In a Nutshell:

• Michigan is the 28^th most well-funded state in the nation for road funding according to the 2025 update of the Citizen Research Council’s Road Funding Index.
• The Index score and ranking is derived from financial data from all 50 states as reported by the Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Census Bureau. The analysis incorporates ten years of revenue and expenditures – from 2013 to 2022.
• While Michigan has struggled to provide adequate revenue in years past, Michigan’s road program is now reasonably well-funded. Policymakers should use this opportunity to evaluate the performance of Michigan’s 615 road agencies and ascertain that funding is being distributed and invested effectively.

To help inform the road funding policy debates in Lansing and educate citizens on this topic, the Citizens Research Council completed a comprehensive assessment of Michigan’s reported funding levels compared to other states. First introduced in June 2024, the Research Council’s State Road Funding Index uses several federal datasets and methods of analysis to create a first-of-its-kind method to quantify and rank each U.S. state’s road funding.

This 2025 update adopts the latest available federal data, resulting in Michigan improving in the ranking from 30th to the 28th most well-funded state.

Index Scoring Methodology

The Road Funding Index incorporates ten years of financial data, with the 2025 update covering 2013 to 2022.¹ Financial data is reported in multiple ways, each reflecting different aspects of the funding process or collected through different methods. The Index combines five federal datasets of statewide funding, including federal, state, and local sources.² The datasets and related sources include:

1. Revenues Used for Highways, All Levels of Government (FHWA)
2. Total Disbursements for Highways, All Units of Government (FHWA)³
3. Total Disbursements for Highways, All Units of Government – Capital Outlay Only (FHWA)
4. Expenditures: Transportation: Highways (U.S. Census)
5. Expenditures: Transportation: Highways – Capital Outlay Only (U.S. Census)

Each category of financial data is summarized into two time-bins. One bin summarizes funding for the entire 10-year period, 2013 to 2022. The other summarizes funding for the most recent three years (2020 to 2022). The data from each time grouping is weighted equally to obtain a state’s final Index score and its U.S. ranking.

The aggregated funding data is then adjusted relative to reported road construction costs for each state. This step allows for a state-by-state comparison that captures the real purchasing power of each states’ funding levels. This step is important to achieve a fair basis of comparison of funding levels, as road construction costs can vary widely between states. Construction in the most expensive state (Hawaii) costs nearly 20 times as much as the least expensive state (Texas). Reported construction costs in Michigan are 12.6 percent more than the typical state.⁴

The cost-corrected financial data is then normalized in four different ways:

1. Funding per centerline-mile of public road
2. Funding per lane-mile of public road⁵
3. Funding per 2020 state population
4. Funding per commercial commercial vehicle (truck) miles travelled in 2023⁶

The normalized financial data is then converted to an index score based on the range of data for all 50 states, with the top-funded state receiving a score of 100 and the bottom-funded state receiving a score of zero (0). This step is necessary to achieve a comprehensive comparison of state funding levels because the underlying financial data represents different aspects of the funding process and different methods of data collection. The results of the four methods of analysis are then averaged together to achieve a comprehensive final Index score and ranking for each state. A flow chart representing the Road Funding Index methodology is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1
State Road Funding Index Methodology Flow Chart

2025 Assessment Summary Results

Table 1 provides index scores and rankings for each of the four methods of comparison as well as the final Index score and ranking.

Table 1
Road Funding Index Scores and Rankings (2013 – 2022)

Note: Michigan and peer states are rendered in bold font.

By funding per centerline mile of public road, Michigan ranks 26^th.

By funding per lane-mile of public road, Michigan ranks 25^th. This method of comparison adjusts for bridge costs within each state, with a lane-mile of bridge deck assumed to require six times the annualized cost of a lane-mile of pavement.⁷

By funding per population, Michigan ranks 39^th. States with larger populations like Michigan tend to rank lower by this method of comparison.

By funding per truck vehicle miles travelled, Michigan ranks 19^th. This method of comparison is relevant because truck traffic is the most determining influence on bridge and pavement damage and related costs. Michigan has relatively little truck traffic compared to many states, likely due to its peninsular geography.⁸

The final Index score is a simple average of the four component index scores, resulting in a rank of Michigan as the 28^th most well-funded state.⁹

Relevance to Michigan Road Funding Policy

Michigan road interest-groups often advocate for increased state funding by comparing Michigan’s funding levels to other states. These arguments may be based on methods of comparison that exaggerate Michigan’s road funding struggles.¹⁰ Very different conclusions can be drawn depending on the source data, year(s) analyzed, and the method of normalization. The intent of the Research Council’s research and analysis is to provide a final road funding rank that is as comprehensive and objective as possible.

Following the publication of the initial Road Funding Index in 2024, most of the feedback received in response to this research effort has been positive and supportive. This work was peer-reviewed and accepted for presentation at the 2025 Annual Conference of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, and was selected for the “Most Prestigious Research Award,” by the Governmental Research Association.

Yet this work has also generated some criticism from Michigan road interests.

Perhaps the biggest point of contention is the ten-year time range of funding data used for comparison. Pavement and bridge infrastructure can be in service for 30 years or more. An Index that aggregated 30 years of historical funding data may have been preferred to the ten-year range used here. However, such an analysis would be exponentially more difficult for a variety of reasons. Additionally, while road funding levels from decades ago still have influence over current conditions, that influence diminishes over time. The ten-year analysis was adopted to balance between consideration of historical funding levels and analytical feasibility.

Creating a method to objectively ranks states’ road funding levels is not straightforward and many analytical choices are necessary. One alternative might be to compare only the most recent year of funding data to provide current snapshot assessment of state funding. This approach was rejected because a single year of data may include anomalies related to sudden funding changes or reporting glitches in some states that misrepresent longer-term trends. Another approach might be to simply average funding levels across the decade of data. This approach was rejected because funding in 2013 is not as relevant as funding in 2022 in relation to current system conditions or funding levels.

The Research Council’s approach is designed to reflect the latest funding levels while recognizing that previous years remain relevant to current needs and system conditions. The math works out such that the most recent three years of funding contribute 65 percent of the final Index score, with the prior seven years contributing the remaining 35 percent. This was determined to be the best approach to provide a comparison that represents current and future needs while retaining the context of historical funding levels.

Combining all of this detail into a single Index score and ranking is useful when communicating the research, but hides details regarding trends over the decade. Additional insight can be gleaned by evaluating funding levels for each individual year.

Table 2 provides Michigan’s annual funding rank from 2013 to 2022 by each method of comparison, as well as its overall funding ranking.

Table 2
Michigan Road Funding Rank for Individual Years, 2013 to 2022¹¹

Table 2 lends support to the conventional wisdom that Michigan has historically underfunded its roads compared to many other states. In 2013, Michigan ranked 45^th in overall funding; however, it has made substantial progress in the last decade, largely as a result of the 2015 road funding package that increased fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. As of 2022, Michigan moved into the top-half of states, ranking 24^th for the year.

When discussing potential road funding increases in Michigan, policymakers should be cautious about using any state comparisons to conclude what an appropriate level of road funding might be. States and their road programs may have a variety of unique circumstances and challenges that are difficult to control for in any comparative analysis. That said, such comparisons are frequently used in policy analysis in Michigan and elsewhere. If policymakers wish to use inter-state comparisons to establish an appropriate level of road funding, they should confirm that the comparison is objective and meaningful. This is exactly what is provided in the Research Council’s Road Funding Index.

Additional details and explanation regarding the Road Funding Index findings and methodology will be made available upon request.¹²

Summary and Take-Home Message

Road funding in Michigan has been an ongoing policy focus for decades and continues to warrant attention. Yet the legislature will be challenged in the near-term to balance the needs of many critical state programs for the 2026 budget and beyond. The Research Council’s road funding assessment can provide valuable context to inform ongoing discussions.

The final Road Funding Index score aggregates a decade of funding data, with the most recent three years emphasized. By this method, Michigan comes in at 28^th, up from 30^th in the previous assessment. While federal data from 2023 and 2024 is not yet available, it is unlikely that Michigan’s rank will decline when the Research Council next updates its Index.

The Research Council’s March 2025 report, “A Data-Driven Assessment of Michigan’s Road Program,” documented that Michigan’s road funding continued to increase after 2022. As of FY2024, Michigan’s road program is better funded than at any time within the last two decades; this is true even when omitting the expenditures from the Rebuilding Michigan Bond Program and adjusting for construction cost inflation over the years.

These findings do not negate the importance of ongoing road funding discussions. Low funding levels prior to 2015 likely created a maintenance backlog that many road agencies continue to struggle with. Additionally, bond funding will soon be depleted, the state will face the new burden of repaying the borrowed sums, and the purchasing power of budgets will be challenged by ongoing construction cost inflation.

However, this is not a moment of crisis. Michigan’s statewide road program is currently reasonably well funded. To the extent that Michigan’s roads remain a policy focus, this is an opportunity to consider how road funding is distributed and invested. Our March 2025 report provides detailed discussion on multiple aspects of Michigan’s road program that appear to impose inefficiency, along with data-based evidence where available. However, our analysis was conducted with limited resources and access. There is still much unknown.

As Michigan policymakers continue to address funding needs, the performance of Michigan’s road program should also be evaluated. An adequately supported study administered by an independent agency such as the Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB) could inform on how well Michigan’s road program is currently functioning, and advice on how to improve it.¹³ Simply allocating more funding to the current system may perpetuate inefficient policy and practices into the future. Michigan taxpayers deserve assurances that current and future road funding is spent effectively.

Footnotes

1. Due to the lag time in federal reporting, 2022 is the most current available data year as of August 2025. ↩︎
2. This data also includes quasi-public agencies such as tolling authorities. ↩︎
3. Excludes disbursements on ‘law enforcement and safety.’ ↩︎
4. The data used for the cost correction step is reported bridge replacement unit costs for all public road bridges for the year 2020 as reported by FHWA at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/sd2020.cfm. While this data is imperfect as it applies to bridges and not pavement or related road construction work, it is the best available proxy to estimate road construction costs. Cost correction factors are relative to a hypothetical “typical state” assigned construction costs between the mean and median of the range of all states. Recognizing that not all funding is applied to construction, the full cost correction factor is not applied to any financial data. A 50% correction factor is applied to revenue and full expenditure data. A 75% correction factor is applied to capital outlay expenditure data. ↩︎
5. This includes a bridge cost adjustment factor. One lane-mile of bridge deck is assumed to be equivalent to six lane-miles of pavement in equivalent life-cycle cost demands. ↩︎
6. The 2024 analysis normalized to truck VMT as reported in 2020. This 2025 Index update adopted more recent truck travel data to recognize that truck VMT in the 2020 reporting year my have been unrepresentative due to Covid-19 Pandemic-related economic disruptions. ↩︎
7. Bridge area for all public road bridges is reported by FHWA National bridge inventory. Conversion to equivalent lane miles is done by assuming 12-foot wide lanes, multiplying this number by 5 and adding this to reported lane-miles of public road in each state, meaning that we assume the annualized life-cycle cost of bridges is six times the cost of pavement. 2020 bridge area data was used for this analysis. ↩︎
8. One caveat to this method of comparison is that we consider only miles of truck travel (derived from FHWA Table PS-1, 2023), not the weight of those trucks. Due to Michigan’s unique truck weight regulations, truck travel in Michigan may impose more costs than the national rank of 19th would suggest. National data is unavailable for a more complete analysis. ↩︎
9. It is worthwhile to compare states by the Index score in addition to the ranking, as the differences in funding are not evenly distributed. For example, Michigan’s Index score of 21.64 results in a rank of 28th. However, the 34th-ranked state has an index score of 20.85, less than a one-point difference within a 54-point range. Michigan just happens to be at the top of a group of states with practically equivalent funding levels. Marginal changes in reported data or methodology could have resulted in Michigan placing several ranks lower. ↩︎
10. For example, this March 2025 testimony to the Michigan House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (slide 10) ranked Michigan 47^th among all states in infrastructure spending. The source data includes all infrastructure capital outlay normalized to population. This spending data includes roads, but also other infrastructure types such as water, schools, and prisons. Concluding that Michigan has comparatively underfunded roads by reference to this data alone would be a mistake. ↩︎
11. When interpreting Table 2, it is important to consider that the Overall Funding rank is a result of the average of index scores of the four component methods of comparison that provide the component ranks, not an average of the ranks themselves. This approach better reflects comparative funding levels, as the distribution of funding levels across all 50 states can be very uneven. For example, if reported funding data is clustered together, two states might be very similar in funding but have a ranking gap of five or ten places. ↩︎
12. Contact Eric Paul Dennis, PE, epdennis@crcmich.org. ↩︎
13. While it may seem more appropriate for such a study to be administered by MDOT or TAMC, these agencies may be challenged to objectively assess their own performance. While DTMB does not typically administer research efforts, the agency has extensive experience in managing consultants and contract administration. ↩︎

Additional data and methodology details will be made available upon request to epdennis@crcmich.org. CRC welcomes any and all feedback concerning this research as to provide the most comprehensive and meaningful assessment of comparative state road system conditions as is possible.