County road officials and MDOT tell House committee local bridge backlog tops $1 billion; new federal mandates, culvert rules add costs

The Michigan House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard two hours of testimony and briefing Thursday on the condition of local bridges, funding shortfalls and new federal inspection and load‑rating requirements that county officials and the Michigan Department of Transportation say will raise costs and risk more closures.

Ed Noyola and Denise Donahue of the County Road Association, joined by an engineering representative from the Michigan Municipal League, told the committee that local agencies face expanding bridge inventories and heavy repair and replacement costs. Noyola said the number of locally owned bridges has risen in part because culverts that are lengthened to meet environmental and bank‑full width standards cross the 20‑foot threshold that federal rules define as a bridge.

"Local roads are in serious condition. And if we don't address them, now, we have no choice but to start closing bridges," Noyola told the committee.

What the presenters said

- Inventory growth and culvert conversions: County officials reported an increase of roughly 153 local bridges since 2015, a trend they attribute largely to culvert upgrades (lengthening and widening for environmental and fish‑passage considerations) that push structures past the 20‑foot federal bridge threshold. "A bridge starts at 20 feet," a presenter said; committee members confirmed the 20‑foot definition is set by federal standards.

- Condition and backlog: The County Road Association cited roughly $265 million in county bridge need reflected in a 2023 county road investment plan and said MDOT has estimated a roughly $1 billion backlog of serious, critical and closed local structures.

- Federal inspection and load‑rating changes: Presenters and MDOT officials described new federal National Bridge Inspection Standards requirements that add data fields to the National Bridge Inventory and require load‑rating analyses for permit vehicles. County officials said all 5,868 local bridges will need load ratings in AASHTOware by 2027; the first two years of that program were estimated in testimony at roughly $22 million and follow‑on years at roughly $21 million annually.

- Matching and project timing: Presenters explained that federal funds for local bridges are limited. Local matching requirements commonly require a 5% construction match; however, preliminary engineering (PE), construction engineering (CE) and right‑of‑way acquisition often fall to local agencies and can approach 100% of those specific costs, the presenters said. They also noted the local bridge program historically includes about $5 million from the Michigan local bridge program and an estimated $25 million in annual federal local allocations; state Michigan Transportation Fund allocations tied to a half‑penny gasoline tax were described as generating roughly $21 million for local use. Applications for the next round of local bridge funding were said to be evaluated now, with awards expected to lead to projects let for construction roughly three years after selection.

- Bridge bundling and MDOT assistance: Becky (Rebecca) Curtis, chief bridge engineer for MDOT, outlined MDOT’s bridge‑bundling work. MDOT said bundling can combine large or complex local projects so state expertise and procurement can help local agencies deliver work, avoid local matches in some pilot cases and reduce per‑project costs. Curtis said MDOT’s bundling pilots produced bids under scoping estimates and delivered work on time and under budget.

Key figures and examples cited in testimony

- 5,868 local bridges (count cited for load‑rating effort). - 153 additional local bridges added to the inventory since 2015. - Local county bridge need (2023 county road investment summary): $265,000,000. - MDOT‑cited backlog (rounded in testimony): about $1,000,000,000 for serious, critical and closed local bridges. - Estimated program cost to rate all local bridges (first two years): approximately $22,000,000; follow‑on years about $21,000,000. - An estimate offered in committee: "That would be between spending between $20,250,000,000 dollars a year for the next 10 years, and that would get us up to 90–95% good. Currently, we are at 85% according to the department," (statement attributed to Ed Noyola during Q&A)

Federal and state interaction

Presenters and MDOT staff said the new federal requirements for the National Bridge Inventory increase data collection and load‑rating work. AASHTOware load‑rating software and the National Bridge Inspection Standards were cited repeatedly. MDOT said it has offered to manage consultant contracts to complete load ratings for local agencies but that funding is needed; the County Road Association said it is pursuing a statutory amendment to allow use of certain leftover Michigan Transportation Fund money to help pay the initial rating costs.

Environmental permitting and culvert policy

County officials said environmental permitting (EGLE) and hydraulic rules that require bank‑full width and larger openings for fish passage and flood flow have forced many culvert replacements to become bridge projects, often multiplying local costs. Presenters emphasized that when a structure exceeds 20 feet it becomes federally classified as a bridge, making it eligible for certain programs but also subject to bridge standards and inspection requirements.

Committee questions and local concerns

Members asked about matching requirements, whether emergency funding exists when a bridge closes, timelines for grants, and how population and county size affect the three‑application limit per county for MDOT grant rounds. Presenters said emergency repairs can be financed through infrastructure bank loans or other local borrowing, but that limited state and federal pots make timely replacement or widening difficult in many counties.

MDOT perspective

Becky Curtis presented MDOT’s condition data and asset management approach. Curtis highlighted preservation techniques (epoxy deck injections, carbon fiber wrapping, accelerated delivery methods and offsite component construction) and said the department expects the number of closures and traffic‑impacting shoulder or lane restrictions to increase if funding does not keep pace. "We expect those to double over the next 10 years at MDOT because of the loss of condition," Curtis said. She added that historically bridges are retired around 53 years of age but that improved design and preservation can extend typical service life to 75 years or more.

What committee members and staff said

Vice Chair Alexander and several other members raised concerns about downstream flooding when culverts are replaced and widened, and about the cost shift to local agencies. Chair Altman and members noted that the House road funding package discussed by members earmarked funds for bridges; Representative Altman and others said the House package included a bridge component and that separate legislation (later identified in committee as House Bill 4230, the Neighborhood Roads Fund) was described as including $375 million from corporate income tax with $500 million designated to bridge programs as presented by a member during Q&A. A committee member corrected an earlier misspoken bill number in floor discussion and identified HB 4230 as the Neighborhood Roads Fund during later remarks.

What was not decided

The committee heard testimony and asked questions but took no formal funding votes during the presentation segment. Presenters and members said additional legislative changes or appropriation bills would be required to address the funding gap and the new rating mandate.

Ending

Committee members asked for county‑by‑county distributions of critical and closed bridges and additional examples of long‑closed crossings; presenters and MDOT staff said they would provide lists and timelines to the committee. The committee adjourned after MDOT’s presentation.