AARoads Forum

There are some highways within New Mexico that have low speed limits when motorists can easily go faster on them safely.  Some of these highways used to have higher limits in the past.

- NM 502 between the NM 30 interchange and Pojoaque Valley High School had a 65 mph limit until 2007 when it was lowered to 55 mph shortly after being designated as a safety corridor.  I think it should be raised back to 65 or at least be raised to 60.

- Similarly, NM 30 used to have a 60 mph (except at the Santa Clara Canyon Road junction where it briefly dropped to 45 mph before resuming the 60 mph limit), then dropped to 50 mph on the outskirts Española.  And if I recall correctly, it dropped to 40 mph just before its northern terminus at US 84/285.  Now, it's 55 mph from NM 502 to Santa Clara Canyon Road, drops to 45 mph from there until the outskirts of Española where it's 40 mph until the route's north end.

- NM 599 is 55 mph between Airport Road and US 84/285, and motorists usually drive 60-65 mph on that stretch.  Especially since one of the at-grade intersections was upgraded to an interchange about 10 years ago, I think it should be either 60 or 65 mph; but I would have 55 mph advisory speeds at sharp turns and existing intersections.  And if almost the entire route is upgraded to freeway standards, then definitely raise the speed limit to 65 mph from the I-25 frontage road to US 84/285.

- US 84/285 from Pojoaque to La Puebla Road used to have a 60 mph limit but then it was lowered to 55 mph.  And even more strange, NMDOT kept the 55 mph limit on that stretch even after it was upgraded to an expressway.  It boggles my mind why they would do that.  The stretch between Santa Fe and Pojoaque was 60 mph most of the way when it was a regular divided highway, and it was raised to 65 mph after being upgraded to a freeway in 2005.

- NM 136 used to be 55 mph from the Santa Teresa international crossing to the Texas state line, where it became TX 178 and the speed limit went up to 60 mph upon crossing into Texas.  But recently, they raised the speed limit to 60 mph on the New Mexico side.

US 64/87 thru Northeast NM used to be 55mph or less along much of the way when it was a 2 lane highway. Man I hated it. On road trips from Oklahoma to Colorado I'd usually try to hit it late at night when traffic was minimal. During the day there would always be some RV or other slow-poke motorist creating a long "train" of vehicles behind it (cue Gandalf: "you shall not pass!").

Even if I ended up behind just one slow-poke vehicle it was really difficult to pass out there. The terrain is wide open, hardly any trees at all, just mostly scrub grass and small bushes. You could see distant mountains. But you couldn't see much of the road ahead because of all the subtle ebbs and rolls. It would be easy to get stuck. Then another vehicle gets stuck behind you. And another, and another, etc.

NM DOT did a pretty crappy job with the 4-laning of US 64/87. But at least it was finally 4 lanes and divided. The speed limit was upped to 65mph or 70mph along much of the way. It was at least possible to get around the slow pokes during daylight hours.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 15, 2023, 11:00:04 PM
US 64/87 thru Northeast NM used to be 55mph or less along much of the way when it was a 2 lane highway. Man I hated it. On road trips from Oklahoma to Colorado I'd usually try to hit it late at night when traffic was minimal. During the day there would always be some RV or other slow-poke motorist creating a long "train" of vehicles behind it (cue Gandalf: "you shall not pass!").

Even if I ended up behind just one slow-poke vehicle it was really difficult to pass out there. The terrain is wide open, hardly any trees at all, just mostly scrub grass and small bushes. You could see distant mountains. But you couldn't see much of the road ahead because of all the subtle ebbs and rolls. It would be easy to get stuck. Then another vehicle gets stuck behind you. And another, and another, etc.

NM DOT did a pretty crappy job with the 4-laning of US 64/87. But at least it was finally 4 lanes and divided. The speed limit was upped to 65mph or 70mph along much of the way. It was at least possible to get around the slow pokes during daylight hours.

If I recall correctly, the speed limit is 70 on 64/87 east of Raton.  And as a matter of fact, I believe it's going to be upgraded to Interstate standards in the coming years.

Even though US-64/87 thru NE NM is part of the Ports to Plains Corridor I have not seen any substantial proposals to upgrade the highway to Interstate standards.

In order for that portion of US-64/87 to reach current Interstate quality standards a bunch of it would have to be re-built. There is one short segment near Sierra Grande that has a concrete super-slab road bed. The rest of it is somewhat unstable asphalt.

Not many limited access exits would have to be built between Raton and Texline. On the other hand there are quite a few rural roads connecting directly at-grade to the US-64/87 main lanes. Those at-grade connections would need to be separated at least by new frontage road segments.

As it stands, TX DOT doesn't appear to be in any hurry to upgrade US-287 North of Amarillo to Interstate standards. The Loop 335 project in Amarillo will open the door for Northerly upgrades. I think TX DOT will be concentrating more on projects South of Lubbock.

One thing that could give US-64/87 hope on being upgraded to Interstate standards: Colorado. CDOT hasn't done squat to upgrade any of the existing US-287 route in Eastern CO to even ordinary 4-lane highway status. Colorado has multiple 2-lane highways that need to be 4-lane divided just for safety sake (like US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon). I think the state's lawmakers believe everyone just needs to pedal around on bicycles. With that road block in place, I can imagine a scenario where a possible North extension of I-27 ends up going to Raton. But then I remember New Mexico isn't much different from Colorado in terms of political ideology yet NM has less population and money.

There's a stretch of I-10 near Las Cruces where the speed limit is capped at 65 mph but ought to be raised to 75 mph because there aren't closely spaced interchanges.  And that is between exits 132 (airport) and 139 (Motel Blvd).  The 65 mph limit is only reasonable from Motel Blvd. to the junction with I-25.  Other than that, it doesn't make sense because I-25 near Albuquerque is 75 mph between Broadway and Rio Bravo, then drops to 65 as you approach the city limits, briefly drops to 55 mph from Gibson Blvd. to Central Ave. goes back to 65 mph as you approach the Big-I and remains at 65 mph until after Tramway Blvd. where the 75 mph limit resumes.  In fact, the speed limit remains at 75 mph at Santa Fe.

Last time I drove US-54 between Carrizozo and Corona, most of the road was posted at 65 MPH, save for about 17 miles between MP 146 and 163, that hasn't yet been reconstructed and was still posted at 55 MPH.  Strangely, there was a very short section (less than a quarter mile in length), about 15 miles north of Carrizozo where the speed limit dropped very abruptly from 65 MPH to 45 MPH, then back up to 65 MPH. There's nothing there, so I don't see the reasoning behind dropping the speed limit on such a short stretch out in the middle of nowhere, aside from creating an arbitrary speed trap.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 19, 2023, 02:29:39 PM
Even though US-64/87 thru NE NM is part of the Ports to Plains Corridor I have not seen any substantial proposals to upgrade the highway to Interstate standards.

In order for that portion of US-64/87 to reach current Interstate quality standards a bunch of it would have to be re-built. There is one short segment near Sierra Grande that has a concrete super-slab road bed. The rest of it is somewhat unstable asphalt.

Not many limited access exits would have to be built between Raton and Texline. On the other hand there are quite a few rural roads connecting directly at-grade to the US-64/87 main lanes. Those at-grade connections would need to be separated at least by new frontage road segments.

As it stands, TX DOT doesn't appear to be in any hurry to upgrade US-287 North of Amarillo to Interstate standards. The Loop 335 project in Amarillo will open the door for Northerly upgrades. I think TX DOT will be concentrating more on projects South of Lubbock.

One thing that could give US-64/87 hope on being upgraded to Interstate standards: Colorado. CDOT hasn't done squat to upgrade any of the existing US-287 route in Eastern CO to even ordinary 4-lane highway status. Colorado has multiple 2-lane highways that need to be 4-lane divided just for safety sake (like US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon). I think the state's lawmakers believe everyone just needs to pedal around on bicycles. With that road block in place, I can imagine a scenario where a possible North extension of I-27 ends up going to Raton. But then I remember New Mexico isn't much different from Colorado in terms of political ideology yet NM has less population and money.

Last year a bill was signed into law allowing I-27 to be extended northward to Raton and southward towards Laredo.  But then there are some complications in some areas.  For instance in downtown Amarillo, shortly after I-27 ends at I-40, US 287 downgrades from a freeway and splits into four separate one-way surface streets; and then goes back to freeway standards as you head north from Amarillo.  I'm not sure what solution there would be if you want to continue the freeway north of I-40 through downtown Amarillo.  Some possibilities come to mind, including:

- Build an elevated viaduct.
- Have the freeway run underneath downtown Amarillo.
- Or here is perhaps the best solution at Amarillo.  Leave the four one-way surface streets as they are through downtown.  However, upgrade the west part of Loop 335 to interstate standards and re-designate that as I-27.  And re-designate the current alignment of I-27 towards I-40 as an auxiliary interstate (I-140, I-127) just until the freeway splits into four surface streets.

If I-27 is ever actually extended North of Amarillo I see no chance for it cutting North thru downtown. I-27 will be re-directed onto the Western half of Loop-335. The entire loop is slowly being upgraded to Interstate standards in a series of project phases. That includes at least one five level directional stack interchange with I-40 on the West side of town. I don't know what they have in mind for the East side crossing (probably a volleyball interchange if I had to guess).

In previous discussions on pushing I-27 thru downtown Amarillo, Wichita Falls and the I-44 viaduct there over Broad and Holliday streets was mentioned as an example. But that example in Wichita Falls is less than a mile long. The downtown Amarillo gap between I-27 and the Dumas Freeway is 2 miles long, and it runs through far more complicated (and more valuable) territory. A fair amount of revitalization work has taken place in Amarillo's downtown district. I'm sure a lot of residents there would be raising all hell if someone proposed building a couple elevated freeway viaducts through the middle of it. Tunneling underneath downtown could cost literally billions of dollars, which doesn't seem appropriate for a city of 200,000 people. Re-routing I-27 via the loop is the lesser of all evils.

As for a law allowing I-27 to be extended to Raton, I guess all we can do is wait and see what happens (with a lot of stress being put on that "wait" part). The Ports to Plains Corridor has two legs going North out of Amarillo. One goes to Raton. The other goes up into Colorado.

Some people in Dumas have been pushing for years to get a US-287 relief route bypass built around the West side of town. Their main streets have been getting beat to shit by all the heavy truck traffic going thru town. A $38 Million rehab project on existing US-287 in Dumas is underway now. A new bypass route could help I-27 efforts to some extent, but it could do more for pushing I-27 toward Stratford, Boise City and SE Colorado rather than Raton. If Texas is going to have to do more of the heavy lifting on I-27 efforts than the feds TX DOT will prioritize building more of I-27 in-state. It's the same situation as I-69 in East Texas. They'll probably build all of I-369 up to Texarkana before they complete I-69 to the Louisiana border.

I think New Mexico's state government will have to get far more seriously involved if they have any desire to see I-27 go to Raton. TX DOT won't extend I-27 to Texline otherwise.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on February 19, 2023, 01:14:53 PM
If I recall correctly, the speed limit is 70 on 64/87 east of Raton.  And as a matter of fact, I believe it's going to be upgraded to Interstate standards in the coming years.

That's a Pipe Dream.  Will never happen in this state.  Besides there are more important items that could and should be addressed first.  Not saying that they will.  But they have more importance. 
1. Partial Albuquerque Beltway
2. Appropriate depression and decking over of I-25 south of the "big I". 
3. Statewide reconstruction and improvement of Existing highways, with some spot widenings, climbing lanes, and interchange additions/improvements. 

Quote from: MattHanson939 on February 20, 2023, 01:27:58 PM
There's a stretch of I-10 near Las Cruces where the speed limit is capped at 65 mph but ought to be raised to 75 mph because there aren't closely spaced interchanges.  And that is between exits 132 (airport) and 139 (Motel Blvd).

The reason it is posted at 65 MPH is due to the fact that the highway (I-10) lies inside a penisula jutting out from the W edge of the city limits (near Motel Blvd), along I-10, and up the hill to the Industrial Park.  The Industrial park is part of the City.   The I-10 corridor, up the hill to Crawford Blvd (Exit 132) is inside the City limits.   What needs to be done, however, is to extend the current Piss Poor climbing lane for I-10 WB, in both directions.  From before the bottom of the climb, to just west of Crawford Blvd.  Completely to the outside, preserving the good 88 foot median for most of the stretch.   Am of the suspiscion that the W Picacho exit (135) is to be reconstructed, in a regressive fashion, in the near future, and this need for a climbing lane WB will be completely ignored.   

I'm starting to think New Mexico is the "Mississippi of the West." That's not a compliment. It's in the context of Mississippi being the poorest state in the country. Despite its natural resources (such as oil) and its scenic attractions New Mexico appears to strive at being an arm-pit of the country -in large part due to policy choices.

Just in case anyone takes offense to my comments about the state: I was born in New Mexico and have relatives there. I wish New Mexico was a lot better. There is a great deal of potential that is just getting wasted.

I don't understand why a metro as big as Albuquerque has such a dopey highway network. The situation there seems considerably worse than the one up the road in Colorado Springs. And that's still fairly bad. A long time ago Phoenix and Austin were in similar situations, but those cities finally gave up and started building additional super highways.

Surface arterial streets can move large volumes of traffic only so well. Anti-freeway idiots in Colorado Springs are begrudgingly having to convert intersections along Powers Blvd into grade-separated freeway exits one at a time. Originally there was a plan to build Powers as a freeway from the outset. But that plan got nixed. Now here we are 20+ years later. They're having to piece-meal in new freeway exits along Powers at a far higher cost.

Outside of Albuquerque the rest of New Mexico's highways do need a lot of basic improvement. The priority seems to be doing things on the cheap, just "good enough" to get by. That's what I see on my somewhat frequent drives of US-64/87 between Texline and Raton.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 25, 2023, 11:37:07 AM
Outside of Albuquerque the rest of New Mexico's highways do need a lot of basic improvement. The priority seems to be doing things on the cheap, just "good enough" to get by. That's what I see on my somewhat frequent drives of US-64/87 between Texline and Raton.

Absolutely. Ever driven US 550 (https://goo.gl/maps/hiYaCcmu9yunrbDy7)? Cheapest four lane I've ever seen that didn't make much of a dent in the crash/fatality rates.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 25, 2023, 11:37:07 AM
Surface arterial streets can move large volumes of traffic only so well. Anti-freeway idiots in Colorado Springs are begrudgingly having to convert intersections along Powers Blvd into grade-separated freeway exits one at a time. Originally there was a plan to build Powers as a freeway from the outset. But that plan got nixed. Now here we are 20+ years later. They're having to piece-meal in new freeway exits along Powers at a far higher cost.

A city of Albuquerque's size should probably have more freeways, but I've never really had much issue getting around ABQ. Yeah, there's a limit to how well surface arterials can move traffic, but Albuquerque's surface road network is a lot better than Colorado Springs's, especially in the northeast part of the city. It's like Tucson. They opted to go the route of really good surface arterials instead of freeways, and they aren't really that much worse off for it.

The problem with Albuquerque is roads like Coors or Tramway, which are intended to be freeway-type roads but there is essentially no way at all to upgrade them. Coors has that overpowered interchange at 40, but then right next to that on both sides is a metric shitload of driveways and traffic lights with no room to widen or expand anything. Tramway at least has the right-of-way for an expansion, but it would likely require removing the bike trail and you bet your ass the rich NIMBYs up there will never allow such a thing to occur. US 550 also could use some interchanges in Bernalillo but that seems even less likely.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 25, 2023, 11:37:07 AM
I'm starting to think New Mexico is the "Mississippi of the West." That's not a compliment. It's in the context of Mississippi being the poorest state in the country. Despite its natural resources (such as oil) and its scenic attractions New Mexico appears to strive at being an arm-pit of the country -in large part due to policy choices.
Outside of Albuquerque the rest of New Mexico's highways do need a lot of basic improvement. The priority seems to be doing things on the cheap, just "good enough" to get by. That's what I see on my somewhat frequent drives of US-64/87 between Texline and Raton.

    Mississippi and New Mexico "trade places" in a lot of socio-economic indicators.  However, would say New Mexico is "richer" now, due to the significant numbers of west coast transplants that have moved here.  So the socio economic picture is that of a Dumb Bell - a lot of poor, and a fair amount of Rich.  And the transplants have brought their politics.   Meaning the west coast "feel good" progressive type of politics, i.e.  fairy dust, rainbows, and unicorns.  And they vote in far greater numbers than members of other constituences or groups. Meaning as a percentage of their total group size.  They continually push for, and get such niche projects as the Central Avenue disaster, or that pet train, which simply will never give much in the way of return.  Squandering scarce dollars on projects that simply benefit too few.   
     Mississippi has done a much better job at basic improvements - double barreling US highways and extending four lane arterials to rural areas, because they have not compromised standards, i.e. no PETE RAHN, they didn't have Tony Anaya, either.   Are they perfect, no, they don't have the tax base, not even the tax base New Mexico has. 

New Mexico is certainly one of the poorer states.  Wikipedia's list of states by per person income

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income

shows N.M. at 45th, above Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi.
I suspect that position in the list makes it look better than it is for lots of the people there - a millionaire's hangout like Santa Fe raises the average a lot but doesn't do much for the people living everywhere else.

Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2023, 09:40:32 PM
New Mexico is certainly one of the poorer states.  Wikipedia's list of states by per person income

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income

shows N.M. at 45th, above Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi.
I suspect that position in the list makes it look better than it is for lots of the people there - a millionaire's hangout like Santa Fe raises the average a lot but doesn't do much for the people living everywhere else.

That's the truth of it. There's a huge wealth gap between rich and poor in New Mexico, with a relatively small middle/working class. For way too long, the political establishment has believed the only way to "grow the state's economy" is to expand the size of government, while keeping in place a tax and regulatory scheme that showcases the state government's long-running hostility toward private sector investment and growth.

Quote from: DJStephens on February 23, 2023, 02:02:28 PMThe reason it is posted at 65 MPH is due to the fact that the highway (I-10) lies inside a penisula jutting out from the W edge of the city limits (near Motel Blvd), along I-10, and up the hill to the Industrial Park.  The Industrial park is part of the City.   The I-10 corridor, up the hill to Crawford Blvd (Exit 132) is inside the City limits.

It is technically inside city limits, but here's the thing.  There's plenty of distance between Crawford Blvd. and Picacho Ave. (3 miles) as well as between Picacho Ave. and Motel Blvd (4 miles).  And there isn't as much traffic on that stretch as there is after the junction with I-25 when you're headed towards El Paso.  So I don't see any reason why there can't be a 75 mph speed limit and then drop it to 65 mph at Motel Blvd. when interchanges get more closely spaced.  Plus, I-25 between Broadway Blvd. (exit 215) and Rio Bravo Blvd. (exit 220) in Albuquerque is also technically within city limits, yet the speed limit stays at 75 mph until Rio Bravo where it drops to 65 mph.  And Albuquerque is significantly bigger than Las Cruces.

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2023, 12:16:04 PM
Ever driven US 550 (https://goo.gl/maps/hiYaCcmu9yunrbDy7)? Cheapest four lane I've ever seen that didn't make much of a dent in the crash/fatality rates.

NMDOT could've done better with widening US 550 (formerly NM 44).  The least they could've done was make the median a little wider to install a jersey barrier like they did with two stretches of US 84/285 north of Santa Fe.  If not, they could've built another roadway next to the existing two-lane road but 30 feet apart from each other and repainted the old road.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 04, 2023, 12:01:42 AM

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2023, 12:16:04 PM
Ever driven US 550 (https://goo.gl/maps/hiYaCcmu9yunrbDy7)? Cheapest four lane I've ever seen that didn't make much of a dent in the crash/fatality rates.

NMDOT could've done better with widening US 550 (formerly NM 44).  The least they could've done was make the median a little wider to install a jersey barrier like they did with two stretches of US 84/285 north of Santa Fe.  If not, they could've built another roadway next to the existing two-lane road but 30 feet apart from each other and repainted the old road.

I think a big reason why NMDOT widened US-550 in the way that they did is due to the fact that 550 goes through a lot of Native American reservations along its route, and they wanted to keep the highway expansion within the existing right-of-way to avoid a protracted fight with the various tribes through which 550 passes. There are some places along 550 where the ROW is wide enough to accommodate separated carriageways, but there are also areas---mainly through the reservations--where the current roadway cross-section barely fits within the existing ROW.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 04, 2023, 12:01:42 AM

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2023, 12:16:04 PM
Ever driven US 550 (https://goo.gl/maps/hiYaCcmu9yunrbDy7)? Cheapest four lane I've ever seen that didn't make much of a dent in the crash/fatality rates.

NMDOT could've done better with widening US 550 (formerly NM 44).  The least they could've done was make the median a little wider to install a jersey barrier like they did with two stretches of US 84/285 north of Santa Fe.  If not, they could've built another roadway next to the existing two-lane road but 30 feet apart from each other and repainted the old road.

I think a big reason why NMDOT widened US-550 in the way that they did is due to the fact that 550 goes through a lot of Native American reservations along its route, and they wanted to keep the highway expansion within the existing right-of-way to avoid a protracted fight with the various tribes through which 550 passes. There are some places along 550 where the ROW is wide enough to accommodate separated carriageways, but there are also areas---mainly through the reservations--where the current roadway cross-section barely fits within the existing ROW.

That's a good point, but it didn't seem to be an issue for US 491, which spends a lot of mileage in the Navajo reservation and various parcels of Navajo "off-reservation trust land" and yet has two carriageways all the way from Shiprock to Gallup.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PM

I think a big reason why NMDOT widened US-550 in the way that they did is due to the fact that 550 goes through a lot of Native American reservations along its route, and they wanted to keep the highway expansion within the existing right-of-way to avoid a protracted fight with the various tribes through which 550 passes. There are some places along 550 where the ROW is wide enough to accommodate separated carriageways, but there are also areas---mainly through the reservations--where the current roadway cross-section barely fits within the existing ROW.

In the areas where 550 goes through the reservations, they could've made the median a bit wider and installed a concrete jersey barrier, while going with separated carriageways in other areas.  Had they widened 550 that way instead, there would've been far fewer crashes.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 06, 2023, 01:29:02 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PM

I think a big reason why NMDOT widened US-550 in the way that they did is due to the fact that 550 goes through a lot of Native American reservations along its route, and they wanted to keep the highway expansion within the existing right-of-way to avoid a protracted fight with the various tribes through which 550 passes. There are some places along 550 where the ROW is wide enough to accommodate separated carriageways, but there are also areas---mainly through the reservations--where the current roadway cross-section barely fits within the existing ROW.

In the areas where 550 goes through the reservations, they could've made the median a bit wider and installed a concrete jersey barrier, while going with separated carriageways in other areas.  Had they widened 550 that way instead, there would've been far fewer crashes.

That I don't disagree with. But it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

Point in fact, they've spent the last 15 years reconstructing US-54 between Vaughn and Tularosa. NMDOT had the golden opportunity to 4-lane 54, yet they chose not to do so. Moreover, they did such a half-ass job that within 5 years, the pavement on the section between Carrizozo and Three Rivers had completely failed and they were out there repaving that section yet again.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 09:16:56 AM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 06, 2023, 01:29:02 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PM

I think a big reason why NMDOT widened US-550 in the way that they did is due to the fact that 550 goes through a lot of Native American reservations along its route, and they wanted to keep the highway expansion within the existing right-of-way to avoid a protracted fight with the various tribes through which 550 passes. There are some places along 550 where the ROW is wide enough to accommodate separated carriageways, but there are also areas---mainly through the reservations--where the current roadway cross-section barely fits within the existing ROW.

In the areas where 550 goes through the reservations, they could've made the median a bit wider and installed a concrete jersey barrier, while going with separated carriageways in other areas.  Had they widened 550 that way instead, there would've been far fewer crashes.

That I don't disagree with. But it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

Point in fact, they've spent the last 15 years reconstructing US-54 between Vaughn and Tularosa. NMDOT had the golden opportunity to 4-lane 54, yet they chose not to do so. Moreover, they did such a half-ass job that within 5 years, the pavement on the section between Carrizozo and Three Rivers had completely failed and they were out there repaving that section yet again.

Good design should have trumped any "concerns" over passing through, and with the reservations.  Besides, an improved road, with widened ROW would have benefitted tribal concerns as well.  Believe this realization is finally coming to roost in the Gila Reservation members SE of Phoenix.   Gary Johnson, and his henchman Pete Rahn, were terrible mistakes for the state.   Personally would have paid a state tax of 35 cents a gallon, double the current 17 cents per gallon, if southeastern standards and mentalities were to take root.   
    As to US 54, one cannot four lane every highway in the state.  Especially with "acceptable" standards - i.e. 60 foot minimum median, some bypasses, a few interchanges, full shoulders and proper horizontal and vertical curvature. An improved two lane, with occasional passing lanes is what has been pursued.   Most four lane conversions in the state have been frankly awful, with little to no median seperation, partial shoulders, lack of interchanges where needed, crummy low buck bypasses ("relief routes"), poor and shoddy construction, and general short cuts.
   With 54, N of Tularosa, it appears in most places, an entirely new roadbed has been constructed, alongside the old fifties non shoulder narrow footprint.   Just too much shifting and skewing in places, without good transitions.   And there should have been a Truck bypass of Carrizozo to it's west.  As for the failures, it likely has to do with the alluvial soils, with not enough proctors pulled to properly prepare the differing subgrades with adequate compaction and watering during construction and soil placement.   

Quote from: DJStephens on March 09, 2023, 02:17:00 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 09:16:56 AM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 06, 2023, 01:29:02 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PM

I think a big reason why NMDOT widened US-550 in the way that they did is due to the fact that 550 goes through a lot of Native American reservations along its route, and they wanted to keep the highway expansion within the existing right-of-way to avoid a protracted fight with the various tribes through which 550 passes. There are some places along 550 where the ROW is wide enough to accommodate separated carriageways, but there are also areas---mainly through the reservations--where the current roadway cross-section barely fits within the existing ROW.

In the areas where 550 goes through the reservations, they could've made the median a bit wider and installed a concrete jersey barrier, while going with separated carriageways in other areas.  Had they widened 550 that way instead, there would've been far fewer crashes.

That I don't disagree with. But it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

Point in fact, they've spent the last 15 years reconstructing US-54 between Vaughn and Tularosa. NMDOT had the golden opportunity to 4-lane 54, yet they chose not to do so. Moreover, they did such a half-ass job that within 5 years, the pavement on the section between Carrizozo and Three Rivers had completely failed and they were out there repaving that section yet again.

Good design should have trumped any "concerns" over passing through, and with the reservations.  Besides, an improved road would benefit tribal concerns as well.  Believe this realization is finally coming to roost in the Gila Reservation members SE of Phoenix.   Gary Johnson, and his henchman Pete Rahn, were terrible mistakes for the state.   Personally would have paid a state tax, double the current 17 cents per gallon, if southeastern standards and mentalities were to take root.   
As to US 54, one cannot four lane every highway in the state.  Especially with "acceptable" standards - i.e. 60 minimum median, full shoulders and proper horizontal and vertical curvature. An improved two lane, with occainsional passing lanes is what has been pursured.   Appears in most places, an entirely new roadbed has been constructed, alongside the old fifties non shoulder narrow footprint.   Just too much shifting and skewing in places, without good transitions.   As for the failures, it likely has to do with the alluvial soils, with not enough proctors pulled to properly prepare the differing subgrades with adequate compaction and watering during construction and placement.   

I agree that not all roads need to be 4-laned, but with all the truck traffic that uses US-54 as a shortcut between I-40 and El Paso (and perhaps I-10 West at Las Cruces via US-70 between Alamogordo and Cruces), that would more than justify widening US-54 to 4 lanes between I-40 and Tularosa. I can't tell you how many times I've been stuck on 54 behind a convoy of semis and unable to pass due to the amount of oncoming traffic.

There are passing lane sections on 54 N of Tularosa.  Am of belief they are roughly every five miles.  Not sure how many are in the section between Corona and Vaughn.   Do know there are not any in the "unimproved" narrow section S of Corona.   

Quote from: DJStephens on March 09, 2023, 03:04:21 PM
There are passing lane sections on 54 N of Tularosa.  Am of belief they are roughly every five miles.  Not sure how many are in the section between Corona and Vaughn.   Do know there are not any in the "unimproved" narrow section S of Corona.   

There are a couple of passing lane sections about 10 and 15 miles north of Carrizozo, respectively. They just finished rebuilding the section between MP 146 and MP 153, which leaves about 10 or so miles of the original road remaining to be rebuilt. Most of that stretch winds its way through a narrow canyon and has a significant change in elevation. Save the best for last, I suppose.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PMBut it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

Most of the projects done in Albuquerque were actually done right in comparison to a lot of projects the rest of the state, IMO.  For instance, they especially did a really good job with the Big-I reconstruction in 2000-02, but they also did a good job with widening I-40 between Carlisle and Pennsylvania Street in the late 2000s (including rebuilding the San Mateo interchange).  I also thought NMDOT did a good job with upgrading US 84/285 between Santa Fe and Pojoaque to freeway standards; the only thing is that project wrapped up almost a year later than scheduled.

Now the NMDOT is talking about redoing the I-40/Rio Grande Blvd. interchange to a diverging diamond to reduce backups on the interstate, in addition to I-25 at Montgomery/Montaño and Comanche and I-25 between Central and Gibson.  I-40 was widened from 6 to 8-10 lanes between Coors and 6th Street in the late 1990s, but traffic gets backed up at Rio Grande Blvd. during rush hour.

But yeah, I agree that at least some projects in New Mexico were done on the cheap, like NM 44/US 550 was.  That being said, there are two problems with NM 4 between East Jemez Rd. (called the "truck route" by locals residing in Los Alamos County) and Rover Blvd. in White Rock.  First, that stretch gets backed up during the evening commute going eastbound.  Second, the asphalt is showing more signs of wear-and-tear than before; and the the painted lines to mark the lanes are fading away.  Good thing is they're going to start redoing the intersection at East Jemez Road this spring to reduce congestion.  But they could also at least resurface that stretch of NM 4 like they did with the stretch between East Jemez Rd. and the eastern terminus at NM 502.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 15, 2023, 12:11:40 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PMBut it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

Most of the projects done in Albuquerque were actually done right in comparison to a lot of projects the rest of the state, IMO.  For instance, they especially did a really good job with the Big-I reconstruction in 2000-02, but they also did a good job with widening I-40 between Carlisle and Pennsylvania Street in the late 2000s (including rebuilding the San Mateo interchange).  I also thought NMDOT did a good job with upgrading US 84/285 between Santa Fe and Pojoaque to freeway standards; the only thing is that project wrapped up almost a year later than scheduled.

Now the NMDOT is talking about redoing the I-40/Rio Grande Blvd. interchange to a diverging diamond to reduce backups on the interstate, in addition to I-25 at Montgomery/Montaño and Comanche and I-25 between Central and Gibson.  I-40 was widened from 6 to 8-10 lanes between Coors and 6th Street in the late 1990s, but traffic gets backed up at Rio Grande Blvd. during rush hour.

But yeah, I agree that at least some projects in New Mexico were done on the cheap, like NM 44/US 550 was.  That being said, there are two problems with NM 4 between East Jemez Rd. (called the "truck route" by locals residing in Los Alamos County) and Rover Blvd. in White Rock.  First, that stretch gets backed up during the evening commute going eastbound.  Second, the asphalt is showing more signs of wear-and-tear than before; and the the painted lines to mark the lanes are fading away.  Good thing is they're going to start redoing the intersection at East Jemez Road this spring to reduce congestion.  But they could also at least resurface that stretch of NM 4 like they did with the stretch between East Jemez Rd. and the eastern terminus at NM 502.

The Big-I was done well, save for the one-lane ramp from I-40 WB to I-25 NB. That should have been built as a 2-lane ramp, like all of the others within the interchange. 

The one that most annoyed me on my most recent trip through New Mexico was US-82 between Lovington and the Texas state line, which is posted at 60 mph for whatever reason.  Nearby, US-380 is basically equivalent, yet it has a 65 mph limit.

I guess maybe the shoulder is one or two feet narrower?  I'm not sure I even buy that, though, because US-54 is posted at 65 mph, yet its shoulder doesn't seem as wide as that on US-380 either.

Could the lower posted speed limit be due to the greater number of oil field related stuff along that stretch of US-82? That seems to be the main difference between it and US-380 to the North.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 16, 2023, 04:55:23 PM
Could the lower posted speed limit be due to the greater number of oil field related stuff along that stretch of US-82? That seems to be the main difference between it and US-380 to the North.

Looking at GSV, US-82 appears to be of a much older design with narrower lanes and shoulders. US-380 looks like it was reconstructed to a more modern design with standard 12-foot lanes and (I'm guessing) 8-foot shoulders, some time before 2007 (when the earliest GSV images are available)

The roadway is basically not much different, and immediately jumps from 60 mph to 75 mph upon entering Texas, and doesn't change much more either.

Just seems like an artificially low limit, IMO.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 05:35:50 PM
The roadway is basically not much different, and immediately jumps from 60 mph to 75 mph upon entering Texas, and doesn't change much more either.

Just seems like an artificially low limit, IMO.

I think it also has to do with how speed limits are set in each state. In Texas, speed limits are set based on population density, which is why you see a lot of 2-lane roads in rural Texas with 75 MPH speed limits. In contrast, New Mexico law dictates maximum speed limits based on road classification, regardless of if it runs through an urban, suburban, or rural area.

And unlike Texas where speed limits are set by TxDOT, New Mexico's speed limits are codified into law, meaning only the New Mexico Legislature can approve a change to the maximum speed limit for each road classification. To be clear, the speed limits for each road classification in New Mexico are the maximum, and NMDOT can always set the speed limit lower than what's prescribed by law, based on engineering studies and "professional judgment." But for NMDOT to set a higher speed limit would require legislative approval.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 18, 2023, 12:08:32 PM
New Mexico law dictates maximum speed limits based on road classification, regardless of if it runs through an urban, suburban, or rural area.

And unlike Texas where speed limits are set by TxDOT, New Mexico's speed limits are codified into law, meaning only the New Mexico Legislature can approve a change to the maximum speed limit for each road classification. To be clear, the speed limits for each road classification in New Mexico are the maximum, and NMDOT can always set the speed limit lower than what's prescribed by law, based on engineering studies and "professional judgment." But for NMDOT to set a higher speed limit would require legislative approval.

That's interesting because during the 2000s and 2010s, I've seen speed limits get raised because of engineering studies deciding that higher speeds were indeed safe for certain stretches of highways.  It didn't matter what type of road it was.  In fact, there are two stretches of highway in NM that aren't freeways where the speed limit is 75 mph.  For instance:

• US 84/285 between the NM 599 interchange and Guadalupe Street in Santa Fe used to be posted at 45 mph; but around 2007, it was raised to 55 mph after an engineering study.
• In 2012, I-10 from Las Cruces to the Texas state line was raised from 70 mph to 75 mph.
• Around May 2014, the speed limit on I-25 between US 550 in Bernalillo to Tramway Blvd. in Albuquerque was also raised from 70 mph to 75 mph.
• US 70 through White Sands is 75 mph, and it's not a freeway.
• In late 2018, US 285 between Roswell & Vaughn also had its speed limit raised from 70 mph to 75 mph; and like the stretch of US 70 mentioned above, it's also not a freeway.

The only places I've seen that used to have higher limits but then got lowered for ridiculous reasons or no reason are two highways in the northern part of NM.  As previously mentioned, NM 502 between the junction with NM 30 and Pojoaque Valley High School used to have a 65 mph limit, and it got lowered to 55 mph in 2007.  A year later, NM 30 was lowered from 60 mph to 55 mph.  I-25 between Central and Gibson Blvd. in Albuquerque was lowered to 55 mph in 2004; but unlike the two instances I mentioned above, that one was reasonable because that particular stretch wasn't designed to be driven at 65 or higher due to closely spaced interchanges, shorter exit and entrance ramps, and a tight S-curve between Coal/Lead and Avenida Cesar Chavez.

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 18, 2023, 12:08:32 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 05:35:50 PM
The roadway is basically not much different, and immediately jumps from 60 mph to 75 mph upon entering Texas, and doesn't change much more either.

Just seems like an artificially low limit, IMO.

I think it also has to do with how speed limits are set in each state. In Texas, speed limits are set based on population density, which is why you see a lot of 2-lane roads in rural Texas with 75 MPH speed limits. In contrast, New Mexico law dictates maximum speed limits based on road classification, regardless of if it runs through an urban, suburban, or rural area.

And unlike Texas where speed limits are set by TxDOT, New Mexico's speed limits are codified into law, meaning only the New Mexico Legislature can approve a change to the maximum speed limit for each road classification. To be clear, the speed limits for each road classification in New Mexico are the maximum, and NMDOT can always set the speed limit lower than what's prescribed by law, based on engineering studies and "professional judgment." But for NMDOT to set a higher speed limit would require legislative approval.

New Mexico has the full authority to bump the speed limit from 60 mph to 65 mph on US-82.

Interestingly enough, New Mexico used to have a default 75 mph limit on unmarked roads, including narrow 2 lane. That was rolled back to 55 mph.

Maybe ifs a speed trap for those entering from Texas? ^^^^^

Quote from: roadman65 on March 18, 2023, 04:19:34 PM
Maybe ifs a speed trap for those entering from Texas?

Fortunately for me, I guess, I drove it heading into Texas.  So, rather than having to slow down from 75 to 60 for no good reason, I got to speed up instead.

And the slow speed limit was the least of my headaches that day, as it was just a small part of the Tumbleweed-ageddon trip.

Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2022, 12:35:27 PM
On the way back, we hit some crazy winds and, on NM-483 heading north toward Lovington, we had a tumbleweed adventure.  There were strong sustained winds from the west that day, and a good stretch of NM-483 must lie in a slight depression between the fence lines.  So here's the situation that was created:

The wind would blow tumbleweeds up against the western fence line.  Eventually, the weeds would pile up to form a sort of siege ramp, which then allowed all the ones after them to just roll up the ramp and down onto the highway.  Some of them made it across the highway to the eastern fence line, and the same thing would ensue on that side.  However, down on the highway depression itself, the wind was substantially less strong, so a lot of weeds simply piled up on the pavement.

When I say "a lot", I mean it!  For probably a mile or more, it was literally impossible to see the pavement at all, and we "waded" through a sea of tumbleweeds that reached up to the grill.  Every so often, we'd catch a glimpse of the edge line or the center stripe, but most of the time it was guesswork to stay on the road.  With tumbleweeds cascading over the hood of our car, we plowed through at 15 to 25 mph.  Occasionally, a trucker would roar by in the other lane, sending an avalanche of weeds over our car;  at that point, we'd switch over and drive in the left lane, in the tracks of matted-down weeds left by the trucker, until we came upon another oncoming vehicle and would switch back to the right side again.  I say "we", but my wife was driving that stretch;  I guess my role was moral support and technical advice.

When we finally made it out of the "sea", we pulled to a stop in the middle of the travel lane.  Barehanded (ouch!), I had to reach up under the grill and pull out mats of wedged tumbleweeds.  Then I went around to the side of the car and had my wife drive very slowly while I pulled weeds out from inside the wheel wells and behind the wheels–trusting that she wouldn't suddenly accelerate and rip my forearm off.  When we got into Lovington–wind whipping dust and tumbleweed bits and chaff all around–we pulled into a parking lot and did another round of weed pulling.  Days after returning home, while I was checking the air filter, I found myself pulling tumbleweed pieces out from on top of the transmission.

↓  Here is a picture of the beginning of the adventure.  This is before it got "really" bad.

(https://i.imgur.com/NXuyHUy.jpg)

From there, the winds didn't stop.  Heading north from Plains (TX), we drove through sustained 25-35 mph crosswinds.  Because that part of Texas seems to grow a lot of dirt in their fields rather than crops, that meant driving through periodic dust storms that reduced visibility by as much as a snowstorm.  Then, just as dirt farms gave way to crops, the rain started.  By the time we stopped for gas at Vega, the wind had ripped the decal off the windward side of our cargo box.

In Friona, I drove a specific route in order to pass through the intersection of TX-214-Business and FM-2397-Spur, with the intention of taking a picture of the assembly (https://goo.gl/maps/p2abZjasCSuRFFXc6) to share on this site.  But the rain was still strong, so I didn't feel like stopping and getting drenched.

By the way, those tumbleweeds did a number on the car's C/V axle seals.  We had to have them replaced in March, even though they had just been installed seven months earlier (just before our trip).

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2023, 03:46:17 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 18, 2023, 12:08:32 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 05:35:50 PM
The roadway is basically not much different, and immediately jumps from 60 mph to 75 mph upon entering Texas, and doesn't change much more either.

Just seems like an artificially low limit, IMO.

I think it also has to do with how speed limits are set in each state. In Texas, speed limits are set based on population density, which is why you see a lot of 2-lane roads in rural Texas with 75 MPH speed limits. In contrast, New Mexico law dictates maximum speed limits based on road classification, regardless of if it runs through an urban, suburban, or rural area.

And unlike Texas where speed limits are set by TxDOT, New Mexico's speed limits are codified into law, meaning only the New Mexico Legislature can approve a change to the maximum speed limit for each road classification. To be clear, the speed limits for each road classification in New Mexico are the maximum, and NMDOT can always set the speed limit lower than what's prescribed by law, based on engineering studies and "professional judgment." But for NMDOT to set a higher speed limit would require legislative approval.

New Mexico has the full authority to bump the speed limit from 60 mph to 65 mph on US-82.

Interestingly enough, New Mexico used to have a default 75 mph limit on unmarked roads, including narrow 2 lane. That was rolled back to 55 mph.

That rollback occurred when Susana Martinez was governor. It was a bit crazy when the default speed limit was 75 mph because someone could travel on an unpaved county road with no posted speed limit at 75 mph and not have to worry about getting a ticket, although that driver would probably have a huge bill for all of the repairs to their vehicle afterwards.

^ Perhaps for unpaved, but I'd argue the 75 mph speed limit on a paved road with enough room for two cars to pass with a little bit of "fudge"  room (wider lane, shoulder, etc.) is reasonable.

There is no way I would drive through a bunch of tumbleweeds like that. I'd turn around and back-track to a route around it. Granted, there isn't a lot of alternative route choices in New Mexico. But considering the damage an enormous log-jam of tumbleweeds can do to a vehicle, it's worth it to back-track, even if you're back-tracking hundreds of miles.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 26, 2023, 10:25:37 AM
There is no way I would drive through a bunch of tumbleweeds like that. I'd turn around and back-track to a route around it. Granted, there isn't a lot of alternative route choices in New Mexico. But considering the damage an enormous log-jam of tumbleweeds can do to a vehicle, it's worth it to back-track, even if you're back-tracking hundreds of miles.

Huh.  There was one time I was driving on I-80 from NV to Salt Lake and there were hundreds of tumbleweeds blowing across the Interstate.  They were so light that they blew right around the vehicles and did no harm.

Then again, I wouldn't drive through a pile of them.

I can imagine those things doing a number on a vehicle's paint job.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 26, 2023, 11:28:43 AM
I can imagine those things doing a number on a vehicle's paint job.

Tumbleweeds can scratch a vehicle's paint, but it takes a lot of them to do so.

It takes a whole lot of them to pile up enough to block a highway. The other vehicle issues that kphoger described didn't sound real cheap and convenient to fix either.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 26, 2023, 11:28:43 AM
I can imagine those things doing a number on a vehicle's paint job.

I've never cared about paint scratches.  It helps having a silver car, though...

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 26, 2023, 01:55:59 PM
It takes a whole lot of them to pile up enough to block a highway. The other vehicle issues that kphoger described didn't sound real cheap and convenient to fix either.

No, not cheap.

I don't know what it's like to own a vehicle that I care about the paint getting scratched. :P

It is funny when you run over tumbleweeds because you look in your mirrors and you're leaving a trail of considerably smaller tumbleweeds in your wake.  :-D

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 15, 2023, 12:11:40 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PMBut it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

   Most of the projects done in Albuquerque were actually done right in comparison to a lot of projects the rest of the state, IMO.  For instance, they especially did a really good job with the Big-I reconstruction in 2000-02, but they also did a good job with widening I-40 between Carlisle and Pennsylvania Street in the late 2000s (including rebuilding the San Mateo interchange).  I also thought NMDOT did a good job with upgrading US 84/285 between Santa Fe and Pojoaque to freeway standards; the only thing is that project wrapped up almost a year later than scheduled.
    But yeah, I agree that at least some projects in New Mexico were done on the cheap, like NM 44/US 550 was.

Was personally involved in the '00-'02 big I project, so saw it first hand.  Would disagree about it being done right, but the "conversion" to RH exits and entrances in the interchange core, was the single best improvement imho.  The contractor (Twin Mtn II) which was later "absorbed" into Kiewit, was promised big bonuses, and land gifts, if they beat a deadline, so yes, certain elements were rushed, and quality suffered.   
a) Several of the flyovers (segmental) should have been two lanes from the beginning.  Can't widen a segmental flyover in any practical sense.   Have to demolish and replace in situ, and or build new alongside and demolish original. 
b)I-25 should have had eight total through lanes through interchange core, it only has six. 
c)I-25 in the southern end should have been "prepared" for additional work to "depress' and deck park cover I-25 in the Lomas - Central - Lead/Coal environs, along with straightening.  Instead there were "throwaway" improvements in the connection to the ancient fifties elevated segment of 25.    Most of these are Design failings, rather than poor construction, design in this part of the country is frankly bad.   

Quote from: DJStephens on April 02, 2023, 10:53:39 AM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 15, 2023, 12:11:40 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PMBut it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

   Most of the projects done in Albuquerque were actually done right in comparison to a lot of projects the rest of the state, IMO.  For instance, they especially did a really good job with the Big-I reconstruction in 2000-02, but they also did a good job with widening I-40 between Carlisle and Pennsylvania Street in the late 2000s (including rebuilding the San Mateo interchange).  I also thought NMDOT did a good job with upgrading US 84/285 between Santa Fe and Pojoaque to freeway standards; the only thing is that project wrapped up almost a year later than scheduled.
    But yeah, I agree that at least some projects in New Mexico were done on the cheap, like NM 44/US 550 was.

Was personally involved in the '00-'02 big I project, so saw it first hand.  Would disagree about it being done right, but the "conversion" to RH exits and entrances in the interchange core, was the single best improvement imho.  The contractor (Twin Mtn II) which was later "absorbed" into Kiewit, was promised big bonuses, and land gifts, if they beat a deadline, so yes, certain elements were rushed, and quality suffered.   
a) Several of the flyovers (segmental) should have been two lanes from the beginning.  Can't widen a segmental flyover in any practical sense.   Have to demolish and replace in situ, and or build new alongside and demolish original. 
b)I-25 should have had eight total through lanes through interchange core, it only has six. 
c)I-25 in the southern end should have been "prepared" for additional work to "depress' and deck park cover I-25 in the Lomas - Central - Lead/Coal environs, along with straightening.  Instead there were "throwaway" improvements in the connection to the ancient fifties elevated segment of 25.    Most of these are Design failings, rather than poor construction, design in this part of the country is frankly bad.

It wasn't until after the Big-I reconstruction was completed did NMDOT prepare a Deficiencies and Needs Study for the I-25 corridor between Isleta and Tramway. In other words, no one at the time was thinking about future upgrades to I-25 when the Big-I was rebuilt, which is why you have that awful transition to the pre-interstate era section between Central and Gibson that includes the dreaded S-curve.

Quote from: abqtraveler on April 04, 2023, 08:38:40 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on April 02, 2023, 10:53:39 AM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 15, 2023, 12:11:40 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PMBut it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

   Most of the projects done in Albuquerque were actually done right in comparison to a lot of projects the rest of the state, IMO.  For instance, they especially did a really good job with the Big-I reconstruction in 2000-02, but they also did a good job with widening I-40 between Carlisle and Pennsylvania Street in the late 2000s (including rebuilding the San Mateo interchange).  I also thought NMDOT did a good job with upgrading US 84/285 between Santa Fe and Pojoaque to freeway standards; the only thing is that project wrapped up almost a year later than scheduled.
    But yeah, I agree that at least some projects in New Mexico were done on the cheap, like NM 44/US 550 was.

Was personally involved in the '00-'02 big I project, so saw it first hand.  Would disagree about it being done right, but the "conversion" to RH exits and entrances in the interchange core, was the single best improvement imho.  The contractor (Twin Mtn II) which was later "absorbed" into Kiewit, was promised big bonuses, and land gifts, if they beat a deadline, so yes, certain elements were rushed, and quality suffered.   
a) Several of the flyovers (segmental) should have been two lanes from the beginning.  Can't widen a segmental flyover in any practical sense.   Have to demolish and replace in situ, and or build new alongside and demolish original. 
b)I-25 should have had eight total through lanes through interchange core, it only has six. 
c)I-25 in the southern end should have been "prepared" for additional work to "depress' and deck park cover I-25 in the Lomas - Central - Lead/Coal environs, along with straightening.  Instead there were "throwaway" improvements in the connection to the ancient fifties elevated segment of 25.    Most of these are Design failings, rather than poor construction, design in this part of the country is frankly bad.

It wasn't until after the Big-I reconstruction was completed did NMDOT prepare a Deficiencies and Needs Study for the I-25 corridor between Isleta and Tramway. In other words, no one at the time was thinking about future upgrades to I-25 when the Big-I was rebuilt, which is why you have that awful transition to the pre-interstate era section between Central and Gibson that includes the dreaded S-curve.

I was in Albuquerque a little over a week ago and noticed that the Montgomery/Montaño interchange still isn't under construction.  Initially, they were supposed to start that project two years ago and then pushed it back to this year.  I wonder if they pushed the project back a year later since that will also involve redoing the Comanche interchange.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on April 17, 2023, 09:51:06 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on April 04, 2023, 08:38:40 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on April 02, 2023, 10:53:39 AM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 15, 2023, 12:11:40 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2023, 07:18:27 PMBut it's typical of New Mexico to do things on the cheap.

   Most of the projects done in Albuquerque were actually done right in comparison to a lot of projects the rest of the state, IMO.  For instance, they especially did a really good job with the Big-I reconstruction in 2000-02, but they also did a good job with widening I-40 between Carlisle and Pennsylvania Street in the late 2000s (including rebuilding the San Mateo interchange).  I also thought NMDOT did a good job with upgrading US 84/285 between Santa Fe and Pojoaque to freeway standards; the only thing is that project wrapped up almost a year later than scheduled.
    But yeah, I agree that at least some projects in New Mexico were done on the cheap, like NM 44/US 550 was.

Was personally involved in the '00-'02 big I project, so saw it first hand.  Would disagree about it being done right, but the "conversion" to RH exits and entrances in the interchange core, was the single best improvement imho.  The contractor (Twin Mtn II) which was later "absorbed" into Kiewit, was promised big bonuses, and land gifts, if they beat a deadline, so yes, certain elements were rushed, and quality suffered.   
a) Several of the flyovers (segmental) should have been two lanes from the beginning.  Can't widen a segmental flyover in any practical sense.   Have to demolish and replace in situ, and or build new alongside and demolish original. 
b)I-25 should have had eight total through lanes through interchange core, it only has six. 
c)I-25 in the southern end should have been "prepared" for additional work to "depress' and deck park cover I-25 in the Lomas - Central - Lead/Coal environs, along with straightening.  Instead there were "throwaway" improvements in the connection to the ancient fifties elevated segment of 25.    Most of these are Design failings, rather than poor construction, design in this part of the country is frankly bad.

It wasn't until after the Big-I reconstruction was completed did NMDOT prepare a Deficiencies and Needs Study for the I-25 corridor between Isleta and Tramway. In other words, no one at the time was thinking about future upgrades to I-25 when the Big-I was rebuilt, which is why you have that awful transition to the pre-interstate era section between Central and Gibson that includes the dreaded S-curve.

I was in Albuquerque a little over a week ago and noticed that the Montgomery/Montaño interchange still isn't under construction.  Initially, they were supposed to start that project two years ago and then pushed it back to this year.  I wonder if they pushed the project back a year later since that will also involve redoing the Comanche interchange.

Because NMDOT decided to expand the scope of the I-25/Montgomery interchange to include Comanche, the cost estimate exploded from $70 million to around $200 million for that project. The rebuilt stretch will include braided ramps and Texas-style turnarounds at both Comanche and Montgomery. Now the state needs to find the money to pay for the project.

https://www.i25improved.com

Quote from: MattHanson939 on February 20, 2023, 01:27:58 PM
There's a stretch of I-10 near Las Cruces where the speed limit is capped at 65 mph but ought to be raised to 75 mph because there aren't closely spaced interchanges.  And that is between exits 132 (airport) and 139 (Motel Blvd).  The 65 mph limit is only reasonable from Motel Blvd. to the junction with I-25.  Other than that, it doesn't make sense because I-25 near Albuquerque is 75 mph between Broadway and Rio Bravo, then drops to 65 as you approach the city limits, briefly drops to 55 mph from Gibson Blvd. to Central Ave. goes back to 65 mph as you approach the Big-I and remains at 65 mph until after Tramway Blvd. where the 75 mph limit resumes.  In fact, the speed limit remains at 75 mph at Santa Fe.

I agree. I think part of the issue in Las Cruces is that the NMDOT does not like to give differing speed limits to different directions of the roadway. I can see 65 being appropriate up until Picacho Ave (Exit 135), especially for westbound traffic leaving the Mesilla Valley. The incline just before Picacho has a very pathetic third lane (truck lane) that ends just 300 m (980 ft) short of the Picacho exit, when should have obviously just been an exit-only lane. Not to mention the truck lane begins quite late on the incline, it should have begun 900 m (3000 ft) sooner.

For eastbound traffic descending into the Mesilla Valley, 75 MPH is appropriate up until Motel Blvd (Exit 139).
I agree that both directions should be 75 MPH west of the Picacho exit as the airport exit (132) is not that heavily trafficked.

Another example of where differing speed limits should have been given, US-70 going eastbound from I-25 has a 45 MPH speed limit until Rinconada Blvd. The lowering of speed limits from 65 to 55 to 45 only makes sense westbound as the freeway is about to end at a traffic signal with exit ramps from I-25. Eastbound, the freeway is going away from the traffic signals and should be no lower than 55 MPH.

Also, I'm not sure why the NMDOT only did the third exit-only lane between Sonoma Ranch and Rinconada westbound only. The two extrance/exit ramps are only 500 m (1600 ft) apart from each other.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on March 18, 2023, 03:34:42 PM
In fact, there are two stretches of highway in NM that aren't freeways where the speed limit is 75 mph.  For instance:

• US 70 through White Sands is 75 mph, and it's not a freeway.
• In late 2018, US 285 between Roswell & Vaughn also had its speed limit raised from 70 mph to 75 mph; and like the stretch of US 70 mentioned above, it's also not a freeway.

For all intents and purposes, those two mentioned stretches of US highways are essentially freeways. There are no settlements between White Sands (townsite) and Holloman AFB along WSMR for US-70 and likewise between Roswell and Vaughn for US-285. I haven't personally driven that stretch of US-285 but I did take a look at it on Google Maps.

I've driven US-70 between Alamogordo and Las Cruces many times and the only traffic entering/exiting the highway in the White Sands Missile Range portion is WSMR employees. There's no public access other than the turnoff to White Sands National Park. So it is essentially a freeway just one that allows bicycles and has non-grade separated access for non-public (WSMR) traffic. Yes I know it's not a true controlled-access highway (freeway) but it is functionally more than 90% a freeway

^ Functionally, they may be freeways but in terms of design standards, they lack full control of access. If the law prohibited non-fully-controlled-access highways from having a speed limit as high as 75 mph, then these segments could not be posted at 75 mph legally.

However, it seems there's nothing preventing it in terms of access control.

Quote from: abqtraveler on April 19, 2023, 10:24:09 AM
Because NMDOT decided to expand the scope of the I-25/Montgomery interchange to include Comanche, the cost estimate exploded from $70 million to around $200 million for that project. The rebuilt stretch will include braided ramps and Texas-style turnarounds at both Comanche and Montgomery. Now the state needs to find the money to pay for the project.

https://www.i25improved.com

They desperately need to redo the Jefferson Street bridge on I-25. Unfortunately the I-25 Improved project limits end before Jefferson Street. The Jefferson interchange gets so clogged during rush hour with traffic trying to make two left turns to go from Pan American North to South and vice versa. I guess they didn't think omitting the turnarounds would be such a major mistake until traffic counts grew. Having parallel frontage roads without turnarounds really clogs up each intersection with left turning traffic.

In fact Albuquerque doesn't have a single Texas-style turnaround despite I-25 having parallel frontage roads through more than half of the city (beginning north of Coal Ave SE and going all the way to Tramway).

Quote from: DJStephens on March 09, 2023, 03:04:21 PM
There are passing lane sections on 54 N of Tularosa.  Am of belief they are roughly every five miles.  Not sure how many are in the section between Corona and Vaughn.   Do know there are not any in the "unimproved" narrow section S of Corona.   

Regarding US-54, I think it's absolutely pathetic that the state is allowing the old roadbed to turn back into the surrounding landscape instead of rebuilding it and making US-54 a divided highway. If they decide to change their mind and do it later, it will take more time and money because they'd need to re-grade the abandoned road alignment.

---

Back to the topic of low speed limits, does anyone know why this section of NM-502 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8703274,-106.1912789,481m/data=!3m1!1e3) was not re-aligned so that a 40 MPH speed limit for the curves wouldn't be needed? It looks like they could have had the road keep going straight and just move/remove those two water tanks. The terrain doesn't look that difficult, for instance they would not need to cut through rock. Those 40 MPH curves are no joke going between Pojoaque and White Rock/Los Alamos. You can't take them any faster than 50 MPH or you'll go into another lane or off the road entirely. Just looking at the satellite view, those curves seem wholly unnecessary.

Quote from: jtespi on April 27, 2023, 01:40:10 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on April 19, 2023, 10:24:09 AM
Because NMDOT decided to expand the scope of the I-25/Montgomery interchange to include Comanche, the cost estimate exploded from $70 million to around $200 million for that project. The rebuilt stretch will include braided ramps and Texas-style turnarounds at both Comanche and Montgomery. Now the state needs to find the money to pay for the project.

https://www.i25improved.com

They desperately need to redo the Jefferson Street bridge on I-25. Unfortunately the I-25 Improved project limits end before Jefferson Street. The Jefferson interchange gets so clogged during rush hour with traffic trying to make two left turns to go from Pan American North to South and vice versa. I guess they didn't think omitting the turnarounds would be such a major mistake until traffic counts grew. Having parallel frontage roads without turnarounds really clogs up each intersection with left turning traffic.

Sounds like they should rebuild it as a DDI

Quote from: skluth on May 18, 2023, 07:35:57 PM

Quote from: jtespi on April 27, 2023, 01:40:10 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on April 19, 2023, 10:24:09 AM
Because NMDOT decided to expand the scope of the I-25/Montgomery interchange to include Comanche, the cost estimate exploded from $70 million to around $200 million for that project. The rebuilt stretch will include braided ramps and Texas-style turnarounds at both Comanche and Montgomery. Now the state needs to find the money to pay for the project.

https://www.i25improved.com

They desperately need to redo the Jefferson Street bridge on I-25. Unfortunately the I-25 Improved project limits end before Jefferson Street. The Jefferson interchange gets so clogged during rush hour with traffic trying to make two left turns to go from Pan American North to South and vice versa. I guess they didn't think omitting the turnarounds would be such a major mistake until traffic counts grew. Having parallel frontage roads without turnarounds really clogs up each intersection with left turning traffic.

Sounds like they should rebuild it as a DDI

That stretch of I-25 was built back in the early '60s at a time when Albuquerque had around 90,000 residents.  Fast forward to today, Albuquerque's population is approaching 600,000, not including the nearly 100,000 residents who live in Rio Rancho, most of which use that stretch of I-25 to get to and from jobs in Albuquerque.
At the time when I-25 was built, the idea of Texas-style turnarounds at the interchanges wasn't even a though that came across the minds of engineers at NMDOT. I don't think anyone back in that day would have imagined that the Albuquerque metro area would have expanded to what it is today, and they didn't design its highways to accommodate future growth.

Quote from: abqtraveler on May 20, 2023, 11:14:25 AM

Quote from: skluth on May 18, 2023, 07:35:57 PM

Quote from: jtespi on April 27, 2023, 01:40:10 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on April 19, 2023, 10:24:09 AM
Because NMDOT decided to expand the scope of the I-25/Montgomery interchange to include Comanche, the cost estimate exploded from $70 million to around $200 million for that project. The rebuilt stretch will include braided ramps and Texas-style turnarounds at both Comanche and Montgomery. Now the state needs to find the money to pay for the project.

https://www.i25improved.com

They desperately need to redo the Jefferson Street bridge on I-25. Unfortunately the I-25 Improved project limits end before Jefferson Street. The Jefferson interchange gets so clogged during rush hour with traffic trying to make two left turns to go from Pan American North to South and vice versa. I guess they didn't think omitting the turnarounds would be such a major mistake until traffic counts grew. Having parallel frontage roads without turnarounds really clogs up each intersection with left turning traffic.

Sounds like they should rebuild it as a DDI

That stretch of I-25 was built back in the early '60s at a time when Albuquerque had around 90,000 residents.  Fast forward to today, Albuquerque's population is approaching 600,000, not including the nearly 100,000 residents who live in Rio Rancho, most of which use that stretch of I-25 to get to and from jobs in Albuquerque.
At the time when I-25 was built, the idea of Texas-style turnarounds at the interchanges wasn't even a though that came across the minds of engineers at NMDOT. I don't think anyone back in that day would have imagined that the Albuquerque metro area would have expanded to what it is today, and they didn't design its highways to accommodate future growth.

Possess a 1960 official NM state highway map.  It has population figures for all the major (medium to large) municipalities at that time.  Albuquerque is stated as being @201,000 in 1960.  Would like to know it that was indeed true.  Far outstripping virtually ever other place in the state, at that time,as well as today. The Interstate system had not been built out at this time, only disconnected sections had been completed, state wide.  Las Cruces is shown as having a similar population, at that time, to Roswell, Clovis and Alamogordo.   

Quote
That stretch of I-25 was built back in the early '60s at a time when Albuquerque had around 90,000 residents.  Fast forward to today, Albuquerque's population is approaching 600,000, not including the nearly 100,000 residents who live in Rio Rancho, most of which use that stretch of I-25 to get to and from jobs in Albuquerque.
At the time when I-25 was built, the idea of Texas-style turnarounds at the interchanges wasn't even a though that came across the minds of engineers at NMDOT. I don't think anyone back in that day would have imagined that the Albuquerque metro area would have expanded to what it is today, and they didn't design its highways to accommodate future growth.

It was actually built in the '50s as NM 422, which was probably intended to be a pre-interstate bypass of US 85 through Albuquerque.  The stretch from Algodones to Bernalillo was an expressway, and from Bernalillo to the Albuquerque city limits was a freeway before downgrading to a surface street and stopping at Menaul.  The stretch from Lomas to Gibson was built between the late '50s and the mid '60s.  A large temporary s-curve was built in '60s to bridge the gap between Lomas and Menaul until the Big-I was completed in 1966.  When the expressway segment between Bernalillo and Algodones was upgraded to Interstate freeway standards in the late '70s/early '80s, NMDOT retired the NM 422 designation.

As Albuquerque grew significantly over time, more interchanges eventually needed to be built along I-25.  While the Tramway/Roy Avenue, San Mateo, and Montgomery interchanges were built in the '50s and '60s, it wasn't until the late '80s that the exits for Comanche/Gallegos, Jefferson, San Antonio/Ellison, and Paseo del Norte were built on I-25 north of the Big-I.  Then sometime between 1991 and 1996, that stretch of I-25 was widened to six lanes between Comanche and Paseo.  The interstate was later widened to six lanes at Alameda around 2001 and then at Tramway in 2006.  Just five years ago, I-25 was widened to eight lanes (four on each side) between the Big-I and Paseo (except at Montgomery/Montaño where the southbound side briefly goes to three lanes).

Quote from: DJStephens on May 20, 2023, 05:05:44 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on May 20, 2023, 11:14:25 AM

Quote from: skluth on May 18, 2023, 07:35:57 PM

Quote from: jtespi on April 27, 2023, 01:40:10 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on April 19, 2023, 10:24:09 AM
Because NMDOT decided to expand the scope of the I-25/Montgomery interchange to include Comanche, the cost estimate exploded from $70 million to around $200 million for that project. The rebuilt stretch will include braided ramps and Texas-style turnarounds at both Comanche and Montgomery. Now the state needs to find the money to pay for the project.

https://www.i25improved.com

They desperately need to redo the Jefferson Street bridge on I-25. Unfortunately the I-25 Improved project limits end before Jefferson Street. The Jefferson interchange gets so clogged during rush hour with traffic trying to make two left turns to go from Pan American North to South and vice versa. I guess they didn't think omitting the turnarounds would be such a major mistake until traffic counts grew. Having parallel frontage roads without turnarounds really clogs up each intersection with left turning traffic.

Sounds like they should rebuild it as a DDI

That stretch of I-25 was built back in the early '60s at a time when Albuquerque had around 90,000 residents.  Fast forward to today, Albuquerque's population is approaching 600,000, not including the nearly 100,000 residents who live in Rio Rancho, most of which use that stretch of I-25 to get to and from jobs in Albuquerque.
At the time when I-25 was built, the idea of Texas-style turnarounds at the interchanges wasn't even a though that came across the minds of engineers at NMDOT. I don't think anyone back in that day would have imagined that the Albuquerque metro area would have expanded to what it is today, and they didn't design its highways to accommodate future growth.

Possess a 1960 official NM state highway map.  It has population figures for all the major (medium to large) municipalities at that time.  Albuquerque is stated as being @201,000 in 1960.  Would like to know it that was indeed true.  Far outstripping virtually ever other place in the state, at that time,as well as today. The Interstate system had not been built out at this time, only disconnected sections had been completed, state wide.  Las Cruces is shown as having a similar population, at that time, to Roswell, Clovis and Alamogordo.

I should have clarified on Albuquerque's population a little better. It was 96,000 residents in 1950, and 201,000 residents in 1960.  Of course, the question is how many of those residents actually lived within the city limits, as this was a time when there were a lot of new subdivisions being built in what is now the Northeast Heights. Initially those subdivisions were outside the city limits, but were later integrated into the city when Albuquerque annexed the unincorporated areas where those subdivisions were being built. I don't know at what point annexation actually took place.

If I'm not mistaken, I think I remember reading somewhere that the original alignment of I-25 was intended to be on the west side of ABQ (like where Coors Blvd. runs) with NM 422 being be a local route.  But instead, 422 became the alignment for I-25.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on May 24, 2023, 03:07:21 PM
If I'm not mistaken, I think I remember reading somewhere that the original alignment of I-25 was intended to be on the west side of ABQ (like where Coors Blvd. runs) with NM 422 being be a local route.  But instead, 422 became the alignment for I-25.

That would have made sense, given the wide ROW that Coors occupies north of I-40, and the sudden jog west across the Rio Grande that I-25 makes near the Isleta Casino south of Albuquerque.

Coors should have been a freeway or at least had right of way reserved for one. But despite the new overpowered interchange at I-40, that ship sailed a long time ago.

Quote from: US 89 on May 25, 2023, 11:14:00 AM
Coors should have been a freeway or at least had right of way reserved for one. But despite the new overpowered interchange at I-25, that ship sailed a long time ago.

Especially for the stretch between I-40 and Cottonwood Mall. But...progressive thinking defies logic and the powers that be in the Albuquerque metro are going the opposite direction in trying to add "traffic calming" measures to Coors in order to make it more "pedestrian and bike friendly." Never mind the miles-long backups each afternoon that extend out onto I-40 going over the Rio Grande.

Quote from: abqtraveler on May 25, 2023, 01:31:48 PM

Quote from: US 89 on May 25, 2023, 11:14:00 AM
Coors should have been a freeway or at least had right of way reserved for one. But despite the new overpowered interchange at I-40, that ship sailed a long time ago.

Especially for the stretch between I-40 and Cottonwood Mall. But...progressive thinking defies logic and the powers that be in the Albuquerque metro are going the opposite direction in trying to add "traffic calming" measures to Coors in order to make it more "pedestrian and bike friendly." Never mind the miles-long backups each afternoon that extend out onto I-40 going over the Rio Grande.

That logic is valid for downtown city streets and occasionally for some of the bigger collector roads that connect neighborhoods to each other and to the rest of a city. Coors is a 4 to 6 lane highway. Also, Coors and Unser are the only two through north-south roads west of the river (and Unser is too far west to be of much use for a good chunk of the population over there)

Quote from: US 89 on May 25, 2023, 11:14:00 AM
Coors should have been a freeway or at least had right of way reserved for one. But despite the new overpowered interchange at I-25, that ship sailed a long time ago.

I'm assuming you meant I-40 for this?

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 26, 2023, 02:24:00 AM

Quote from: US 89 on May 25, 2023, 11:14:00 AM
Coors should have been a freeway or at least had right of way reserved for one. But despite the new overpowered interchange at I-25, that ship sailed a long time ago.

I'm assuming you meant I-40 for this?

Heh yep. Fixed.

Quote from: abqtraveler on May 24, 2023, 04:48:46 PM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on May 24, 2023, 03:07:21 PM
If I'm not mistaken, I think I remember reading somewhere that the original alignment of I-25 was intended to be on the west side of ABQ (like where Coors Blvd. runs) with NM 422 being be a local route.  But instead, 422 became the alignment for I-25.

That would have made sense, given the wide ROW that Coors occupies north of I-40, and the sudden jog west across the Rio Grande that I-25 makes near the Isleta Casino south of Albuquerque.

If I-25 had continued straight S, at the Broadway/Isleta Casino Exit 215, Rio Communities would have become the Las Lunas of today.   Am sure some tribal politics got that routing we have today, believe it was finally finished in the early eighties.   

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 26, 2023, 02:24:00 AM

Quote from: US 89 on May 25, 2023, 11:14:00 AM
Coors should have been a freeway or at least had right of way reserved for one. But despite the new overpowered interchange at I-25, that ship sailed a long time ago.

I'm assuming you meant I-40 for this?

The "original" 1961 I-40 / Coors interchange had hints of a piece of a possible future beltway.   But lack of foresight, and coherent planning scuttled that.   The Tramway "super two overpass" over Edith and the ATSF/BNSF tracks also were a possible piece of a beltway that never materialized.   

Quote from: DJStephens on June 03, 2023, 08:02:25 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 26, 2023, 02:24:00 AM

Quote from: US 89 on May 25, 2023, 11:14:00 AM
Coors should have been a freeway or at least had right of way reserved for one. But despite the new overpowered interchange at I-25, that ship sailed a long time ago.

I'm assuming you meant I-40 for this?

The "original" 1961 I-40 / Coors interchange had hints of a piece of a possible future beltway.   But lack of foresight, and coherent planning scuttled that.   The Tramway "super two overpass" over Edith and the ATSF/BNSF tracks also were a possible piece of a beltway that never materialized.

Multiple concepts for a beltway around Albuquerque were presented from the late 1960s through the present. The first on in 1969 envisioned a beltway that started at I-25 near the Isleta Casino, headed northeast through what is now Mesa Del Sol and the back part of Kirtland Air Force Base to I-40 near Tramway or Juan Tabo. It would have then followed Tramway or Juan Tabo to Paseo Del Norte, then followed PDN westward across the Rio Grande to Paseo Del Volcan (now Atrisco Vista), then south on PDV, past I-40 to Dennis Chavez, then continuing southeast to a new interchange with I-25 west of the bridge over the Rio Grande. I believe the freeway portion of PDN was intended to be part of this beltway, that was never completed.

A second concept emerged in the late 1980s. Like the previous concept, the north and east legs would have followed either Juan Tabo or Tramway and PDN, but it would then turn south at Unser, then follow Unser to Gibson. It would then follow Gibson, over a new bridge across the Rio Grande, past I-25 to Louisiana, then on new location along the northern edge of Kirtland AFB to the Eubank/Southern intersection, then follow Southern and Juan Tabo to I-40.

The current concept is much scaled back from the previous two:  a mostly new location highway starting at US-550 west of the NM-528 intersection in Rio Rancho that proceeded south and west through Rio Rancho, then south to I-40, about 2 miles west of the Atrisco Vista exit at t the top of Nine Mile Hill. The proposed route is referred to as Paseo Dal Volcan, and the completed section (Phase 1) from US-550 to Unser Blvd in Rio Rancho carries the designation of NM-347. The ROW is 300 feet wide, to accommodate a full freeway buildout, but it likely be a very long time before the initial 2-lane buildout to I-40 is completed, let alone expansion to a full freeway.

This concept map was published in the Albuquerque Journal in 1989:

(https://betterburque.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/proposed-inner-beltway.jpg)

The Tramway bridge over Edith was built with future expansion in mind (see streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/LR7ae3LigkGhnCZp6)) - but it seems to me it's more there as a side benefit of grade separating the railroad crossing than it is an indicator of a never-built freeway. Railroad crossing grade separations are always a good idea even with roads that aren't necessarily freeways, as trains can be very long and block crossings for 10-15 minutes or more. Especially in a place like Albuquerque, which has very few grade separated crossings and most of them are in or near downtown. Unless I'm forgetting one, the only ones are at Tramway, Paseo, I-40, Marquette/Tijeras, Central, Lead/Coal, and Cesar Chavez.

Quote from: US 89 on June 04, 2023, 09:19:49 AM
This concept map was published in the Albuquerque Journal in 1989:

(https://betterburque.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/proposed-inner-beltway.jpg)

The Tramway bridge over Edith was built with future expansion in mind (see streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/LR7ae3LigkGhnCZp6)) - but it seems to me it's more there as a side benefit of grade separating the railroad crossing than it is an indicator of a never-built freeway. Railroad crossing grade separations are always a good idea even with roads that aren't necessarily freeways, as trains can be very long and block crossings for 10-15 minutes or more. Especially in a place like Albuquerque, which has very few grade separated crossings and most of them are in or near downtown. Unless I'm forgetting one, the only ones are at Tramway, Paseo, I-40, Marquette/Tijeras, Central, Lead/Coal, and Cesar Chavez.

The urban legend here in Albuquerque is that Tramway was planned to continue across the Rio Grande to Corrales and ultimately Highway 528 in Rio Rancho, but NMDOT dropped those plans for the bridge across the Rio Grande when a powerful state senator who lived in Corrales threatened to pull all funding for the state DOT had they moved forward with building the bridge.  As the saying goes, "Money talks...," and we all know the rest of that punchline.