28th Annual Highway Report
Reason Foundation

Annual Highway Report

28th Annual Highway Report

Introduction

Reason Foundation’s 28th Annual Highway Report evaluates state highway systems on cost versus quality using a method developed in the early 1990s by David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. This method has since been refined by Hartgen, M. Gregory Fields, Baruch Feigenbaum, and Truong Bui.

Since states have different budgets, system sizes, and traffic and geographic circumstances, their comparative performance depends on both system performance and the resources available. To determine relative performance across the country, state highway system budgets (per mile of responsibility) are compared with system performance, state by state. States with high rankings typically have better-than-average system conditions (good for road users) along with relatively low per-mile expenditures (also good for taxpayers).

The following table shows the overall highway performance of the state highway systems in the 28th Annual Highway Report, primarily using data that each state directly reported to the Federal Highway Administration.

RIDECTNJVTNHMAMDINTNPASCOHWVALARMSMEKYLAIAGAILKSNDNCVAUTSDNEWIWAHIWYCOOKMOAZNYORNMNVIDFLMNMIMTCATXAK4241133444194032205372103317281821114631636223148273026474812433992945353824151472316492550Rank100%
Zoom level changed to 1

Similar to last year, the top-performing states are a mix of large and small states as well as states that are more urban and more rural. (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and Figure 1). Five large-population (more than seven million people) states place in the top 10 of the overall rankings: North Carolina (2nd), Virginia (4th), Tennessee (5th), Georgia (6th), and Ohio (10th).

Numerous factors—terrain, climate, truck volumes, urbanization, system age, budget priorities, unit cost differences, state budget circumstances, and management/maintenance philosophies—all affect overall performance in the Annual Highway Report. The remainder of this report reviews the statistics underlying these overall rankings in more detail.

The overall rankings are not dramatically different from the previous version of the Annual Highway Report. However, three states’ overall ranking improved by double digits this year, while two states’ overall rankings declined by 10 or more spots:

  • Idaho improved 19 positions from 34th to 15th in the overall rankings, as rural Interstate condition improved by 34 positions and urban Interstate condition improved by 22 positions. In addition, the rural fatality rate improved by 20 positions.
  • Maine improved 11 positions from 32nd to 21st in the overall rankings, as rural Interstate condition improved by 24 positions. Capital disbursements also improved by 12 positions.
  • New Jersey improved 10 positions from 44th to 34th in the overall rankings, as administrative and maintenance disbursements improved by 15 and 25 positions respectively. Rural Interstate condition improved by 12 positions.
  • Massachusetts declined 20 positions from 20th to 40th in the overall rankings, as rural Interstate condition declined by 23 positions. The state also fared poorly in disbursements. Administrative disbursements worsened by 19 positions and maintenance disbursements declined by 26 positions.
  • Arkansas declined 15 positions from 13th to 28th in the overall rankings, as rural fatalities declined by 25 positions and urban fatalities worsened by 39 positions. Capital disbursements also declined by 10 positions.

28th Annual Highway Report: Each State’s Highway Performance Ranking By Category

View national trends and state-by-state performances by category:
overall
Overall
capital-bridge-disbursements-per-mile
Capital & Bridge Disbursements
maintenance-disbursements-per-mile
Maintenance Disbursements
administrative-disbursements-per-mile
Administrative Disbursements
total-disbursements-per-mile
Other Disbursements
rural-interstate-percent-poor-condition
Rural Interstate Pavement Condition
rural-other-principal-arterial-percent-narrow-lanes
Rural Other Principal Arterial Pavement Condition
urban-interstate-percent-poor-condition
Urban Interstate Pavement Condition
rural-other-principal-arterial-percent-poor-condition
Urban Other Principal Arterial Pavement Condition
urbanized-area-congestion-peak-hours-spent-in-congestion-per-auto-commuter
Urbanized Area Congestion
bridges-percent-deficient
Structurally Deficient Bridges
fatality-rate-per-100-million-vehicle-miles-of-travel
Rural Fatality Rate
fatality-rate-per-100-million-vehicle-miles-of-travel
Urban Fatality Rate
fatality-rate-per-100-million-vehicle-miles-of-travel
Other Fatality Rate