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

Featured Expert:

James Golden - headshotJG
 James Golden

Advertising & Editorial Disclosure

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 the traffic each state's network carries, spending per lane mile has no statistical correlation with road quality. Several low-spending states have smoother roads than states spending twice as much. Rough pavement costs drivers hundreds of dollars a year in extra vehicle operating costs.

mglogo icon
KEY FINDINGS
  • About one in 10 lane-miles nationwide is in poor condition, but urban drivers feel it more: 22% of urban roads are rated poor compared with 13% of rural roads.
  • California has the roughest roads in the country, with a road roughness index of 153.4 and 42% of lane-miles in poor condition, despite spending $19,980 per lane mile.
  • Rhode Island ranks second-worst for road quality, with 36% of its lane-miles in poor condition, while spending $35,087 per lane mile. Its spending ranks 20th-highest in the nation, above most states with smoother roads.
  • New Hampshire and Alabama have the smoothest roads in the U.S., with only 5% and 4% of lane-miles in poor condition, even though they spend $18,658 and $19,333 per lane mile. They rank 45th and 43rd for spending intensity.
  • Alaska spends $103,739 per lane mile, nearly three times the national average, yet ranks 36th for road quality. West Virginia spends the second-most at $81,566 per mile, yet ranks 34th. High spending alone doesn't guarantee better pavement.
  • Georgia has the third-best roads nationally, but ranks 47th in spending per mile. At $15,995 per lane mile, Georgia spends 56% less than the national average, yet has better roads than 45 other states.
  • Rough roads cost American drivers an estimated $400 a year on average in extra vehicle operating costs, with urban drivers in large metros paying up to $750 a year, according to transportation research groups. AAA reports pothole damage alone cost drivers $26.5 billion in repairs in 2021.

States With the Worst and Best Roads

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."

Top 10 States With the Worst Roads

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

1
California
153.4
42%
22%
$19,980
42
$24,023
2
Rhode Island
139.3
36%
32%
$35,087
20
$781
3
Nebraska
137.7
32%
33%
$37,166
17
$1,646
4
Wisconsin
136
29%
29%
$23,657
38
$5,568
5
New York
135
30%
35%
$32,674
23
$17,337
6
Hawaii
130
26%
34%
$34,243
21
$849
7
Louisiana
129.6
28%
36%
$23,674
37
$2,400
8
Washington
125
25%
39%
$31,730
25
$6,613
9
Massachusetts
124.2
27%
41%
$14,916
49
$6,500
10
Colorado
121.7
19%
38%
$28,957
30
$5,365

*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 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. 

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.

Top 10 States With the Best Roads

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

1
New Hampshire
75.1
5%
78%
$18,658
45
$1,154
2
Alabama
77.3
4%
77%
$19,333
43
$3,000
3
Georgia
81.5
4%
72%
$15,995
47
$5,227
4
Indiana
83.1
5%
71%
$31,617
27
$5,030
5
Florida
84.3
5%
70%
$32,438
24
$15,034
6
Minnesota
85
4%
68%
$22,004
41
$5,557
7
Tennessee
87.8
9%
68%
$19,089
44
$2,901
8
Kansas
88.4
9%
67%
$33,746
22
$3,234
9
Kentucky
89.2
7%
64%
$46,292
11
$3,305
10
Nevada
90.2
9%
63%
$25,365
35
$2,535

*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 5% of roads in poor condition. At $18,658 per lane mile, the state spends less than Rhode Island's $35,087, yet its roads rank 48 positions higher in quality. New Hampshire has 78% of its roads rated "good."

Where Money Delivers and Where It Doesn't

Road quality and infrastructure investment don't move in lockstep. Several low-spending states outperform the heaviest spenders, and total dollars alone don't predict pavement condition.

Efficiency Winners: Best Quality, Lowest Spending

Three states rank near the bottom for infrastructure spending, yet post top-three road quality:

New Hampshire
1st
$18,658
45th
Alabama
2nd
$19,333
43rd
Georgia
3rd
$15,995
47th

Georgia spends $16,000 per lane mile (47th in the nation) and ranks third for road quality, with 4% of roads in poor condition.

Efficiency Losers: High Spending, Poor Results

Several states with the highest spending per lane mile still rank near the bottom for road quality:

Rhode Island
2nd
$35,087
20th
Nebraska
3rd
$37,166
17th
West Virginia
34th
$81,566
2nd
Alaska
36th
$103,739
1st

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

Why More Money Doesn't Always Mean Better Roads

We compared state highway capital outlay per lane mile to overall pavement conditions after normalizing for vehicle miles traveled. If states were systematically targeting more money to worse roads and closing quality gaps, a clear relationship between spending and roughness would emerge. Instead, the data show no statistical correlation.

    usMap icon
    Climate and geography

    States with harsh winters deal with freeze-thaw cycles that crack pavement faster. Mountainous terrain and long stretches of remote roads drive up both deterioration rates and the unit costs for materials and labor. Alaska's extreme spending reflects the challenge of maintaining roads across vast distances in brutal conditions.

    hammer icon
    Deferred maintenance

    Years of underinvestment can force agencies to devote new dollars to stabilizing failing pavement rather than lifting quality scores into the "good" category. States playing catch-up spend more just to keep conditions from getting worse, not to improve them.

    loanVsLoan icon
    Cost differences

    Construction, right-of-way and workforce costs vary across the country. A dollar of capital outlay buys very different amounts of work in different states. Dense urban areas have higher labor and land acquisition costs that inflate spending per mile without improving quality.

    money icon
    Spending efficiency

    Spending strategy matters as much as total dollars. "The answer to achieving the best collective roadway network on the planet lies in a data-driven maintenance and repair strategy," says James Golden, founder and CEO of Pavement Management Group. "A strategy that encourages communities to leverage preventive, preservation and recycling treatments."

    MoneyGeek's data backs Golden's point: states using preventive maintenance strategies post better road quality scores than higher-spending states that wait for pavement to fail.

What Rough Roads Cost Drivers

Rough roads cost drivers money, not just patience.

TRIP, a national transportation research nonprofit, estimates that deteriorated urban roads add about $400 a year in extra vehicle operating costs for the average driver. In the most congested metro areas, that figure reaches $750 a year. AAA found pothole damage alone cost drivers $26.5 billion in repairs in 2021. Individual repair bills ran into the hundreds of dollars. Road debris and falling objects, common hazards on deteriorating roads, fall under comprehensive auto coverage and appear as a distinct line in state-level claims data. Pothole damage falls under collision coverage and shows up separately in state claims reporting.

  • More frequent suspension, steering and alignment repairs
  • Shorter tire lifespan and higher replacement costs
  • Higher fuel consumption on rough routes
  • Faster vehicle depreciation from road-related damage

These maintenance costs compound over time, especially in states where rough pavement accelerates vehicle wear.

The $400 national average masks wide state variation. California, with 42% of roads in poor condition, sees vehicle operating costs at the upper end of the range, making its car insurance rate data a useful reference point for analysts tracking the relationship between road conditions and coverage costs. New Hampshire's 78% good-road rating keeps per-vehicle costs toward the lower end.

In states with the highest share of poor roads, vehicle operating costs add to standard ownership expenses: fuel, registration, maintenance and insurance.

Freight carriers see higher maintenance costs and longer delivery times on deteriorating roads. Those costs pass through to consumers. "For states and localities lacking the necessary funding or commitment to improving roadway infrastructure, economic growth stalls, as infrastructure is a central factor for business and industry growth," Golden says. "Infrastructure was cited as a deciding factor in Amazon's decision to select its second headquarters location."

IIJA and the Question of Accountability

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. More than four 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. The 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. For states spending heavily with poor results, the core question isn't how much they spend. It's how.

Methodology

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. MoneyGeek used annual vehicle miles traveled by state (Table VM-2) to normalize spending per lane mile and assess road quality after accounting for how heavily each state's network is used.

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 carry higher traffic volumes and deteriorate faster 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 match road quality in states with newer roads or more favorable conditions.

Full Dataset

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

California
1
153.4
42%
22%
$19,980
42
$24,023
Rhode Island
2
139.3
36%
32%
$35,087
20
$781
Nebraska
3
137.7
32%
33%
$37,166
17
$1,646
Wisconsin
4
136.0
29%
29%
$23,657
38
$5,568
New York
5
135.0
30%
35%
$32,674
23
$17,337
Hawaii
6
130.0
26%
34%
$34,243
21
$849
Louisiana
7
129.6
28%
36%
$23,674
37
$2,400
Washington
8
125.0
25%
39%
$31,730
25
$6,613
Massachusetts
9
124.2
27%
41%
$14,916
49
$6,500
Colorado
10
121.7
19%
38%
$28,957
30
$5,365
Pennsylvania
11
119.9
21%
41%
$29,968
28
$17,380
New Mexico
12
119.7
22%
43%
$24,177
36
$1,792
Iowa
13
118.0
18%
39%
$42,188
12
$3,394
Texas
14
116.2
18%
44%
$36,626
18
$26,894
New Jersey
15
114.9
22%
49%
$26,000
34
$7,446
Illinois
16
114.8
19%
45%
$37,427
16
$10,467
Michigan
17
114.0
18%
46%
$23,116
40
$7,441
Oklahoma
18
112.1
16%
48%
$35,549
19
$4,050
Maryland
19
110.4
20%
55%
$28,005
31
$4,601
Mississippi
20
109.0
16%
50%
$23,637
39
$1,694
Ohio
21
108.7
17%
51%
$15,383
48
$6,692
Virginia
22
107.7
13%
49%
$31,623
26
$7,508
South Dakota
23
107.7
13%
50%
$66,693
7
$1,340
North Dakota
24
107.2
15%
52%
$66,739
6
$1,092
Oregon
25
106.9
15%
51%
$26,371
32
$3,173
Arizona
26
105.7
14%
50%
$12,432
50
$3,406
Montana
27
104.8
16%
55%
$46,908
10
$1,275
North Carolina
28
103.8
11%
50%
$51,769
9
$7,599
South Carolina
29
103.5
9%
51%
$26,090
33
$3,623
Connecticut
30
103.2
12%
53%
$29,681
29
$3,264
Idaho
31
102.2
15%
60%
$39,250
14
$1,555
Arkansas
32
99.9
13%
59%
$37,471
15
$3,154
Wyoming
33
97.3
12%
60%
$70,931
5
$1,324
West Virginia
34
96.9
8%
59%
$81,566
2
$2,382
Delaware
35
96.7
9%
61%
$59,011
8
$1,775
Alaska
36
96.6
10%
59%
$103,739
1
$1,511
Vermont
37
95.6
11%
61%
$71,297
4
$903
Missouri
38
94.3
11%
62%
$18,481
46
$3,884
Utah
39
94.2
7%
60%
$40,282
13
$2,672
Maine
40
92.1
13%
67%
$77,056
3
$1,581
Nevada
41
90.2
9%
63%
$25,365
35
$2,535
Kentucky
42
89.2
7%
64%
$46,292
11
$3,305
Kansas
43
88.4
9%
67%
$33,746
22
$3,234
Tennessee
44
87.8
9%
68%
$19,089
44
$2,901
Minnesota
45
85.0
4%
68%
$22,004
41
$5,557
Florida
46
84.3
5%
70%
$32,438
24
$15,034
Indiana
47
83.1
5%
71%
$31,617
27
$5,030
Georgia
48
81.5
4%
72%
$15,995
47
$5,227
Alabama
49
77.3
4%
77%
$19,333
43
$3,000
New Hampshire
50
75.1
5%
78%
$18,658
45
$1,154

About Myryah Irby

Myryah Irby headshot

Myryah Irby is a writer and data journalist at MoneyGeek. Her work spans original data studies and how-to guides covering auto, home and health insurance, consumer costs, and transportation safety.

Research and Analysis

Since joining MoneyGeek in late 2025, Irby has produced data studies on insurance costs, consumer spending and transportation risk. Her published work includes a 50-state analysis of winter driving danger using fatality and weather severity data; research tracking the relationship between rhodium commodity prices and catalytic converter theft rates, including state-level theft trends and what those rates mean for insurance costs; a state-by-state comparison of winter home heating costs; and an analysis of the full cost of having a baby in America: hospital bills, insurance and out-of-pocket expenses.

Career

Irby has more than 20 years of editorial and writing experience. Since 2005, she has run Irby x Irby, her own editorial and copywriting practice, with clients including The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, OpenAI and the National Park Service. From 2019 to 2023, she served as Senior Managing Editor and then Copywriting Manager at Callisto Media, a nonfiction publisher acquired by Penguin Random House in May 2023, where she led a team of writers and graphic designers.

Before that, she spent nearly 11 years at QuinStreet, a performance marketing company that runs content and comparison sites in insurance and personal finance. She rose from Managing Editor to Senior Managing Editor between 2010 and 2016. Earlier in her career, she edited at Collabrys for nearly four years and tutored doctoral candidates on dissertation writing at the University of San Francisco.

Read Full Bio »
Sources