Road Conditions and Spending by State: Does More Money Mean Better Roads?
Quality Verified
While state and local governments spend billions each year on road maintenance and operations, a new analysis from MoneyGeek suggests taxpayers are not necessarily getting their money’s worth. At best, they are getting just enough road investment to maintain the current condition of roads, but not enough to improve them.
Key Findings:
- Roughly 1 in every 10 miles of road in the United States is in poor condition.
- Rhode Island and California were the states ranked worst for road roughness, with 40% and 37% of roads in poor condition, respectively.
- Idaho and New Hampshire had the least rough roads and spent some of the lowest in capital outlay per mile ($6.32 and $8.61, respectively).
- States generally spend in proportion to how much their roads are utilized, reflecting the need to address wear and tear and how roads are funded — typically via gas taxes.
- However, how much each state spends on roads has no correlation with road quality after adjusting for vehicle miles.
Roughest Roads and Infrastructure Spending by State
Moneygeek analyzed overall road quality and the investment levels per lane mile in every state and found that more spending on roads did not necessarily lead to better road quality.
The road roughness index is the weighted average value of the observed measurements of the state's international roughness index (IRI). The Federal Highway Administration indicates that an IRI measure of less than 95 indicates a road in good condition, between 95 and 170 is acceptable, and greater than 170 is poor. For example, California's roughness index score of 144 means that the state's road conditions are borderline acceptable as an average. In reality, 37% of California’s roads are considered to be in poor condition, and the state ranks third in the country for worst road conditions, behind only Washington, D.C. and Rhode Island.
State | Road
Roughness
Rank
(#1 = Worst) | Road Roughness
Index | % Poor
Condition | % Good
Condition | Capital
Outlay
Rank | Capital
Outlays per
Lane Mile | Total Highway Spend ($Ms) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District of Columbia | 1 | 214.9 | 80% | 2% | 1 | $131.29 | $611 |
Rhode Island | 2 | 147.4 | 40% | 24% | 6 | $33.35 | $655 |
California | 3 | 143.8 | 37% | 24% | 15 | $18.90 | $19,310 |
Hawaii | 4 | 143.1 | 31% | 25% | 3 | $38.59 | $830 |
Nebraska | 5 | 137.6 | 32% | 33% | 45 | $4.44 | $1,742 |
Wisconsin | 6 | 137.0 | 28% | 24% | 21 | $11.74 | $4,743 |
New York | 7 | 132.6 | 29% | 33% | 5 | $36.68 | $14,151 |
Massachusetts | 8 | 130.4 | 31% | 36% | 14 | $19.74 | $3,242 |
New Jersey | 9 | 129.7 | 29% | 42% | 4 | $36.76 | $5,102 |
Michigan | 10 | 127.1 | 25% | 37% | 35 | $7.50 | $5,270 |
Washington | 11 | 120.7 | 22% | 40% | 18 | $13.81 | $4,678 |
Pennsylvania | 12 | 120.0 | 21% | 41% | 8 | $29.14 | $11,256 |
Illinois | 13 | 118.5 | 19% | 41% | 19 | $13.30 | $7,492 |
Colorado | 14 | 118.0 | 18% | 41% | 32 | $8.15 | $3,270 |
New Mexico | 15 | 116.9 | 22% | 44% | 48 | $3.57 | $1,011 |
Louisiana | 16 | 116.6 | 23% | 33% | 27 | $9.46 | $2,229 |
Texas | 17 | 115.3 | 19% | 43% | 10 | $26.89 | $24,247 |
Iowa | 18 | 113.6 | 18% | 40% | 39 | $6.62 | $2,943 |
Ohio | 19 | 112.2 | 20% | 49% | 17 | $13.96 | $6,057 |
Montana | 20 | 111.6 | 19% | 50% | 50 | $3.04 | $963 |
Indiana | 21 | 109.2 | 14% | 45% | 28 | $9.41 | $3,286 |
South Dakota | 22 | 108.7 | 15% | 43% | 49 | $3.16 | $985 |
Maryland | 23 | 107.3 | 19% | 55% | 9 | $27.70 | $3,733 |
Connecticut | 24 | 107.1 | 15% | 49% | 11 | $23.55 | $2,097 |
Virginia | 25 | 106.7 | 12% | 48% | 16 | $17.25 | $5,443 |
North Dakota | 26 | 105.0 | 16% | 51% | 47 | $4.15 | $1,240 |
Mississippi | 27 | 104.4 | 16% | 53% | 43 | $5.37 | $1,742 |
South Carolina | 28 | 104.0 | 11% | 48% | 31 | $8.58 | $2,277 |
Arkansas | 29 | 103.7 | 13% | 49% | 46 | $4.21 | $1,685 |
Oregon | 30 | 103.3 | 13% | 51% | 42 | $5.39 | $2,313 |
Delaware | 31 | 101.0 | 11% | 52% | 2 | $38.94 | $817 |
Maine | 32 | 97.7 | 15% | 55% | 38 | $6.70 | $918 |
Wyoming | 33 | 91.6 | 12% | 54% | 41 | $5.46 | $669 |
West Virginia | 34 | 91.2 | 11% | 56% | 24 | $10.39 | $1,538 |
North Carolina | 35 | 89.7 | 8% | 56% | 12 | $21.19 | $6,610 |
Kentucky | 36 | 89.5 | 8% | 61% | 33 | $8.09 | $2,248 |
Missouri | 37 | 89.3 | 10% | 64% | 44 | $4.61 | $2,590 |
Utah | 38 | 88.9 | 6% | 62% | 20 | $11.75 | $2,174 |
Minnesota | 39 | 88.6 | 7% | 63% | 25 | $10.00 | $5,040 |
Alaska | 40 | 87.2 | 6% | 63% | 13 | $19.82 | $1,317 |
Kansas | 41 | 86.2 | 9% | 64% | 51 | $2.96 | $1,707 |
Nevada | 42 | 85.9 | 8% | 61% | 22 | $11.08 | $1,950 |
Vermont | 43 | 83.0 | 6% | 66% | 29 | $9.32 | $648 |
Tennessee | 44 | 80.4 | 8% | 67% | 36 | $7.39 | $2,718 |
Arizona | 45 | 79.7 | 10% | 45% | 23 | $11.03 | $2,801 |
Oklahoma | 46 | 78.9 | 11% | 35% | 34 | $8.00 | $2,826 |
Georgia | 47 | 78.1 | 4% | 72% | 26 | $9.54 | $4,459 |
Florida | 48 | 78.0 | 5% | 70% | 7 | $29.70 | $12,143 |
Alabama | 49 | 74.990 | 7% | 75% | 37 | $7.20 | $2,851 |
New Hampshire | 50 | 74.5 | 8% | 74% | 30 | $8.61 | $775 |
Idaho | 51 | 59.3 | 7% | 41% | 40 | $6.32 | $1,148 |
Relationship Between State Spending And Road Conditions
Analysis of all 50 states shows that states generally spend proportionately to the vehicle miles traveled; however, there are exceptions. Texas, New York and Pennsylvania all spend proportionately more than the vehicle miles traveled, and California spends less. Regardless of how much money they spend on road conditions, states are using available funds to maintain, not fix or improve, crumbling roads.
After adjusting for vehicle miles, there is no correlation between spending and road conditions. If states were working to improve their roads, the worse the roads, the more the state would be spending (to fix them). Additionally, tax-friendly states don’t have the worst roads. They are trying to keep roads in working order just as states with higher taxes are.
Who Pays For Roads?
Three-quarters of spending to maintain and fix roads and highways comes from state and local governments. According to the Urban Institute, the average state spends nearly 8% of its budget on roads. The rate of investment has not changed much over time. In 1977, 8% of state and local budgets combined went toward roads and highways compared with 6% in 2017.
Through the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the federal government provides grants to states to maintain and improve the Interstate Highway System. Funded by transportation-related taxes such as gasoline and diesel taxes, the HTF spends more than it raises in revenue. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the fund ran a $16 billion deficit in 2020. The CBO’s projections predict that the fund, which has relied on transfers from general tax funds since 2008, will be depleted by 2023.
Expert Panel: The Economic Impact of Road Improvements and Neglect
- How is highway improvement usually funded?
- What is the impact of investment in road improvement? What are the implications when states do not invest in such improvements?
- How do poor roads impact drivers?
- Are there broader impacts of poor roads on communities or local economies?
- Would COVID-19 Infrastructure spending be an effective economic stimulus?
- Is there anything you'd like to add about the relationship between the quality of roads, state budgets and state or local economic indicators?

Founder and CEO

Americas Managing Director & Global Head of Infrastructure at Turner & Townsend

Chief Editor at Complete Auto Guide
Why Are Roads in Good Repair Important?
Quality roads and highways are essential to the broader U.S. economy. Most consumer goods travel along the nation’s highways, and investing to improve roads has historically boosted economic growth. Especially during pandemic-related economic setbacks, such infrastructure investment could create much-needed jobs and help people financially. For example, poor road conditions translate directly into higher car repair and maintenance costs, along with a harder time finding cheap car insurance for consumers.
Methodology
MoneyGeek determined how states rank on the condition of their roads and their highway infrastructure spending by comparing the roughness measure of each state's urban and suburban highways and state and local (municipal and county) government expenditures on their highway system. We used the metrics below to establish final scores and rankings:
- Road Roughness Index: We developed a composite roughness score of all major urban roadways in each state by weighting each category of measured pavement roughness and aggregating this information across the entire state system.
- Percentage Poor vs. Good Condition: We designated each category of measured pavement roughness into larger groupings and compared the number of lane miles across the state by groupings of higher and lower pavement roughness.
- Capital Outlays per Lane Mile: This value is calculated as the total state expenditure on capital outlays for highways divided by the total lane miles in each state's functional road system.
- Total Highway Spend: This value is calculated as the total state expenditure on both capital outlays and other expenditures for highways.
About the Author

sources
- Congressional Budget Office. "Budget and Economic Data." Accessed October 21, 2021.
- Urban Institute. "Highway and Road Expenditures." Accessed October 21, 2021.
- U.S. Census. "2019 National and State Population Estimates." Accessed September 12, 2021.
- U.S. Census. "2019 State & Local Government Finance Historical Datasets and Tables." Accessed September 13, 2021.
- U.S. Department of Transportation. "Highway Statistics 2019 - MILES BY MEASURED PAVEMENT ROUGHNESS - RURAL." Accessed September 13, 2021.
- U.S. Department of Transportation. "Highway Statistics 2019 - Annual Vehicle Miles." Accessed September 13, 2021.