State Highway Reliability Report - New Mexico
In the line graphs below, FHWA has shifted the "Year" label in the x-axis back by one year, from Data Reporting Year to Data Collection Year. More information
The information displayed is provided by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) in their 2018 Baseline Performance Report, 2019 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data submittal, and 2020 Mid Performance Period (MPP) Progress Report and has not been edited by FHWA. Any questions about individual State reports should be directed to the respective State DOT.
Please note: FHWA has posted data from State DOT reports to help bring context to their performance targets. This data may result in some discrepancies among published State DOT performance data due to data sources and reporting years used when establishing the performance targets.
Significant Progress Determination
Using data from the 2020 MPP Progress Report, FHWA has determined whether a State DOT has made significant progress toward achieving its individual targets for five National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) measures and one National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) measure, as described in 23 CFR 490.109.
Full Significant Progress Determination Table
Interstate Highway Reliable Person-Miles Traveled
-
Interstate Highway Reliable Person-Miles Traveled 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Condition/Performance 96 97.6 96.9 100.0 -- Target -- -- 96.1 -- 95.1 -
Interstate Highway Reliable Person-Miles Traveled
New Mexico utilized the following forecasting methodology 1. Setup calculate current volume and capacity; 2. Model Fitting through log-linear regression models are fit statistical model, associating LOTTR / TTTR with volume, capacity, and roadway attributes; 3. Updates forecast future volume based on growth rates, then update future capacity based on planned projects; and 4. Forecasting forecast future LOTTR / TTTR using updated volume and capacity. NPMRDS was used to calculate 2017 Baseline PM3 metric scores and free-flow speeds (specifically based on March 2018 NPMRDS data). HPMS was the source of traffic volume by vehicle type and road attributes (Functional classes, urban/ rural designations). Growth rates were generated from evaluating growth at permanent count stations around the state, and projects were taken from the planned 2018-2021 capacity projects in the STIP.The percent of reliable person-miles traveled on the Interstate improved from 2017 (97.00% reliable) to 2018 (97.45% reliable), and while the 2019 figure (96.9% reliable) decreased from 2018, that is still higher than the 2-year target (96.1% reliable), reflecting improvements to Interstate travel.N/APortions of Interstate 25 in Albuquerque, NM, are being widened, and this effort will continue into the next two years. The Albuquerque metro area is one significant region of unreliable Interstate segments, and these projects are improving system reliability. Data Sources:
New Mexico 2018, 2020 Biennial Performance Report
New Mexico 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 HPMS Data Submittal
Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) Reliable Person-Miles Traveled
-
Non-Interstate NHS reliable Person-Miles Traveled 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Condition/Performance -- -- 93.7 96.4 -- Target -- -- -- -- 90.4 Behind the data: For the first performance period only, baseline condition and 2-year targets are not required for the Non-Interstate NHS reliability measure.
Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) Reliable Person-Miles Traveled
New Mexico utilized the following forecasting methodology 1. Setup calculate current volume and capacity; 2. Model Fitting fit statistical model, associating LOTTR / TTTR with volume, capacity, and roadway attributes; 3. Updates forecast future volume based on growth rates, then update future capacity based on planned projects; and 4. Forecasting forecast future LOTTR / TTTR using updated volume and capacity. NPMRDS was used to calculate 2017 Baseline PM3 metric scores and free-flow speeds (specifically based on March 2018 NPMRDS data). HPMS was the source of traffic volume by vehicle type and road attributes (Functional classes, urban/ rural designations). Growth rates were generated from evaluating growth at permanent count stations around the state, and projects were taken from the planned 2018-2021 capacity projects in the STIP.N/AN/AN/AData Sources:
New Mexico 2018, 2020 Biennial Performance Report
New Mexico 2020, 2021 HPMS Data Submittal
Interstate Highway Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index
-
Truck Travel Time Reliability Index 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Condition/Performance 1.13 1.13 1.18 1.11 -- Target -- -- 1.14 -- 1.15 -
Interstate Highway Truck Travel Time Reliability
New Mexico utilized the following forecasting methodology 1. Setup calculate current volume and capacity; 2. Model Fitting fit statistical model, associating LOTTR / TTTR with volume, capacity, and roadway attributes; 3. Updates forecast future volume based on growth rates, then update future capacity based on planned projects; and 4. Forecasting forecast future LOTTR / TTTR using updated volume and capacity. NPMRDS was used to calculate 2017 Baseline PM3 metric scores and free-flow speeds (specifically based on March 2018 NPMRDS data). HPMS was the source of traffic volume by vehicle type and road attributes (Functional classes, urban/ rural designations). Growth rates were generated from evaluating growth at permanent count stations around the state, and projects were taken from the planned 2018-2021 capacity projects in the STIP.Freight reliability did not match modeled assumptions for forecasted freight reliability. While the 2019 target was exceeded, preliminary 2020 NPMRDS and traffic volume data indicates that the 2021 target will be achieved.N/AThere will be additional improvements to I-25 in Albuquerque, including continued widening of portions of the Interstate. Data Sources:
New Mexico 2018, 2020 Biennial Performance Report
New Mexico 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 HPMS Data Submittal
Significant Progress Determination
PLEASE NOTE: Each State’s performance target assessment is based on its own State-specific target methodology and program philosophy. Therefore, conclusions should not be drawn based only on the information in the 2020 Mid Performance Period Significant Progress Determination Results table. For example, the State may have set aggressive targets, and not met those targets, while another State may have set more easily attainable targets, and met those targets. FHWA understands that each State’s program is unique and therefore does not prescribe a methodology for States to set targets. States have the flexibility to use the methodology they deem most appropriate when setting their performance targets.
A State has met or made significant progress toward target achievement if “actual” condition/performance is equal to or better than the established two-year target or “actual” condition/performance is better than baseline performance 23 CFR 490.109 (e).
| Measure Area | Measures | Baseline | Target | Actual | Better than Baseline? | Achieved Target? | Made Significant Progress? | Consequences [23 CFR 490.109(f)] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The performance of the Interstate System | Interstate Travel Time Reliability measure | 96.0 | 96.1 | 96.9 | Yes | Yes | Yes | None | |
| Freight movement on the Interstate System | Freight Reliability measure | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.18 | No | No | No | Additional reporting | |