State bridge bureau staff briefed the committee on the condition and needs of New Mexico’s bridges, the inspection program, funding streams and several specific projects that are already in design or under emergency response.

David Quintana, the department’s chief engineer, introduced the bridge presentation and turned the briefing over to Ben Najera, design section manager, and Ray Trujillo, state bridge engineer. Najera summarized the bridge bureau’s three sections — bridge management (inspections and load ratings), bridge design (internal and consultant oversight) and bridge construction/response — and described inspection methods including a bridge “snooper” vehicle used to access members beneath a deck.

Key inventory and inspection facts: DOT staff said the department inspects all public bridges in the state in accordance with National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) at a 24‑month interval, with more frequent inspections for bridges in poor condition. The bureau reported a total inventory of just under 3,760 bridges (including city and county bridges), about 3,000 of which are NMDOT‑owned and almost 800 locally owned. Staff noted a large share of bridges were built in the 1950s–1970s; the average bridge age is over 50 years.

Condition and cost figures: Using NBIS element ratings (0–9), staff reported over 60% of bridges are rated fair, with fewer bridges rated good than the national average and fewer poor bridges than the national average. Bridge staff estimated that bringing all fair bridges to good condition statewide would cost about $8 billion; improving good bridges to the national average would be about $1.6 billion. The bureau said the average replacement cost has risen from about $400 per square foot in 2020 to roughly $1,166 per square foot in 2025.

Maintenance strategy and recent funding: Bridge staff explained the life‑cycle approach (maintenance, rehabilitation, major rehab, replacement) and the relative cost of treatments (preventive maintenance ~10% of replacement cost; rehabilitation ~50%; major rehab/partial replacement ~75%). The presentation noted a 2013 decision to set $14 million per year aside for rehabilitation and preventive maintenance, which reduced state‑owned poor bridges from 281 to 99 at one point.

Programs and grants: Staff described federal bridge formula funds provided by a 2022 transportation bill (approximately $45 million per year for five years) with a federal requirement that 15% be used for non‑NHS (locally owned) bridges; DOT said it had struggled to meet the non‑NHS set‑aside but had funded five local bridge projects under those funds. Officials also described the Transportation Project Fund (TPF) local grant program (95% DOT / 5% local match), which funded design or repairs for 32 bridges at roughly $36.4 million of DOT contributions.

Specific projects and emergencies: The bureau described two recent emergency responses: the Lordsburg bridge struck by an overheight load (the replacement design is complete and girders are in fabrication) and the Onate Bridge (Espanola) closure where scour exposed a footing; staff said consultants are working on mitigation and that stabilization and a permanent fix are planned within months. Najera said the replacement for the Lordsburg span is designed and “the fabricator is in the process of fabricating [the girders] now.” Regarding Onate, staff told lawmakers the footing scour had reduced cover to roughly 6 feet and the department was working with consultants to stabilize the structure and reopen it within approximately four months while a more permanent design is developed.

Overweight/oversize permits and load enforcement: Bridge management staff said the bureau reviews load capacities for permits and uses a beam analysis program to evaluate overweight permits. The bureau emphasized the role of load ratings and posted signs where capacity is restricted.

Inspection staff and qualifications: Committee members asked about inspector qualifications. Najera described training and experience standards, including the NHI two‑week bridge inspection course and experience thresholds that vary by educational background; the bureau also uses New Mexico State University personnel and consultants for specialized inspections (22% of inspections performed by NMSU co‑op/engineer teams).

What was not decided: The committee received the briefing and asked for follow‑up; no legislative action on new bridge funding was decided at the hearing. Staff encouraged members to follow up on specific local needs and said they would provide schedules and further details on project timelines.

Ending: Committee members complimented the bureau’s work and asked for additional detail on specific bridge projects and schedules; DOT staff said they would provide follow‑up materials.