Road Conditions and Spending by State: Are Taxpayers Getting Smoother Roads for Their Money?

States are spending historic amounts on highways, boosted by new Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) dollars, yet many drivers still hit the same potholes and rough pavement every day. MoneyGeek analyzed the latest Highway Statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation to rank every state's road quality, compare capital outlay per lane mile and test whether bigger budgets buy smoother roads.

After accounting for how much traffic each state's network carries, spending per lane mile shows no statistical correlation with road quality. Some of the highest-spending states have rough roads, while several lower-spending states have smooth pavement. This disconnect costs drivers hundreds of dollars yearly in extra vehicle operating costs when roads are in poor condition.

MoneyGeek created a Road Roughness Index by combining Federal Highway Administration international roughness index (IRI) data across Interstate, arterial and collector roads in rural and urban areas. Under FHWA standards, roads with IRI under 95 inches per mile are "good," 95 to 170 "acceptable" and above 170 "poor."

These states have the highest roughness scores and the largest shares of lane-miles in poor condition.

*Spending rank shows spending intensity (1 = highest per mile, 50 = lowest) and doesn't factor into road quality ranking.

California ranks worst on this index with a roughness score of 153.4 and more than 40% of lane-miles in poor condition, even as the state spends near the middle of the pack at just under $20,000 per lane mile. California's $24 billion annual highway budget (the nation's second-largest in absolute terms) hasn't produced smooth pavement for drivers. California drivers dealing with rough roads may want to compare insurance rates in the state to ensure adequate coverage for vehicle damage.

Rhode Island shows the "spending paradox" most clearly. The state spends $35,087 per lane mile, ranking 20th-highest in the nation, yet still has the second-worst roads with 36% in poor condition. Nebraska, the third-worst for road quality, spends even more at $37,166 per mile.

These states offer the smoothest rides, with low shares of poor roads and high shares in good condition.

*Spending rank shows spending intensity (1 = highest per mile, 50 = lowest) and doesn't factor into road quality ranking.

New Hampshire ranks first for road quality with a roughness index of 75.1 and just 5% of roads in poor condition. The state spends $18,658 per lane mile, less than Rhode Island spends per mile, yet has roads that rank 48 positions higher. With 78% of roads rated "good," New Hampshire shows that efficient, targeted spending matters as much as total dollars.

MoneyGeek's analysis shows contrasts in how effectively states convert infrastructure dollars into smooth pavement. Some states achieve high-quality roads with below-average spending, while others spend heavily yet struggle with deteriorating roads.

Efficiency Winners: Best Quality, Lowest Spending

Three states provide high road quality while ranking near the bottom for spending per lane mile:

Georgia spends just $16,000 per lane mile (47th in the nation), yet ranks third for road quality, with only 4% of roads in poor condition. Georgia's efficiency contrasts sharply with states spending twice as much per mile with worse results.

Efficiency Losers: High Spending, Poor Results

On the opposite end, several high-spending states fail to provide quality proportional to their investment:

Alaska's spending of $103,739 per lane mile dwarfs every other state (nearly three times the national average), yet the state ranks just 36th for road quality. West Virginia ranks second in spending at $81,566 per mile but 34th for quality.

Rough roads aren't just an inconvenience. They're a recurring cost that shows up in vehicle repair bills and gas station receipts.

Transportation research groups estimate that driving on deteriorated urban roads adds about $400 a year in extra vehicle operating costs for the average driver, according to TRIP and pavement engineering studies. Drivers in the most congested metropolitan areas pay up to $700 annually. AAA reports pothole damage alone cost drivers $26.5 billion in repairs in 2021, with individual repairs costing hundreds of dollars. While liability coverage is required, comprehensive coverage covers damage costs from road hazards like debris and falling objects. Those costs come from:

• More frequent repairs to suspension, steering and alignment systems
• Faster tire wear and more frequent replacement
• Increased fuel consumption on bumpy, stop-and-go routes
• Accelerated vehicle depreciation from road-related damage

These maintenance costs compound over time, especially in states where rough roads accelerate vehicle wear.

The $400 national average masks substantial state variation. Drivers in California, with 42% of roads in poor condition, see costs toward the high end of the range. New Hampshire drivers benefit from roads that are 78% rated good, keeping their vehicle operating costs lower.

For drivers in states with a high share of poor roads, these added costs stack on top of the usual expenses of car ownership like gas, registration, maintenance and insurance. Drivers should consider collision coverage that can help pay for damage from potholes and road hazards, and compare auto insurance quotes to balance stronger protection with an affordable premium.

The economic impact extends beyond individual drivers. Freight carriers pay higher maintenance costs and slower delivery times on deteriorating roads, costs that get passed through to consumers. "For states and localities lacking the necessary funding or commitment to improving roadway infrastructure, economic growth stalls, as infrastructure is a key metric and driving factor for business and industry growth," Golden notes. "Infrastructure was quoted as a driving factor in Amazon's decision to select their second headquarter location."

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed in late 2021, committed about $550 billion in new federal infrastructure spending, including major increases in formula and grant funding for highways and bridges. Three years into that rollout, the question becomes: will this generational investment change the spending-quality discrepancies MoneyGeek's analysis shows?

Most state-reported pavement condition data used in this analysis reflect the early years of IIJA implementation, before the full impact of funded projects appears in roughness metrics. Many projects remain in design or early construction phases, meaning the infrastructure bill's effects on road quality won't be fully visible for several more years.

MoneyGeek's finding that high-spending states don't show systematically better pavement highlights an accountability question for the coming decade: will new federal dollars break states out of the "maintenance-only" cycle and produce visibly smoother roads, or will additional funding slow the rate of decline in states already struggling with quality?

The states that already show efficiency (converting low spending per mile into high-quality roads) offer potential models. Georgia, New Hampshire and Alabama show that strong preventive maintenance and data-driven asset management produce results without topping spending charts. States spending heavily with poor results face questions about whether more money alone solves the problem or whether systemic changes in how funds are deployed are needed.

Tracking future editions of Highway Statistics against IIJA outlays will be central to assessing whether taxpayers see measurable returns from this infrastructure investment. As Golden emphasizes, "While improving infrastructure stimulates the economy, there must be a plan and strategy to preserve, maintain and protect this investment."

MoneyGeek ranked state road conditions and highway infrastructure spending using 2023 data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Highway Statistics series.

Road roughness index. MoneyGeek created a composite roughness score by weighting each category of measured pavement roughness from FHWA's international roughness index (IRI) data. The analysis focused on urban Interstate, other freeways and expressways, and principal arterials. IRI categories (under 60, 60 to 94, 95 to 119, 120 to 144, 145 to 170, 171 to 194, 195 to 220, over 220) received midpoint weights. Lane-miles in each category were multiplied by the weight and divided by total lane-miles to create a single roughness score per state. Rankings run from 1 (worst roads) to 50 (best roads).

Condition categories. Roads fall into FHWA thresholds: good (IRI under 95 inches per mile), acceptable (95 to 170) and poor (over 170). Percent poor and percent good reflect the share of urban lane-miles in each category.

Capital outlay per lane mile. MoneyGeek divided each state's total highway capital outlay (Highway Statistics Table SF-12A) by total functional system lane miles (Table HM-60). Capital outlay includes new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, bridge work and safety improvements. Rankings run from 1 (highest spending) to 50 (lowest spending).

Total highway spend. Each state's total expenditure on highway capital outlays, reported in millions of dollars (FHWA Table SF-12A).

Vehicle miles traveled. Annual vehicle miles traveled by state (Table VM-2) normalized spending and assessed the relationship between spending per lane mile and road quality after accounting for system usage intensity.

Scope and limitations. Capital figures represent state highway agency spending and don't capture all local government spending on local streets and county roads, which may affect conditions drivers experience in some areas. Road condition data reflect 2023 measurements. The Road Roughness Index focuses on urban Interstate, freeways and principal arterials, which experience higher traffic volumes and deterioration rates than rural roads. IIJA-funded projects still under construction aren't yet visible in roughness metrics. States with older infrastructure, harsh climates or higher traffic volumes require more spending to maintain the same quality level as states with newer roads or favorable conditions.

The table below shows MoneyGeek's full 50-state rankings with roughness scores, condition shares and highway spending across all states.