AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mountain West => Topic started by: sandiaman on April 18, 2009, 02:42:07 PM

Title: New Mexico
Post by: sandiaman on April 18, 2009, 02:42:07 PM
Has anyone  used  US 84/285  freeway north os Santa Fe to Pojuaque?  It is real pleasure to drive on,with Indian names on the overpasses,  ( each overpass has a  unique Tewa name on the overhead part of the overpass).  The  sound barrier walls have animal designs as well.  It goes past a huge new casino here called the Buffalo Thunder, which opened last summer.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Bickendan on August 08, 2009, 06:19:58 AM
I've been on it, but it was several years ago.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: J N Winkler on August 15, 2009, 05:51:47 AM
I have been on it multiple times and actually managed to obtain a partial set of construction plans for it.  The bridge designs are a particular treat.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 21, 2018, 10:12:59 AM
NMDOT is increasing the speed limit on US 285 between Roswell and Vaughn to 75 mph:
https://www.rdrnews.com/2018/12/19/speed-limit-to-increase-to-75-mph-between-roswell-vaughn-in-january/

This is the second non-Interstate highway in New Mexico to have a 75 mph speed limit (the first being US 70 through White Sands).
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on December 29, 2018, 03:02:55 PM
NMDOT is increasing the speed limit on US 285 between Roswell and Vaughn to 75 mph:
https://www.rdrnews.com/2018/12/19/speed-limit-to-increase-to-75-mph-between-roswell-vaughn-in-january/

This is the second non-Interstate highway in New Mexico to have a 75 mph speed limit (the first being US 70 through White Sands).
That is such a lonely highway. There is absolutely nothing in that stretch. It looks like someone tried once upon a time to operate a gas station along there, but it failed.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on December 29, 2018, 09:10:10 PM
    Part of Gary Johnson's four lane program.  Believe only reason US 285 was included in that, is due to the fact the route was designated as part of the WIPP waste route from Los Alamos to the WIPP facility near Carlsbad.   
    Like the rest of Johnson's program this particular route's rebuild fell short in several areas.   Medians too narrow, they certainly could have been opened up to the full 88 feet in desolate areas.  Shoulders often were "half" shoulders, only six feet wide or so.   Vertical and horizontal curves not always optimum.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: kinupanda on December 31, 2018, 11:44:30 AM
Drove the stretch northbound from the NM 599 Relief Route to NM 502 (I was cutting across to Los Alamos) in March. The artwork on the overpasses did catch my eye.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 07, 2019, 05:13:51 PM

In October 2007, I made my first visit to New Mexico.  My first full day there, I took a lengthy loop into Northern New Mexico and briefly into Colorado.  That one trip had me hooked! I hope you enjoy!

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/looking-back-2010-new-mexico-visit.html
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on December 26, 2019, 01:57:14 PM
University Avenue / I-25 interchange (Exit 1) is slated to begin reconstruction January 2nd.   Two large traffic circles are included to connect the myriad ramps and frontage roads near the interchange and the state University.   Kind of bizarre, maybe it will work.   Last of the seven Interstate interchanges in the general area to undergo major rehabilitation and or reconstruction.  Most of these rehabs and replacements (since 2000) with the exception of Motel Blvd (i-10 Exit 139) have fallen well short of ideal.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on January 10, 2020, 11:48:07 PM
University Avenue / I-25 interchange (Exit 1) is slated to begin reconstruction January 2nd.   Two large traffic circles are included to connect the myriad ramps and frontage roads near the interchange and the state University.   Kind of bizarre, maybe it will work.   Last of the seven Interstate interchanges in the general area to undergo major rehabilitation and or reconstruction.  Most of these rehabs and replacements (since 2000) with the exception of Motel Blvd (i-10 Exit 139) have fallen well short of ideal.

I remember going to NMSU and routinely seeing traffic back up onto Southbound I-25 from the University exit; lots of accidents. They lengthened the deceleration lane as a stopgap measure, but it still gets bad when school is in session. I can imagine it's even worse today with more students commuting from Sonoma Ranch and other points north. The roundabouts and underpass will allow traffic coming off of I-25, as well as Triviz, more direct access to the Pan American Center. This should take a lot of pressure off of the intersection at Triviz and University, and in turn, reduce backups on Mainline I-25.

As for the intersections east of I-25, I'm not a big fan of having three intersections  (I-25 ramps, Don Roser, Telshor) in such close proximity, and this project won't do anything to address that. Then again I don't know if any improvements over there would be warranted at this time anyway.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on February 10, 2020, 12:10:21 AM
University Avenue / I-25 interchange (Exit 1) is slated to begin reconstruction January 2nd.   Two large traffic circles are included to connect the myriad ramps and frontage roads near the interchange and the state University.   Kind of bizarre, maybe it will work.   Last of the seven Interstate interchanges in the general area to undergo major rehabilitation and or reconstruction.  Most of these rehabs and replacements (since 2000) with the exception of Motel Blvd (i-10 Exit 139) have fallen well short of ideal.

I remember going to NMSU and routinely seeing traffic back up onto Southbound I-25 from the University exit; lots of accidents. They lengthened the deceleration lane as a stopgap measure, but it still gets bad when school is in session. I can imagine it's even worse today with more students commuting from Sonoma Ranch and other points north. The roundabouts and underpass will allow traffic coming off of I-25, as well as Triviz, more direct access to the Pan American Center. This should take a lot of pressure off of the intersection at Triviz and University, and in turn, reduce backups on Mainline I-25.

As for the intersections east of I-25, I'm not a big fan of having three intersections  (I-25 ramps, Don Roser, Telshor) in such close proximity, and this project won't do anything to address that. Then again I don't know if any improvements over there would be warranted at this time anyway.

   The University Ave job (I-25 Exit 1) is actually a cheap redo.  It is only 33.4 million.  They are not touching most of the frontage roads - only a small piece of Triviz Ave is being altered, and there is no change to anything on the E side of the interchange.  Including the irksome University EB to 25 NB loop ramp, which was "restored" five or six years ago, after having been eliminated from it's original configuration as part of a "Quarter cloverleaf".   They spent 3.2 million to do that, and shifted the 25 NB mainlines six feet towards the median centerline as part of it.   
   Really doubt the new bridge has adequate width for eight lanes - two general purpose in each direction and two left hand turn lanes in each direction.  There should have been a symmetrical Diamond installed here - pulling the NB off and on ramps from 25 closer to the 25 mainlines.   That would have increased the distance between two of the University signals - Don Roser and the 25 ramps.  One way frontages would have prevented the current signal clustering.  And it is not clear if they are adding additional horizontal clearance for a six lane I-25, which thought? was supposed to happen between Exit 0 (I-10) and Exit 6 (US-70).  They are sticking message boards willy-nilly everywhere in the last few years, and several are just outside the R guardrail, on the four lane sections of 25.  Seems not thought out for any sort of widening, at all.  Cannot understand why these message boards cannot be centered on median centerline, with a center post, and boards facing in both directions?!?   
   Well at least it isn't becoming a DDI.  If the area had had true one way frontages established by 1980 - this area wouldn't have become the mess it is today.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: roadfro on February 10, 2020, 03:51:20 PM
^ At least as far as message boards in the median are concerned: sometimes it makes more sense to mount the DMS structure from a cantelivered structure on the outer shoulder. Especially since you need to run power and communications lines to it (which are usually more likely to be in the outside shoulder) as well as have a controller cabinet. Both the controller cabinet and the sign itself must be accessible for maintenance purposes, so it's usually better and safer on the outside shoulder where a DOT vehicle can park well outside of the traveled way. The only time I've seen NevadaDOT mount two DMSs in the median on one structure, it was an extremely wide non-landscaped median (about 40+ feet wide).
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 04, 2020, 10:00:58 PM
^ At least as far as message boards in the median are concerned: sometimes it makes more sense to mount the DMS structure from a cantelivered structure on the outer shoulder. Especially since you need to run power and communications lines to it (which are usually more likely to be in the outside shoulder) as well as have a controller cabinet. Both the controller cabinet and the sign itself must be accessible for maintenance purposes, so it's usually better and safer on the outside shoulder where a DOT vehicle can park well outside of the traveled way. The only time I've seen NevadaDOT mount two DMSs in the median on one structure, it was an extremely wide non-landscaped median (about 40+ feet wide).


Speaking of DMS, NMDOT has bought exclusively from Adaptive Micro Systems since the early 2010s, making up the majority of the DMS in the state (previous installations were Skyline, and before that, ADDCO).  NMDOT since the early 2010s has chosen not to competively bid its contracts for DMS (unlike ADOT), since NMDOT prefers having commonality.  ADOT on the other hand prefers to go with the lowest cost (current vendor for ADOT is Daktronics).  I think because ADOT is a much larger agency than NMDOT, ADOT can better manage having multiple vendors and models of DMS.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on April 28, 2020, 01:23:59 AM

   Well at least it isn't becoming a DDI.  If the area had had true one way frontages established by 1980 - this area wouldn't have become the mess it is today.

You bring up an interesting point. So has the idea of a regional one-way frontage road system for I-25 been explored before? Aside from the area near the mall, it seems like it would be a pretty straightforward conversion and highly beneficial, especially for businesses near Spruce if they were to add on-ramps.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on May 03, 2020, 08:23:21 AM

   Well at least it isn't becoming a DDI.  If the area had had true one way frontages established by 1980 - this area wouldn't have become the mess it is today.

You bring up an interesting point. So has the idea of a regional one-way frontage road system for I-25 been explored before? Aside from the area near the mall, it seems like it would be a pretty straightforward conversion and highly beneficial, especially for businesses near Spruce if they were to add on-ramps.

Was saying - there should have been one way frontages developed by 1980 - on both I-10 and 25 in the immediate municipal environs.   Just no foresight to have moved in that direction.   Only issue (then) is a small historic church (St James Presbyterian) that I-10 narrowly missed during its very late sixties construction.   So there would have been a gap in the EB frontage there.  Today, with development packing in at interchanges, on both 10 and 25, any true continuous frontages would be near impossible.   The early 10's "reconstruction" of the 10/25 interchange should have had conversion to one way frontages in it's immediate area.   Instead they must have got a waiver to cram in an additional projected diamond interchange just west of the 10/25 interchange - barely a half mile away.  Normal progression, as an area develops, and population and trips increase is to convert to one way frontage.  If one examines the current (newer) 10 E to 25 N ramp, the future traffic pattern is for (TO) EB 10 traffic to "enter" this ramp, and then "exit" it to reach 10 E.   Crazy, and one of the reasons why this state department is one of the worst in terms of design.   Has something like this been done anywhere else??
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 03, 2020, 09:45:39 AM
Feature I did on NM 14 - The Turquoise Trail.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/04/new-mexico-14-turquoise-trail.html
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Revive 755 on May 03, 2020, 12:58:31 PM
Instead they must have got a waiver to cram in an additional projected diamond interchange just west of the 10/25 interchange - barely a half mile away.  Normal progression, as an area develops, and population and trips increase is to convert to one way frontage.  If one examines the current (newer) 10 E to 25 N ramp, the future traffic pattern is for (TO) EB 10 traffic to "enter" this ramp, and then "exit" it to reach 10 E.   Crazy, and one of the reasons why this state department is one of the worst in terms of design.   Has something like this been done anywhere else??

If there will be a Collector-Distributor roadway  for the new EB I-10 entrance and the ramp to NB I-25, yes.  If there will not be a C-D roadway, I still think there's an example somewhere in the Midwest, but I cannot place it at the moment.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on May 06, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
Instead they must have got a waiver to cram in an additional projected diamond interchange just west of the 10/25 interchange - barely a half mile away.  Normal progression, as an area develops, and population and trips increase is to convert to one way frontage.  If one examines the current (newer) 10 E to 25 N ramp, the future traffic pattern is for (TO) EB 10 traffic to "enter" this ramp, and then "exit" it to reach 10 E.   Crazy, and one of the reasons why this state department is one of the worst in terms of design.   Has something like this been done anywhere else??

It's common to have access to an adjacent street with C/D roadways, though I think it's frowned upon in heavily developed urban areas unless there's some braiding involved.

The closest example I can think of is Sunland Gin Road near the intersection of I-8 and I-10 in Arizona. Westbound freeway entrance has the option of slipping onto the Westbound I-8 ramp, or continuing onto I-10. Functionally it's very similar to what will exist in the future in Cruces, but laid out wider because there's more room.

I remember when they finished the reconstruction at I-10 and I-25, and figured that was the purpose of the unfinished the "on-ramp" to eastbound 10 coming off the flyover ramp.

What has me scratching my head is, where exactly is the new interchange going to be located?  Without seeing any plans, my best guess is that Arrowhead way will be elevated over Sam Steel Way and tied into I-10 at a tight diamond, which will require a substantial amount of bridge work to connect the ramps. Not to mention the demolition of half a neighborhood if Arrowhead is ever extended south of I-10.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on May 06, 2020, 10:03:15 PM
Instead they must have got a waiver to cram in an additional projected diamond interchange just west of the 10/25 interchange - barely a half mile away.  Normal progression, as an area develops, and population and trips increase is to convert to one way frontage.  If one examines the current (newer) 10 E to 25 N ramp, the future traffic pattern is for (TO) EB 10 traffic to "enter" this ramp, and then "exit" it to reach 10 E.   Crazy, and one of the reasons why this state department is one of the worst in terms of design.   Has something like this been done anywhere else??

If there will be a Collector-Distributor roadway  for the new EB I-10 entrance and the ramp to NB I-25, yes.  If there will not be a C-D roadway, I still think there's an example somewhere in the Midwest, but I cannot place it at the moment.

No, they are maintaining two way frontage on both sides in the area of this interchange (10/25).  If conversion to one way frontage was pursued - it would have simplified things quite a bit.  The 10 E to 25 N ramp was compressed to the SE, with inadequate deceleration/acceleration lanes. 
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Revive 755 on May 06, 2020, 10:27:36 PM
^ There's a bit of a difference between a C-D roadway and a frontage/outer road.
Example C-D roadway for SB I-55 between I-355 and the Joliet Road exit near Chicago, IL (the SB roadway with the overhead signs) (https://goo.gl/maps/M4GYxDowtK1EWnK79)
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: skluth on June 13, 2020, 05:00:49 PM
^ There's a bit of a difference between a C-D roadway and a frontage/outer road.
Example C-D roadway for SB I-55 between I-355 and the Joliet Road exit near Chicago, IL (the SB roadway with the overhead signs) (https://goo.gl/maps/M4GYxDowtK1EWnK79)

This example of a C-D system on I-64 between Battlefield Blvd and Chesapeake Parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7784706,-76.2434792,2325m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) is close to textbook. The ramps braid about halfway between the interchanges near the Spring Hill Suites.

Depending on the traffic volumes, just connecting the various ramps between interchanges with an extra lane can alleviate a lot of problems. I used to hate the cluster at the north end of Bloomington when going from I-55 to I-39 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5369935,-89.0091347,2608m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en), but the redesign made this a breeze the last couple times I went through the area on my way home to Wisconsin.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on July 19, 2020, 12:33:37 PM
Instead they must have got a waiver to cram in an additional projected diamond interchange just west of the 10/25 interchange - barely a half mile away.  Normal progression, as an area develops, and population and trips increase is to convert to one way frontage.  If one examines the current (newer) 10 E to 25 N ramp, the future traffic pattern is for (TO) EB 10 traffic to "enter" this ramp, and then "exit" it to reach 10 E.   Crazy, and one of the reasons why this state department is one of the worst in terms of design.   Has something like this been done anywhere else??

It's common to have access to an adjacent street with C/D roadways, though I think it's frowned upon in heavily developed urban areas unless there's some braiding involved.

The closest example I can think of is Sunland Gin Road near the intersection of I-8 and I-10 in Arizona. Westbound freeway entrance has the option of slipping onto the Westbound I-8 ramp, or continuing onto I-10. Functionally it's very similar to what will exist in the future in Cruces, but laid out wider because there's more room.

I remember when they finished the reconstruction at I-10 and I-25, and figured that was the purpose of the unfinished the "on-ramp" to eastbound 10 coming off the flyover ramp.

What has me scratching my head is, where exactly is the new interchange going to be located?  Without seeing any plans, my best guess is that Arrowhead way will be elevated over Sam Steel Way and tied into I-10 at a tight diamond, which will require a substantial amount of bridge work to connect the ramps. Not to mention the demolition of half a neighborhood if Arrowhead is ever extended south of I-10.

   Correct, the arrowhead road is supposed to be connected to 10 with a diamond interchange there.  Simply too close to the interchange with 25.  Would be interesting to learn about the "waiver" process to cram in such an interchange, so close to a preexisting interchange of two primary interstates.   The connection of two long distance interstates should have had precedent.  One way frontage in the area would have simplified matters a great deal.   Only a few additional underpasses would have been needed for the conversion.   
   No arrowhead would never be "extended" farther south.  It is simply a University internal collector road.   
   The crazy thing was, that space was left on the south side of 10, at cholla road and on the E side of 25, believe also cholla road, in the late sixties/early seventies for a future "proper" 10 E to 25 N flyover.  And they didn't use it.   Instead the present 10 E to 25 N flyover/exit was compressed to the SE.  To allow for this crazy arrowhead connection.  Nuts.   Design Regression at it's finest.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on August 22, 2020, 12:10:56 AM
Quote

   Correct, the arrowhead road is supposed to be connected to 10 with a diamond interchange there.  Simply too close to the interchange with 25.  Would be interesting to learn about the "waiver" process to cram in such an interchange, so close to a preexisting interchange of two primary interstates.   The connection of two long distance interstates should have had precedent.  One way frontage in the area would have simplified matters a great deal.   Only a few additional underpasses would have been needed for the conversion.   
   No arrowhead would never be "extended" farther south.  It is simply a University internal collector road.   
   The crazy thing was, that space was left on the south side of 10, at cholla road and on the E side of 25, believe also cholla road, in the late sixties/early seventies for a future "proper" 10 E to 25 N flyover.  And they didn't use it.   Instead the present 10 E to 25 N flyover/exit was compressed to the SE.  To allow for this crazy arrowhead connection.  Nuts.   Design Regression at it's finest.

Could be the same yahoos that allowed a full diamond at Baseline Road and I-10 in Phoenix right next to the US 60. Exiting I-10 Westbound to US 60, you take a two lane exit. If you're not familiar with the area you assume both lanes go directly to US 60. But instead you get dumped onto a C/D road where you have about 12 seconds to merge all the way to the right before you get dumped right back onto I-10... If you miss this ramp, you have the option of jumping across three lanes to exit at Broadway and turn around, or slowly make your way to one of the other exits to go the other way on I-10.

At least in the Las Cruces example, as far as eastbound is concerned the lane continuity and forced merges won't be a big issue once it's built. If you exit I-10 East to go north on I-25, you're gonna get onto I-25 unless for some reason you decide to merge right and slip back onto I-10.

Westbound, that's another story. I wonder if they'll braid the Arrowhead exit or if they'll do something goofy to tie that one in.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on August 22, 2020, 12:33:34 AM
Also, as a concept I like the idea of an Arrowhead exit serving NMSU and little else.

Phoenix has this beautiful grid network of heavy duty arterial streets. In the middle of it all you have the City of Tempe mucking up the works with all of their recent road diet/streetcar projects near ASU. As if the added college traffic didn't make the area enough of a headache for regional commuters.

Ditto for the City of Tucson; Broadway and Congress streets used to be capable of moving some cars through downtown. Now it's just a headache for anyone who needs to take that route to get to the freeway. They get to admire the city leaders' vision of a revitalized downtown while they sit in choked traffic.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on August 23, 2020, 10:05:57 AM
Also, as a concept I like the idea of an Arrowhead exit serving NMSU and little else.

Phoenix has this beautiful grid network of heavy duty arterial streets. In the middle of it all you have the City of Tempe mucking up the works with all of their recent road diet/streetcar projects near ASU. As if the added college traffic didn't make the area enough of a headache for regional commuters.

Ditto for the City of Tucson; Broadway and Congress streets used to be capable of moving some cars through downtown. Now it's just a headache for anyone who needs to take that route to get to the freeway. They get to admire the city leaders' vision of a revitalized downtown while they sit in choked traffic.

Switching to one way frontage (in the 10/25 interchange area) would have completely eliminated the idea for this regressive arrowhead interchange on 10.   
Yes am aware of the 10/US 60 connection in Phoenix.  Arizona generally has far better design standards than it's neighbor to the east, but yes it is a challenge to navigate that one in Phoenix.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on August 25, 2020, 08:01:57 PM
Also, as a concept I like the idea of an Arrowhead exit serving NMSU and little else.

Phoenix has this beautiful grid network of heavy duty arterial streets. In the middle of it all you have the City of Tempe mucking up the works with all of their recent road diet/streetcar projects near ASU. As if the added college traffic didn't make the area enough of a headache for regional commuters.

Ditto for the City of Tucson; Broadway and Congress streets used to be capable of moving some cars through downtown. Now it's just a headache for anyone who needs to take that route to get to the freeway. They get to admire the city leaders' vision of a revitalized downtown while they sit in choked traffic.

Switching to one way frontage (in the 10/25 interchange area) would have completely eliminated the idea for this regressive arrowhead interchange on 10.   
Yes am aware of the 10/US 60 connection in Phoenix.  Arizona generally has far better design standards than it's neighbor to the east, but yes it is a challenge to navigate that one in Phoenix.

I often wonder what the rationale was for the major streets in Las Cruces and how they were laid out... Old wagon trails, maybe?
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on August 28, 2020, 08:03:29 PM
the story goes that when the original las Cruces town site was laid out (1849) following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, was that rawhide rope was used by the surveyors.  It rained, and the rawhide stretched, giving the "crooked" streets of the original town site still visible today.   The neighboring town of Mesilla remained in Mexico until 1854, when it, and a strip on the southern ends of both New Mexico and Arizona was purchased for the future southern transcontinental railroad.  Best known as the Gadsden Purchase.   Just about all of today's I-10 in AZ and NM follows that railroad, and is contained in the strip.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on September 21, 2020, 05:56:07 PM
the story goes that when the original las Cruces town site was laid out (1849) following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, was that rawhide rope was used by the surveyors.  It rained, and the rawhide stretched, giving the "crooked" streets of the original town site still visible today.   The neighboring town of Mesilla remained in Mexico until 1854, when it, and a strip on the southern ends of both New Mexico and Arizona was purchased for the future southern transcontinental railroad.  Best known as the Gadsden Purchase.   Just about all of today's I-10 in AZ and NM follows that railroad, and is contained in the strip.


Funny, the legend I always heard, regarding the northwesterly jog and the reason the USA didn't get Puerto Penasco in the Gadsden purchase, is because the surveyors were low on supplies and in a hurry to get to Yuma. I did some more research and found the real story; that Mexico didn't want to lose overland access to the Baja peninsula (which I don't think the USA had any interest in acquiring.) So letting Mexico keep that narrow strip of land was a fair compromise.

In any event, dropping in from the west at night on I-10, the views of Las Cruces are absolutely beautiful in my opinion. It's one of the few cities I've driven into on a major interstate highway where I can see 90% of the city lights from the freeway.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: machias on February 11, 2021, 01:02:16 AM
I'm curious about freeway signing practices in New Mexico. I've been driving I-10, I-25, and I-40 this week, and the guide sign designs seem a little disorganized. Lettering is a little all over the place, exit tabs have differing spacing, etc. At first I thought it varied by district, but I don't think that's the case. Does NMDOT provide specific plans for signs or is it left up to contractors?  I'm not overly familiar with NMDOT.

I will say that I preferred driving US 70 from Clovis to Roswell (to work my way down to I-10) versus I-25 from Hatch to Albuquerque (to get back up to I-40 to head east). The pavement on the interstates can be quite rough at times, especially the last western stretch along I-10.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 11, 2021, 11:27:03 AM
I'm curious about freeway signing practices in New Mexico. I've been driving I-10, I-25, and I-40 this week, and the guide sign designs seem a little disorganized. Lettering is a little all over the place, exit tabs have differing spacing, etc. At first I thought it varied by district, but I don't think that's the case. Does NMDOT provide specific plans for signs or is it left up to contractors?  I'm not overly familiar with NMDOT.

I will say that I preferred driving US 70 from Clovis to Roswell (to work my way down to I-10) versus I-25 from Hatch to Albuquerque (to get back up to I-40 to head east). The pavement on the interstates can be quite rough at times, especially the last western stretch along I-10.


New Mexico tends to show a lot of inconsistency.  District 5 (Santa Fe) even experimented with Clearview for a while.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 17, 2021, 02:29:02 PM
We know New Mexico tends to ignore long distance concurrencies on interstates.  I find it interesting when I find references to the concurrencies (https://goo.gl/maps/Bsita89Sw4Veq1JL9) on the intersecting highways. 
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: aboges26 on February 26, 2021, 02:13:27 PM
I'm curious about freeway signing practices in New Mexico. I've been driving I-10, I-25, and I-40 this week, and the guide sign designs seem a little disorganized. Lettering is a little all over the place, exit tabs have differing spacing, etc. At first I thought it varied by district, but I don't think that's the case. Does NMDOT provide specific plans for signs or is it left up to contractors?  I'm not overly familiar with NMDOT.

I will say that I preferred driving US 70 from Clovis to Roswell (to work my way down to I-10) versus I-25 from Hatch to Albuquerque (to get back up to I-40 to head east). The pavement on the interstates can be quite rough at times, especially the last western stretch along I-10.


New Mexico tends to show a lot of inconsistency.  District 5 (Santa Fe) even experimented with Clearview for a while.

Also due to changing styles over time and signs not getting changed out for newer ones.  In my district they will get a project to redo signs on a discrete stretch of highway and they will leave some signs while changing the others.  Inconsistency is rampant while if you ask them why they do something they either pass the buck to someone else, say they will get to it (and never do), or say "well that is the design standard in the book or plans" even if it obviously does not work for a specific setup to due geometry, sight distances, or other factors.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: abqtraveler on March 01, 2021, 10:10:28 AM
I'm curious about freeway signing practices in New Mexico. I've been driving I-10, I-25, and I-40 this week, and the guide sign designs seem a little disorganized. Lettering is a little all over the place, exit tabs have differing spacing, etc. At first I thought it varied by district, but I don't think that's the case. Does NMDOT provide specific plans for signs or is it left up to contractors?  I'm not overly familiar with NMDOT.

I will say that I preferred driving US 70 from Clovis to Roswell (to work my way down to I-10) versus I-25 from Hatch to Albuquerque (to get back up to I-40 to head east). The pavement on the interstates can be quite rough at times, especially the last western stretch along I-10.

And that's because New Mexico typically only does sign replacements when a given stretch of roadway undergoes complete reconstruction. There are some signs along I-40 that date back to the highway's original construction with button copy and faded green background. The wide variety of sign formats also depicts how New Mexico's sign designs have evolved over the past several decades. But when New Mexico changes its sign format standards, NMDOT doesn't go out and update the signage; rather they let the old signage stand until that section of roadway is reconstructed, at which point they would typically replace the signage to reflect current design and formatting standards.  Fortunately, like most other states New Mexico's BGS signage uses extruded aluminum, although NMDOT got cheap with signage when they reconstructed the Big-I in Albuquerque about 20 years ago and resorted to sheet aluminum for the BGSs there. Those signs have since been replaced with new signage made from extruded aluminum.


New Mexico tends to show a lot of inconsistency.  District 5 (Santa Fe) even experimented with Clearview for a while.

Also due to changing styles over time and signs not getting changed out for newer ones.  In my district they will get a project to redo signs on a discrete stretch of highway and they will leave some signs while changing the others.  Inconsistency is rampant while if you ask them why they do something they either pass the buck to someone else, say they will get to it (and never do), or say "well that is the design standard in the book or plans" even if it obviously does not work for a specific setup to due geometry, sight distances, or other factors.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on April 11, 2021, 02:28:36 PM
We know New Mexico tends to ignore long distance concurrencies on interstates.  I find it interesting when I find references to the concurrencies (https://goo.gl/maps/Bsita89Sw4Veq1JL9) on the intersecting highways.

  Yes that is correct.  For example, there is no US - 70 markers on I-10 between the W side of las Cruces (Exit 135) and Lordsburg (Exit 26).  Don't see why it is so hard to include them, along the 10 corridor for consistency and continuity. 
   Am also of the opinion that US - 85 should be restored in the state, following much of it's original roadbed, where it still exists, and I-25 where it was supplanted.   For the nostalgia and tourist standpoint, if nothing else.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: US 89 on April 11, 2021, 02:41:24 PM
Am also of the opinion that US - 85 should be restored in the state, following much of it's original roadbed, where it still exists, and I-25 where it was supplanted.   For the nostalgia and tourist standpoint, if nothing else.

One problem with that: as far as I know, NM is not a state where numbered highways can be routed on locally-maintained streets. Although independent portions of old 85 are still state roads in many areas (NM 1, 314, and 313 come to mind), there are also several places where the old road is now under local jurisdiction... including through the Albuquerque metro. Unless you wanted to put a restored US route along NM 45... which sort of ruins the historic aspect a bit as that's well away from downtown.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: abqtraveler on May 22, 2021, 08:44:27 PM
Am also of the opinion that US - 85 should be restored in the state, following much of it's original roadbed, where it still exists, and I-25 where it was supplanted.   For the nostalgia and tourist standpoint, if nothing else.

One problem with that: as far as I know, NM is not a state where numbered highways can be routed on locally-maintained streets. Although independent portions of old 85 are still state roads in many areas (NM 1, 314, and 313 come to mind), there are also several places where the old road is now under local jurisdiction... including through the Albuquerque metro. Unless you wanted to put a restored US route along NM 45... which sort of ruins the historic aspect a bit as that's well away from downtown.

It would make sense for New Mexico to re-sign US-85 through the state, either along I-10 and I-25, or over its original alignment where possible. The AASHTO never deleted US-85 through New Mexico, so it technically still exists through the state using I-10 and I-25. Making the case to sign US-85 through New Mexico:  there is still a signed stretch of US-85 from the Mexican Border in El Paso, Texas to the TX/NM line. If nothing else, sign US-85 through New Mexico to maintain continuity with the signed sections in Texas and Colorado.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2021, 10:49:52 PM
It would make sense for New Mexico to re-sign US-85 through the state, either along I-10 and I-25, or over its original alignment where possible. The AASHTO never deleted US-85 through New Mexico, so it technically still exists through the state using I-10 and I-25. Making the case to sign US-85 through New Mexico:  there is still a signed stretch of US-85 from the Mexican Border in El Paso, Texas to the TX/NM line. If nothing else, sign US-85 through New Mexico to maintain continuity with the signed sections in Texas and Colorado.

I have the opposite opinion.  It makes more sense to eliminate as much of US 85 as feasible.  It's a pointless redundancy now.  New southern terminus in Castle Rock, CO.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 10, 2021, 11:51:57 AM
It would make sense for New Mexico to re-sign US-85 through the state, either along I-10 and I-25, or over its original alignment where possible. The AASHTO never deleted US-85 through New Mexico, so it technically still exists through the state using I-10 and I-25. Making the case to sign US-85 through New Mexico:  there is still a signed stretch of US-85 from the Mexican Border in El Paso, Texas to the TX/NM line. If nothing else, sign US-85 through New Mexico to maintain continuity with the signed sections in Texas and Colorado.

I have the opposite opinion.  It makes more sense to eliminate as much of US 85 as feasible.  It's a pointless redundancy now.  New southern terminus in Castle Rock, CO.

Agreed.  Then, in El Paso, Pisano Dr. would become BL-10. 
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 15, 2021, 12:44:10 PM
I was looking at a report of major freight bottlenecks and their rankings. New Mexico was in the lowest tier but still had more bottlenecks than Oklahoma which surprised me. I canít recall ever getting caught in any real traffic congestion there and I pass through ABQ multiple times a month.

https://www.ccjdigital.com/economic-trends/freight-demand/article/15065715/traffic-delays-freight-movement-more-than-600-million-hours
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on June 17, 2021, 08:05:24 AM
I was looking at a report of major freight bottlenecks and their rankings. New Mexico was in the lowest tier but still had more bottlenecks than Oklahoma which surprised me. I canít recall ever getting caught in any real traffic congestion there and I pass through ABQ multiple times a month.

https://www.ccjdigital.com/economic-trends/freight-demand/article/15065715/traffic-delays-freight-movement-more-than-600-million-hours

The lack of planning for an Albuquerque circumferential meant that everything long distance has to pass straight through Albu.   The original "big I" (mid sixties) had good geometrics, and a large footprint, but featured left exits and entrances, likely to save on costs.  The rebuild, twenty years ago, moved everything to the right side.   They did cheap out, again, by not making every flyover two lanes, only a few of them were.   25, through the core of the interchange, also should have had eight lanes, not six.   
Of all the quadrants of a hypothetical Albu. Beltway, the NW quadrant would likely make the most sense, and have the most use.   40 E to 25 N, and 25 S to 40 W.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: aboges26 on June 17, 2021, 11:54:45 PM
I was looking at a report of major freight bottlenecks and their rankings. New Mexico was in the lowest tier but still had more bottlenecks than Oklahoma which surprised me. I canít recall ever getting caught in any real traffic congestion there and I pass through ABQ multiple times a month.

https://www.ccjdigital.com/economic-trends/freight-demand/article/15065715/traffic-delays-freight-movement-more-than-600-million-hours

You are sure lucky, every time I go to or through ABQ I end up in traffic.  Maybe things have changed since COVID, as I have not been back since the start of it when everyone was panic buying and we were just trying to do a normal Costco run.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 18, 2021, 12:10:46 AM
I was looking at a report of major freight bottlenecks and their rankings. New Mexico was in the lowest tier but still had more bottlenecks than Oklahoma which surprised me. I canít recall ever getting caught in any real traffic congestion there and I pass through ABQ multiple times a month.

https://www.ccjdigital.com/economic-trends/freight-demand/article/15065715/traffic-delays-freight-movement-more-than-600-million-hours

You are sure lucky, every time I go to or through ABQ I end up in traffic.  Maybe things have changed since COVID, as I have not been back since the start of it when everyone was panic buying and we were just trying to do a normal Costco run.
Well, granted, most of my travels are through I-40 and thatís it. Sometimes Iíll go to old town.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on June 18, 2021, 07:34:30 AM
I was looking at a report of major freight bottlenecks and their rankings. New Mexico was in the lowest tier but still had more bottlenecks than Oklahoma which surprised me. I canít recall ever getting caught in any real traffic congestion there and I pass through ABQ multiple times a month.

https://www.ccjdigital.com/economic-trends/freight-demand/article/15065715/traffic-delays-freight-movement-more-than-600-million-hours

You are sure lucky, every time I go to or through ABQ I end up in traffic.  Maybe things have changed since COVID, as I have not been back since the start of it when everyone was panic buying and we were just trying to do a normal Costco run.

While 40 was completed through ABQ in 1969, "reconstruction" started in the mid eighties.  Interchange and bridge replacements across the interstate, pavement replacements and overlays,
etc.  There was almost constant work, on 40, for at least twenty years running, somewhere, in Bernalillo county.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Kniwt on June 18, 2021, 03:12:10 PM
While 40 was completed through ABQ in 1969, "reconstruction" started in the mid eighties.  Interchange and bridge replacements across the interstate, pavement replacements and overlays,
etc.  There was almost constant work, on 40, for at least twenty years running, somewhere, in Bernalillo county.   

This reminded me that I have this pic from a 1971 "mini" RMcN, and approximately the same location now. Looks like the cloverleaf was partially removed at some point, and the eastbound offramp to San Mateo Blvd. is a little bit back from this view.

(https://i.imgur.com/0CbAYQv.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/cU5segv.png)

Edit: Indeed, Historic Aerials confirms that the cloverleaf was taken out between 2005 and 2009:

(https://i.imgur.com/aLR9ckN.png)
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: aboges26 on June 19, 2021, 03:22:07 PM
I was looking at a report of major freight bottlenecks and their rankings. New Mexico was in the lowest tier but still had more bottlenecks than Oklahoma which surprised me. I canít recall ever getting caught in any real traffic congestion there and I pass through ABQ multiple times a month.

https://www.ccjdigital.com/economic-trends/freight-demand/article/15065715/traffic-delays-freight-movement-more-than-600-million-hours

You are sure lucky, every time I go to or through ABQ I end up in traffic.  Maybe things have changed since COVID, as I have not been back since the start of it when everyone was panic buying and we were just trying to do a normal Costco run.
Well, granted, most of my travels are through I-40 and thatís it. Sometimes Iíll go to old town.

In my travels I-40 seems to have less stop-and-go traffic but will get thick traffic, whereas I always seem to have a bad time on I-25 between I-40 and Paseo del Norte, and on Paseo del Norte from I-25 to Coors.  If I have the time I always take Tramway when going from US 550 to I-40 east and vice versa. Tramway from I-25 to at least Paseo del Norte should be turned into a freeway ASAP and it appears from there to I-40 piecemeal work to improve the rest to a Texas-style freeway or resemble Bangerter Hwy in Salt Lake City would be possible.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on June 22, 2021, 07:36:00 AM
I was looking at a report of major freight bottlenecks and their rankings. New Mexico was in the lowest tier but still had more bottlenecks than Oklahoma which surprised me. I canít recall ever getting caught in any real traffic congestion there and I pass through ABQ multiple times a month.

https://www.ccjdigital.com/economic-trends/freight-demand/article/15065715/traffic-delays-freight-movement-more-than-600-million-hours

You are sure lucky, every time I go to or through ABQ I end up in traffic.  Maybe things have changed since COVID, as I have not been back since the start of it when everyone was panic buying and we were just trying to do a normal Costco run.
Well, granted, most of my travels are through I-40 and thatís it. Sometimes Iíll go to old town.

In my travels I-40 seems to have less stop-and-go traffic but will get thick traffic, whereas I always seem to have a bad time on I-25 between I-40 and Paseo del Norte, and on Paseo del Norte from I-25 to Coors.  If I have the time I always take Tramway when going from US 550 to I-40 east and vice versa. Tramway from I-25 to at least Paseo del Norte should be turned into a freeway ASAP and it appears from there to I-40 piecemeal work to improve the rest to a Texas-style freeway or resemble Bangerter Hwy in Salt Lake City would be possible.

The interchanges/intersections of 25/PDN, Tramway/PDN, and Tramway/40 were all allowed to become almost completely packed in/surrounded by development, preventing any decent improvements to a full limited access directional interchanges.   While working up there - 20-25 years ago - remember the cheap waferboard condos going up, surrounding the Tramway/40 interchange, and thinking - where is the planning?  There is virtually none, today.   The state is near the bottom - in terms of design standards, planning, transparency and decision making in terms of public works.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 22, 2021, 02:40:12 PM
I always appreciated the drive times on the VMS for I-40 in ABQ.  It tells you how many minutes to Coors; which to me, seems like a way of telling evening commuters how long before they get home and can pop open a beer.

"I'm only 8 minutes from my first Coors!"
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: aboges26 on June 23, 2021, 11:26:23 PM
I was looking at a report of major freight bottlenecks and their rankings. New Mexico was in the lowest tier but still had more bottlenecks than Oklahoma which surprised me. I canít recall ever getting caught in any real traffic congestion there and I pass through ABQ multiple times a month.

https://www.ccjdigital.com/economic-trends/freight-demand/article/15065715/traffic-delays-freight-movement-more-than-600-million-hours

You are sure lucky, every time I go to or through ABQ I end up in traffic.  Maybe things have changed since COVID, as I have not been back since the start of it when everyone was panic buying and we were just trying to do a normal Costco run.
Well, granted, most of my travels are through I-40 and thatís it. Sometimes Iíll go to old town.

In my travels I-40 seems to have less stop-and-go traffic but will get thick traffic, whereas I always seem to have a bad time on I-25 between I-40 and Paseo del Norte, and on Paseo del Norte from I-25 to Coors.  If I have the time I always take Tramway when going from US 550 to I-40 east and vice versa. Tramway from I-25 to at least Paseo del Norte should be turned into a freeway ASAP and it appears from there to I-40 piecemeal work to improve the rest to a Texas-style freeway or resemble Bangerter Hwy in Salt Lake City would be possible.

The interchanges/intersections of 25/PDN, Tramway/PDN, and Tramway/40 were all allowed to become almost completely packed in/surrounded by development, preventing any decent improvements to a full limited access directional interchanges.   While working up there - 20-25 years ago - remember the cheap waferboard condos going up, surrounding the Tramway/40 interchange, and thinking - where is the planning?  There is virtually none, today.   The state is near the bottom - in terms of design standards, planning, transparency and decision making in terms of public works.

All true, but NMDOT is so "by the book" that when the AADT meets their arbitrary number (which is so far past bearable for users) they will bat no eye at buying and clearing the property for something that will barely fix the situation (thinking 1 lane fly-overs that will clog and create back-ups for miles).
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on June 27, 2021, 11:27:17 AM
Guessing you are referring the the 25 N to PDN "ramp".  Yes it is documented that the state department owned property in the 25/PDN interchange area, sold it, and then bought it back, at higher cost to construct the "ramp".  It features substandard design, no shoulder, and dumps traffic into the L lane of PDN westbound.   There should have been foresight, with acquisition and clearance of that entire interchange area, as far back as the late seventies, for a full symmetrical stack. 
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: aboges26 on July 05, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Guessing you are referring the the 25 N to PDN "ramp".  Yes it is documented that the state department owned property in the 25/PDN interchange area, sold it, and then bought it back, at higher cost to construct the "ramp".  It features substandard design, no shoulder, and dumps traffic into the L lane of PDN westbound.   There should have been foresight, with acquisition and clearance of that entire interchange area, as far back as the late seventies, for a full symmetrical stack.

Foresight is not in the book, it clearly says to reduce inventory to buy at market value when the time comes.  I was thinking of the backups I have experienced at the Big-I because I have only taken the PDN flyover once and I avoid Albuquerque like the plague nowadays.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on July 05, 2021, 10:26:53 PM
I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this "hybrid SPUI" at PDN and 2nd Street. There certainly doesn't seem to be any savings in ROW vs a standard SPUI. If anything it appears to take up more:

https://goo.gl/maps/NAQ6UUpRP5dErPkX7
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2021, 10:52:16 PM
And it has left exits yuck
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: JKRhodes on July 05, 2021, 11:12:13 PM
And it has left exits yuck
My main gripe. Upon further study it seems  they may have designed it that way in order to buy a few extra car lengths of queue space for SB 2nd street approaching El Pueblo. Still, very odd. Based on each iteration of street view it doesn't look heavily traveled enough to routinely back up into the SPUI, and there are pylons to eliminate weaving. So a standard SPUI would have probably served its purpose just fine.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: abqtraveler on July 05, 2021, 11:41:38 PM
And it has left exits yuck
My main gripe. Upon further study it seems  they may have designed it that way in order to buy a few extra car lengths of queue space for SB 2nd street approaching El Pueblo. Still, very odd. Based on each iteration of street view it doesn't look heavily traveled enough to routinely back up into the SPUI, and there are pylons to eliminate weaving. So a standard SPUI would have probably served its purpose just fine.

Using historicaerials.com to view the PDN/2nd Street interchange, it was previously an at-grade intersection that was converted to the current interchange some time between 1991 and 1996. My theory into why they built it the way they did is they had to keep the existing intersection open and unobstructed while construction of the interchange proceeded. You'll notice that the EB and WB left-hand offramps both intersect 2nd Street at the same point where the previous at-grade intersection used to lie. From that, it looks like they built the overpasses outside of the existing intersection to keep the intersection and its approaches unimpeded during construction. When the overpasses were completed, it would be relatively easy to shift PDN traffic onto the new overpasses, and then convert the old PDN roadway to the offramps you see today. 

It's not necessarily how I would have built the interchange, but I can see the logic in the design...it was all about maintaining traffic flow through the intersection while the interchange was being built. 
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 07, 2021, 12:29:03 PM
Using historicaerials.com to view the PDN/2nd Street interchange, it was previously an at-grade intersection that was converted to the current interchange some time between 1991 and 1996. My theory into why they built it the way they did is they had to keep the existing intersection open and unobstructed while construction of the interchange proceeded. You'll notice that the EB and WB left-hand offramps both intersect 2nd Street at the same point where the previous at-grade intersection used to lie. From that, it looks like they built the overpasses outside of the existing intersection to keep the intersection and its approaches unimpeded during construction. When the overpasses were completed, it would be relatively easy to shift PDN traffic onto the new overpasses, and then convert the old PDN roadway to the offramps you see today.

This has always been my assumption as well.  It was the result of someone's poor planning in terms of construction staging.
Everyone knows that to build a single point interchange under traffic, you rough in the ramps first, shift the traffic over to the ramps, and then build your bridges in the 'median'.  Once the bridges are done, traffic is shifted there, then you clean up the ramps and voila: completed SPUI.
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: thenetwork on July 26, 2021, 06:24:54 PM
A Shocker crossing into the state On US-550 today ...

After nearly 2 years, they FINALLY got around  Is to putting a "Welcome to New Mexico" sign at the border.

THIS,...coming a few weeks after a.FULL resurfacing of US-550 between Aztec and Bloomfield.

Still nothing on US‐491 South yet...
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: DJStephens on August 12, 2021, 08:11:43 AM
And it has left exits yuck
My main gripe. Upon further study it seems  they may have designed it that way in order to buy a few extra car lengths of queue space for SB 2nd street approaching El Pueblo. Still, very odd. Based on each iteration of street view it doesn't look heavily traveled enough to routinely back up into the SPUI, and there are pylons to eliminate weaving. So a standard SPUI would have probably served its purpose just fine.

Using historicaerials.com to view the PDN/2nd Street interchange, it was previously an at-grade intersection that was converted to the current interchange some time between 1991 and 1996. My theory into why they built it the way they did is they had to keep the existing intersection open and unobstructed while construction of the interchange proceeded. You'll notice that the EB and WB left-hand offramps both intersect 2nd Street at the same point where the previous at-grade intersection used to lie. From that, it looks like they built the overpasses outside of the existing intersection to keep the intersection and its approaches unimpeded during construction. When the overpasses were completed, it would be relatively easy to shift PDN traffic onto the new overpasses, and then convert the old PDN roadway to the offramps you see today. 

It's not necessarily how I would have built the interchange, but I can see the logic in the design...it was all about maintaining traffic flow through the intersection while the interchange was being built.

Was under the impression it dated from late eighties.   Just illustrates the non-standard, design-regressive, weird stuff that has been allowed to have been built in this state.   If mid nineties, could  very well have been an excretion from Pete Rahn's school of thought.   
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: abqtraveler on November 19, 2021, 09:12:38 AM
NMDOT's new website just went live. The URL is https://www.dot.nm.gov/
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 08, 2022, 05:09:24 PM
Not all roadtrips are long drives - New Mexico Highway 28 is a great example.  History, scenery, and a lot of pecans.  Come along for the ride.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/new-mexico-route-28.html
Title: Re: New Mexico
Post by: oscar on January 08, 2022, 09:43:47 PM
NMDOT's new website just went live. The URL is https://www.dot.nm.gov/

NMDOT still hasn't updated at least its main posted route log since 2010. I just use NMDOT's online Roadway Functional Class map (https://nmdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f2fc877d107b4e338deb789f70a8779e) to get the latest, though the "latest" may be a few years old.