Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District 5 Projects Funding Gaps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
N.M. DOT district official outlines $35M shortfall on US‑64 project, flags $380M of near‑term needs
Summary
An NMDOT presenter told the House committee that several District 5 projects — including a US‑64 segment, New Mexico 30 and a St. Michael/St. Francis interchange in Santa Fe — face large funding gaps; committee members questioned prioritization, railroad impacts and inflation assumptions.
An NMDOT district presenter told the House Transportation, Public Works & Capital Improvements Committee that several large projects in District 5 carry substantial funding shortfalls and together represent hundreds of millions of dollars in near‑term need.
At a committee hearing, the presenter summarized the district’s project list and cost estimates: “we have the $10,600,000 in the STIP, but, again, we are short by $35,000,000 for that project. Excuse me,” the presenter said of one US‑64 project listed as S10681. The presenter also cited a proposed New Mexico 30 project listed at about $52,000,000 and the St. Michael / St. Francis interchange (S10440) in Santa Fe with an engineer’s estimate “about, almost $50,000,000.” The presenter said the district’s projects in the fiscally constrained step total “about 300 almost $380,000,000 of project needs” and that planning‑year needs (FY29–FY31) exceed “a little over $600,000,000.”
Why it matters: committee members pressed staff on how projects are prioritized and whether certain elements — such as railroad tracks near the Cerrillos Road/ St. Michael’s / St. Francis Drive intersection in Santa Fe — are included in proposed work. Representative Brown asked whether the Cerrillos Road project “will affect the railroad track used by the Rail Runner,” and staff responded that the current project segment “does not include the railroad track.”
How projects are prioritized: NMDOT staff said prioritization combines data and engineering judgment. Rick Padilla, executive director for highway operations, described an analytic process that “collects tons of data on every route” including pavement distress and crash data; that information feeds an asset management program and an automated ranking that staff then refine with engineering judgment. The district presenter added that a major factor is “where we’re at in design,” which can shift a project’s priority as design work advances.
Funding awarded to locals: the presenter also described recent local awards. For the Transportation Project Fund (TPF), the presenter said the program distributes funds with a 95/5 split; “we were able to award out a total of $9,200,000, with a $460,000 entity match for a total of 9,700,000.0,” the presenter said. For the Local Government Road Fund (LGRF) the presenter said grants are awarded with a roughly 75/25 split and that the district awarded “a total of $5,400,000 almost 5 and a half million dollars” under that program.
Inflation and estimates: committee members asked about the inflation factor used in planning years; staff said a 1.5% inflation assumption is being applied to out‑year estimates but that estimates are updated regularly.
Other committee concerns: Representatives raised operational and safety concerns about US‑64’s Hogback curve and other corridor safety issues. Members also asked about use of millings for rural routes and matched federal funding leveraged for local projects; staff described an established process to release millings and said NMDOT had used legislative match funds for at least one award of $2,000,000.
Staff standing by for questions: after running through the packet and maps, the presenter “stood for questions,” and multiple members followed up on prioritization, railroad inclusion and program rules.
Ending: staff said they will verify details such as whether future project segments will include railroad work, and committee members proposed follow‑up discussions on funding strategies and corridor safety.
