National Bridge Inventory: Tennessee


  • The state has identified needed repairs on 7,358 bridges.
  • This compares to 7,448 bridges that needed work in 2021.
  • Over the life of the IIJA, Tennessee will receive a total of $403.3 million in bridge formula funds, which will help make needed repairs.
  • Tennessee currently has access to $322.6 million of that total, and has committed $245.6 million towards 48 projects as of June 2025.
  • Of the 20,374 bridges in the state, 887, or 4.4 percent, are classified as structurally deficient. This means one of the key elements is in poor or worse condition.
  • This is up from 841 bridges classified as structurally deficient in 2021.
  • The deck area of structurally deficient bridges accounts for 4.7 percent of total deck area on all structures.

Top Most Traveled Structurally Deficient Bridges in Tennessee

CountyYear BuiltDaily CrossingsType of BridgeLocation
Davidson1958155,629Urban InterstateI24 over Mill Creek
Davidson1960154,055Urban InterstateI40 over I24
Davidson1963131,122Urban InterstateI40 over Mill Creek
Hamilton1960115,412Urban InterstateI24 EBL & WBL over Branch
Davidson1961113,584Urban InterstateI-24 WB Ramp over I-24 EB
Hamilton1959110,093Urban InterstateI75 over Branch
Williamson1963109,713Urban InterstateI65 over Branch
Davidson1967101,986Urban InterstateI65 343316H over Cumberland Rv & Cowan St
Hamilton196398,487Urban InterstateI24 over Sou Rwy (Abandoned)
Davidson196297,513Urban InterstateI40 over I40 / Westboro Road
Hamilton196494,104Urban InterstateI24 WBL over Missionary Ridge
Hamilton196594,104Urban InterstateI24 EBL over Missionary Ridge
Williamson196394,031Urban InterstateI65 over I65 / SR106 & Harpeth Rv
Williamson196394,031Urban InterstateI65 over I65 / SR106 & Harpeth Rv
Davidson197274,643Rural InterstateI-24W over Old Hickory Blvd.
Davidson197274,643Rural InterstateI-24E over Old Hickory Blvd.
Hamilton196469,132Urban InterstateI24 over Brown S Ferry (FAU 3622)
Hamilton196469,132Urban InterstateI24 over Browns Ferry Rd(FAU 3622
Shelby196662,695Urban InterstateI40-EB-Rp to I240 over I40-Rp-K / I240-Rl-Ex-Rp
Wilson196457,395Urban InterstateI40 over I40 / SR 26
Shelby196853,975Urban freeway/expresswayFau 4032 over Waring Rd
Shelby197353,211Urban InterstateI40-Ll-Exit-Ramp over I40-WB-Ex Rp / N 3rd St.
Marion196552,102Rural InterstateI24 over Sequatchie River
Marion196552,102Rural InterstateI24 over Sequatchie River
Shelby192948,162Urban other principal arterialFap 14 297767K over IC RR & Nonconnah Creek

Bridge Inventory: Tennessee

Type of BridgeNumber of BridgesArea of All Bridges
(sq. meters)
Daily Crossings on All BridgesNumber of Structurally Deficient BridgesArea of Structurally Deficient Bridges
(sq. meters)
Daily Crossings on Structurally Deficient Bridges
Rural Interstate624719,73323,263,4562121,856927,286
Rural arterial1,084942,6638,375,4763130,416220,602
Rural minor arterial1,212745,6985,296,7714837,308194,607
Rural major collector1,888699,1432,880,2509140,983152,549
Rural minor collector2,891713,0101,999,72413443,633111,874
Rural local road6,334958,8381,403,71728642,80659,320
Urban Interstate9951,719,42276,570,8362546,4512,043,071
Urban freeway/expressway379653,71714,155,59265,016231,960
Urban other principal arterial1,3201,651,26826,677,32472106,6401,436,683
Urban minor arterial1,059984,91112,095,0685979,295694,698
Urban collector1,009435,7914,470,7584523,601176,438
Urban local road1,579412,6932,275,3016927,211101,911
Total20,37410,636,886179,464,273887505,2176,350,999

Proposed Bridge Work

Type of WorkNumber of BridgesCost to Repair
(in millions)
Daily CrossingsArea of Bridges
(sq. meters)
Bridge replacement836$7663,984,110350,286
Widening & rehabilitation3,433$2,07020,347,5761,394,602
Rehabilitation2,627$2,90642,821,0451,785,343
Deck rehabilitation/replacement121$3091,114,106187,841
Other structural work341$3071,896,313207,260
Total7,358$6,35770,163,1503,925,332

About the data:

Data and cost estimates are from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Bridge Inventory (NBI), downloaded on June 24, 2025. Note that specific conditions on bridges may have changed as a result of recent work or updated inspections.

Effective January 1, 2018, FHWA changed the definition of structurally deficient as part of the final rule on highway and bridge performance measures, published May 20, 2017 pursuant to the 2012 federal aid highway bill Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Two measures that were previously used to classify bridges as structurally deficient are no longer used. This includes bridges where the overall structural evaluation was rated in poor or worse condition, or where the adequacy of waterway openings was insufficient.

The new definition limits the classification to bridges where one of the key structural elements—the deck, superstructure, substructure or culverts, are rated in poor or worse condition. During inspection, the conditions of a variety of bridge elements are rated on a scale of 0 (failed condition) to 9 (excellent condition). A rating of 4 is considered “poor” condition.

Cost estimates have been derived by ARTBA, based on 2023 average bridge replacement costs for structures on and off the National Highway System, published by FHWA. Bridge rehabilitation costs are estimated to be 68 percent of replacement costs. A bridge is considered to need repair if the structure has identified repairs as part of the NBI, a repair cost estimate is supplied by the bridge owner or the bridge is classified as structurally deficient. Please note that for a few states, the number of bridges needing to be repaired can vary significantly from year to year, and reflects the data entered by the state.

Bridges are classified by FHWA into types based on the functional classification of the roadway on the bridge. Interstates comprise routes officially designated by the Secretary of Transportation. Other principal arterials serve major centers of urban areas or provide mobility through rural areas. Freeways and expressways have directional lanes generally separated by a physical barrier, and access/egress points generally limited to on- and off-ramps. Minor arterials serve smaller areas and are used for trips of moderate length. Collectors funnel traffic from local roads to the arterial network; major collectors have higher speed limits and traffic volumes and are longer in length and spaced at greater intervals, while minor collectors are shorter and provide service to smaller communities. Local roads do not carry through traffic and are intended for short distance travel.