According to the latest FHWA National Bridge Inventory release (data year 2025), approximately 192K bridges nationally are classified as structurally deficient. The 50-bridge list above represents the worst Condition Scores in the BridgeWatch composite; the federal "structurally deficient" count is broader and includes any bridge with a Poor or worse rating on a single primary component.

Where does the underlying data come from?

All figures on this page come from the FHWA National Bridge Inventory at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm. Inspection records originate with each state DOT under the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). The current ranking reflects the 2025 NBI release, refreshed April 2026.

Most Traffic →Oldest Bridges →Compare Bridges →
Citation: Component ratings and structural data: FHWA National Bridge Inventory, 2025 release, retrieved April 2026. Inspection records originate with each state DOT under the National Bridge Inspection Standards. National-level analysis: ASCE Infrastructure Report Card and the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.