dot.state.nm.us › content › dam › nmdot › procurement › rfp › … · g e n e r a l o f...
Post on 03-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
G e n e r a l O f f i c e P . O . B o x 1 1 4 9 S a n t a F e , N M 8 7 5 0 4
Michelle Lujan Grisham Governor
Michael R. Sandoval Cabinet Secretary
Commissioners
Jennifer Sandoval Commissioner, Vice-Chairman District 1
Bruce Ellis Commissioner District 2
Hilma E. Chynoweth Commissioner District 3
Walter G. Adams Commissioner, Chairman District 4
Thomas C. Taylor Commissioner District 5
Charles Lundstrom Commissioner, Secretary District 6
ADDENDUM NO. 1
RFP No. 21-04
NM 109 Jarales Rd. Phase IC/D and Phase II Services
7/1/2020 To Whom It May Concern:
The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT or Department) has received the following questions submitted along with the Department’s response. Attached to this addendum No. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the interested Offerors to adhere to any changes or revisions to the RFP as identified in this Addendum No. 1. This documentation shall become permanent and made part of the Department’s procurement file.
Question: For the Jarales Road project, the RFP indicates an A/B Report exists that is just not yet finalized. It would be greatly beneficial to be able to access the Draft A/B Report in formulating our response. Can that document please be posted to the website?
Answer: The Draft Phase A/B report prepared by TKD for BNSF. The report is still in DRAFT form and still very fluid. Therefore we, the DOT, expect changes to this document prior to it being finalized and ask that proposing teams proceed with caution in using this document as a resource.
Question: On page 8, A5: Response to Written Questions/ RFP Amendments, the date listed is 7/3/20, but this date is a business holiday (July 4th). Can you please tell me if NMDOT will issue the responses and amendments before or after July 3?
Answer: Due to the upcoming holiday we will be issuing the response to questions for RFP 21-04 today July 1, 2020.
If there are any questions or inquiries in relation to this Addendum No. 1, Offerors may contact Juanita Sanchez at (505) 629-8790 or by email at Juanita.Sanchez@state.nm.us.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation
Combined Phase I-A/B
Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
FINAL
April, 2020
Prepared for:
BNSF Railway Inc.
Prepared by:
TKDA
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
St. Paul, MN 55101
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
i
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation
PHASE I – A/B COMBINED DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
April 2020
Prepared for:
BNSF Railway Inc.
Hans L. Erickson, TKDA Project Manager Date
Prepared by:
TKDA
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
St. Paul, MN 55101
April 28, 2020
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
ii
Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Background and Limits ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Alternatives Evaluated .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Alternative Evaluation and Ranking .............................................................................................................................. 1
Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Agency Coordination and Public Involvement .............................................................................................................. 1
Environmental Investigations and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 2
Next Phase .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
I. Introduction and Project Background ................................................................................................ 3
Project Setting ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Scope and Objective ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Team ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Study Process ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Planning Period ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
II. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination .................................................................................. 5
Public Involvement and Context Sensitive Solutions Plan ............................................................................................ 5
Public Involvement and CSPIP Events Completed ........................................................................................................ 5
Public Involvement Meeting—June 11, 2019 ........................................................................................................... 5
Responses to Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................. 7
III. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 8
Roadway and Rail Crossing ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Roadway Geometry .................................................................................................................................................. 8
Pavement Condition ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Pedestrian and Multimodal ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Traffic ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Traffic and Train Counts ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Existing Road/Rail Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 9
Projected Roadway/Rail Crossing Operations .......................................................................................................... 9
Safety ..........................................................................................................................................................................10
Utilities ........................................................................................................................................................................10
Right-of-Way ...............................................................................................................................................................10
Geotechnical ............................................................................................................................................................... 10
Regional Geology .................................................................................................................................................... 10
Site Geology ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
Social, Cultural, Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................................ 11
General Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................... 11
Natural Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 13
Social Resources...................................................................................................................................................... 13
Farmlands ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Visual Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
Noise ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Section 4(f) .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Floodplains .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Drainage .................................................................................................................................................................. 16
IV. Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 17
Physical Deficiencies ................................................................................................................................................... 17
Safety .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Travel Demand and Congestion .................................................................................................................................. 17
Access ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17
System Connectivity ................................................................................................................................................... 17
Project Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 17
V. Description of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 18
Design Criteria............................................................................................................................................................. 18
Preliminary Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Alternative A ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
Alternative B ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
Alternative C ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
Alternative D ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
Alternative E ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
Alternative F ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
Alternative G – No Build ......................................................................................................................................... 21
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
iii
Initial Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................................................................22
Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................22
Responsiveness to the Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................22
Structure Impacts ....................................................................................................................................................22
Utility Impacts .........................................................................................................................................................22
Drainage Impacts ....................................................................................................................................................22
Impacts to NM 109 and Other Local Roads ............................................................................................................22
Impacts to Rail Service and Yard Operations ..........................................................................................................22
Public Input .............................................................................................................................................................23
Initial Evaluation Matrix ..............................................................................................................................................23
Phase I A Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................25
VI. Refined Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 26
Conceptual Roadway and Structure Plans ..................................................................................................................26
Geotechnical Considerations ..................................................................................................................................26
Refined Development of Phase I B Alternatives .....................................................................................................26
VII. Engineering and Environmental Evaluation of Alternatives ........................................................... 29
Design Year Traffic Forecasts ......................................................................................................................................29
Access Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................29
Structure Maintenance and Inspection (M&I) ............................................................................................................29
Drainage Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................29
Constructability Analysis .............................................................................................................................................29
Right-of-Way Requirements .......................................................................................................................................29
Utility Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................29
Construction Costs ......................................................................................................................................................29
Environmental Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................29
Alternative C: ..........................................................................................................................................................30
Alternative D: ..........................................................................................................................................................30
Alternative E: ...........................................................................................................................................................31
VIII. Refined Evaluation Matrix and Phase B Recommendations ........................................................... 32
Refined Evaluation Matrix ..........................................................................................................................................32
Conclusions and Phase B Recommendations .............................................................................................................35
Preferred Alternative ..............................................................................................................................................35
Recommended Level of Environmental Documentation ........................................................................................35
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
1
Executive Summary
Project Background and Limits
A Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives for the development of a grade separated intersection
to replace the existing at-grade rail crossing of NM 109 and the BNSF Railway’s tracks at the east end of BNSF
Railway’s Belen Yard has been developed and is summarized herein.
Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is:
• To provide a safe, uninterrupted route for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic across the railroad
corridor that accommodates current and future rail operations.
The project is needed to address several critical conditions identified for the current at-grade crossings. These
conditions include physical deficiencies, safety, travel congestion, and system connectivity.
These needs are addressed with the introduction of a grade-separated intersection.
Alternatives Evaluated
Seven alternatives were identified for evaluation, six considered a grade-separation incorporating an overhead
bridge structure while the seventh represented the no-build option. All of the grade separation alternatives utilized
a common cross-section and design speed. The primary element defining the differences between the various
alternatives was the alignment considered.
The following alternatives were evaluated:
A. 70 ft. west of in-place NM 109. The 70 ft. alignment offset was selected to minimize NM 109 traffic
disruptions during construction. This alternative was screened out during the Phase I A evaluation of
alternatives as it requires relocation of in-place overhead power lines located along the west side of NM
109, requires a and moderate number of property relocations, and offers not advantages over Alternative C.
B. In-line with in-place NM 109. In-line construction was considered for evaluation to minimize adjacent
property impacts. However, since access to a large number of adjacent properties is provided directly off
NM 109, introduction of the grade separation eliminates entrances resulting in a high number of property
relocations. Furthermore, the in-line alignment requires closure of NM 109 for the duration of the
construction process. As such, this alternative was also screened out of the process during the Phase I A
evaluation.
C. 70 ft. east of in-place NM 109. Similar to Alternative A, the 70 ft. alignment offset was selected to minimize
NM 109 traffic disruptions during construction. The alignment does not engage the overhead power lines
located along the west side of NM 109.
D. 750 ft. west of in-place NM 109. The alignment offset was selected to reduce residential property impacts
required for the new grade separation. Although the resulting geometry does result in the fewest number
of property relocations, the configuration requires the largest and most complex bridge structure and has
the largest impact to current railroad operations.
E. 500 ft. east of in-place NM 109. This alternative follows the in-place Trujillo Road alignment to the greatest
extent possible. Although traffic disruptions on NM 109 are minimized with this approach, the impact to
Trujillo Road are considerable. Alterative E also has the highest anticipated construction cost of those
considered.
F. 600 ft. west of in-place NM 109 on extended realignment Alternative F mimics Alternative D but places the
northern terminus of the project much further from the in-place at-grade crossing. This alternative was
suggested for consideration by the local community at the public open house meeting. Alternative F was
screened out during the Phase I A evaluation of alternatives due to its large right-of-way requirement, and
impacts to future railroad operations. Furthermore, the alternative offers no advantages in terms of
impacts to residences or relocations when compared to Alternative D.
G. No build
Underpass bridge configurations (railroad over NM 109) were not considered as feasible given the high water table
at the project site and the need to maintain rail service through the corridor during construction.
Alternative Evaluation and Ranking
The following criteria were used for evaluation of the alternatives:
• Responsiveness to the Purpose and Need
• Structure Maintenance and Inspection
• Right-of-way Feasibility
• Structure Impacts
• Utility Impacts
• Drainage Impacts
• Impacts to NM 109 and Other Local Roads
• Impacts to the Environment and Community
• Access Impacts
• Impacts to Rail Service
• Public Input
• Construction Cost
Ranking of the alternatives according to these metrics was conducted in a two phase process according to the 2015
NMDOT Location Studies procedures. The initial ranking and subsequent screening utilized a primarily qualitative
analysis to identify those alternatives that were either not feasible or less desirable than others. This exercise
eliminated Alternates A, B, and F from consideration. Alternatives C, D, E and G were progressed for detailed
engineering and environmental evaluation considering both qualitative and quantitative metrics. The final ranking
determined according to this process was summarized in the refined evaluation matrix identify and identifies the
preferred alternative.
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative for the NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation project is Alternative C. This alternative
meets the Project’s Purpose and Need and provides the best solution when assessed according to the evaluation
metrics considered. Specifically, Alternative C limits the utility, drainage, right of way, and railroad impacts required
for the project. Although this alternate requires a greater number of property relocations compared to Alternates D
and E, it has received the highest number of supporting comments from the public. The anticipated construction
cost is estimated at $27M.
Agency Coordination and Public Involvement
During the preparation of the Phase IA/B Report, a study team consisting of the BNSF Railway, NMDOT staff, and
consultants TKDA, P3planning, and Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc. met periodically and held regular
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
2
conference calls to discuss and coordinate on the progress of the project. A Context Sensitive Public Involvement
Plan (CSPIP) was prepared for the project to establish the project context and identify major issues; to identify
stakeholders, methods to inform and involve them, and approaches to resolve issues and conflicts that may arise;
and to develop an appropriate decision-making process. During the Phase I A /B analysis process, one public
information meeting was held on June 11, 2019 to present information and gather public input on the project. In
addition to the general public, local elected officials, agency representatives, and other community organizations
were invited to attend, and many participated in the meeting. Approximately 100 individuals attended the meeting
and provided input on a range of topics including support for the project, concerns about existing railroad-related
delays, preference or opposition to certain alignment alternatives, specific design questions, and other topics. The
study team provided verbal responses to comments during the meeting and accommodated follow-up requests for
additional information.
Environmental Investigations and Recommendations
Existing environmental conditions were documented in the initial evaluation of alternatives and overall potential
environmental impacts were assessed for each of the alternatives considered in the refined analysis. Analysis of
potential environmental impacts primarily considered factors such as residential relocations, changes in access and
property utilization, increased noise, visual impacts, and cultural resources. Because of the developed condition of
the project area, natural resource impacts are anticipated to be relatively minor for all the alternatives. None of the
alternatives are expected to affect threatened or endangered species, critical habitat, wetlands, or riparian areas,
although all would require removing trees and vegetation that potentially provide nesting sites for migratory birds.
All the alternatives cross irrigation ditches, but irrigation flows, operation of the ditches, and access would be
accommodated. All of the alternatives could require de-watering of groundwater during construction, which would
be regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) program of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Cultural resource issues include potential impacts to the setting and feeling of historic properties such as portion of
the Camino Real, the Sanchez Drain, Arroyos Ditch, Waste Ditch, and the Belen Cutoff of the AT&SF Railway.
Next Phase
Following the NMDOT Location Study procedures, the next phases of the project are:
• Phase I-C, environmental
• Phase I-D, preliminary design and engineering
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
3
I. Introduction and Project Background The following document consists of an initial and detailed evaluation of alternative concepts for the construction of
a grade separation for New Mexico State Highway 109 (NM 109, Jarales Road) and the BNSF Railway’s (BNSF)
existing and proposed future tracks between the Cities of Belen and Jarales New Mexico. This evaluation, and
conclusion with a preferred alternative, have been progressed based upon meetings and coordination with the New
Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) and BNSF during the development of alternatives. Based on public
safety concerns for access and emergency service response times, closing the crossing indefinitely was determined
to be infeasible. Six alternative configurations for a roadway/rail grade separation structure were initially proposed
and evaluated as part of the preliminary screening of alternatives. Determinations were made for three of the
alternatives to be carried forward for detailed analysis according to the Phase I A/B process. This Detailed Evaluation
of Alternatives documents the in-depth studies of the three alignment alternatives, and corresponding structure
requirements, considered for implementation of the grade separation. Evaluation of a No-Build alternative is also
considered in this analysis. Descriptions and discussion of the three alternatives that were not progressed to
detailed evaluation are also provided.
Project Setting
Located at the east end of BNSF Railway’s Belen Yard, NM 109 currently crosses three BNSF tracks as an undivided
at-grade signalized crossing. The BNSF intends to construct six additional tracks with an allowance for two future
tracks through the corridor to add capacity for railway’s yard operations. Due to concerns for public safety regarding
increased vehicular and rail traffic volumes, public access, and emergency service response times, the BNSF and
NMDOT have agreed that a grade separated crossing is required.
Project Scope and Objective
The project scope entails development of a combined Phase I A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives report
according to the 2015 edition of the NMDOT Location Study Procedures for a new grade separation of NM 109 and
the BNSF tracks in Belen, New Mexico.
The Project’s objective is identification of a preferred alternative for advancement to Phase I C.
Project Team
The Phase I A/B alignment study was developed by the following project team:
• BNSF
• NMDOT
• TKDA
• P3planning
• Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc.
Figure 1.1-1 Location Map
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
4
Study Process
The alignment study was prepared following the 2015 edition of the NMDOT Location Study Procedures. The
Location Study Procedures outlines a structured process for the preparation of alignment and corridor studies.
Alignment studies typically include three distinct phases; A, B, and C. The first two phases serve to develop,
evaluate, and refine the range of possible alternatives to achieve the need for the proposed action. The third phase
involves the preparation of an environmental document and subsequent processing for the selected alternative in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), and other federal and state regulations.
The Initial Evaluation of Alternative phase is used to identify alternatives that best address needed operational and
safety improvements for the existing corridor, and to determine the general alignment location for the proposed
project. Alternatives are developed to address project needs, while avoiding or minimizing environmental and
community impacts and addressing the issues identified by the major stakeholders.
For this project, the project limits include a relatively short segment of NM 109 (approximately 1.1 miles) to evaluate
and consider improvement alternatives that focus on implementation of a grade separation. Therefore, there is no
need to consider other locations for the rail crossing other than those represented by the alignment alternatives
described herein (as opposed to location alternatives on a broader scale). Therefore, a true Phase I A Location Study
is unnecessary and the following analysis has been developed as a combined Phase I A/B Alignment study.
Various alternatives have been proposed and initially considered as part of an Initial Evaluation of Alternatives
process including several options to realign both on the existing corridor, as well as to the east and west. Seven
alternatives were originally considered, including a no-build option. The seven alignments are:
• Alignment A – shift approximately 70 feet (ft.) west. Allows the new grade separation to be built totally off-
line while utilizing the existing crossing to maintain traffic during construction.
• Alignment B – rebuild on existing alignment. Requires full closure and detour of NM 109 during construction.
• Alignment C – shift approximately 70 ft. east. Allows the new grade separation to be built totally off-line
while utilizing the existing crossing to maintain traffic during construction.
• Alignment D – shift approximately 750 ft. west. Allows the new grade separation to be built totally off-line
while utilizing the existing crossing to maintain traffic during construction. Intended to reduce residential
property impacts.
• Alignment E – shift approximately 500 ft. east. Allows the new grade separation to be built totally off-line
while utilizing the existing crossing to maintain traffic during construction. Intended to reduce residential
property impacts.
• Alignment F – shift approximately 600 ft. west and extended through BNSF property. Allows the new grade
separation to be built totally off-line while utilizing the existing crossing to maintain traffic during
construction. Intended to further reduce residential property impacts.
• Alignment G – No Build Option
The initial five build alignments (A-E) and the no-build alignment were presented during a public open house
meeting held on June 11, 2019. Alignment F was developed following the meeting based on input received from the
local community.
The initial screening of alternatives using qualitative metrics eliminated Alternates A, B and F as viable options.
Alternate A was removed because of negative public support, impacts to in-place overhead power, and moderate
number of property relocations. In addition, Alternate A offers no advantages over Alternate C. Alternative B was
not recommended for further evaluation because it required NM 109 to be closed during construction and
generated the maximum number of property relocations. Alternative F was not recommended for further evaluation
because of the large amount of right-of-way acquisition and corresponding impacts to future BNSF operations and
considerable length compared to other Alternatives. Furthermore, Alternate F offers no advantages over Alternate
D in terms of impacts to residences and relocations.
The Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives process described herein will further develop and evaluate the alternatives
advanced from the Initial Evaluation of Alternatives and will provide for a detailed assessment of the engineering
and environmental factors associated with those alternatives.
Phase I C, the Environmental Documentation phase, will involve preparation of the environmental documentation
and the subsequent processing for the selected alternative. The successful completion of the Alignment Study
process will allow for the selected alternative to be advanced to the Preliminary Design phase.
Planning Period
Development of the Phase I A/B evaluation by the project team began in the summer of 2018 with completion
scheduled for May 2020. Subsequent planning and development will occur on a schedule that places the new grade
separation in service by the fall of 2021.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
5
II. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Public involvement and agency coordination are important elements of the Phase I A/B analysis for gathering
feedback and input during the study process. Community and agency representatives, members of the public,
affected stakeholders, and study team members all play an important role in communicating information and issues
about the study. The goal of this process is to produce transportation projects that fit the context of a community
and respond to the needs of the public who use this transportation resource.
Public Involvement and Context Sensitive Solutions Plan
A Context Sensitive Public Involvement Plan (CSPIP) was prepared for the project. The CSPIP combines the public
involvement and context sensitive solutions plan mandated by the NMDOT and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Public involvement and consideration of the project setting and context are fundamental components of
the Location Study Procedures—the policy document followed by the NMDOT to comply with federal transportation
planning rules and regulations and the NEPA process (NMDOT 2015). The goals of the CSPIP for the project are as
follows:
1. To establish the project context and identify major issues
2. To identify the project stakeholders, the methods to inform and involve them, and the approaches to
resolve issues, concerns, and conflicts that may arise
3. To develop a decision-making process that is sensitive to the project context, involves stakeholders in a
meaningful way, and leads to the development of a preferred alternative that is consistent with the
transportation, environmental, cultural, community, land use, and economic contexts of the project area Specific methods, such as public and individual meetings, are identified in the CSPIP to inform and involve
stakeholders, gather input, and identify and resolve issues or concerns that may arise during the study process. The
CSPIP is a dynamic document evolves as the project progresses; it is expected that new issues will be identified as
stakeholders become involved in the process. Methods to involve stakeholders may change to maximize outreach
and provide the best opportunities for input.
Stakeholders for this project were generally divided into three categories: (1) those directly affected by the project,
(2) those indirectly affected by the project, and (3) agencies with jurisdictional authority over the infrastructure or
land use within the project area. The stakeholder groups are identified below:
1. Directly Impacted Stakeholders
• Those with properties located directly adjacent to any of the project alternatives
• Owners of adjoining properties that may be affected by the project through changes in access and the
visual or auditory environment, or other factors
• Those who frequently travel through the project area, including bicyclists and pedestrians
• Residents of Jarales, Belen, and other local communities
• Commuters (local, metro, regional)
• Goods transporters, including truck drivers from the local diaries
• Belen School District (school bus operators)
• Police, fire, and emergency services providers
• BNSF Railway
• Utilities in the project corridor
• Jarales Community Center users
2. Indirectly Impacted Stakeholders
• Chamber of Commerce
• Local citizens’ groups
• Elected officials
• Community groups/neighborhood associations
3. Government Agencies
• City of Belen
• Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD)
• Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG)
• New Mexico Office of Cultural Affairs, State Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation
Division
• New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
• NMDOT
• New Mexico Environment Department
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• Valencia County
Public Involvement and CSPIP Events Completed
During the Phase I A/B analysis process, one public information meeting was held. The meeting occurred during
development of the Phase I A analysis to present information and gather public input on the project.
Public Involvement Meeting—June 11, 2019
The first public involvement meeting for the project was held Tuesday, June 11, 2019, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM, at Gil
Sanchez Elementary School, 376 Jarales Road/NM 109, in Jarales, New Mexico. The meeting was advertised in the
Albuquerque Journal on May 26, 2019 and the Valencia County News-Bulletin on May 30, 2019. Flyers announcing
the meeting were posted at the Jarales and Bosque post offices and at the Jarales Community Center. In addition,
approximately 130 notices were mailed to property owners, institutions, businesses, elected officials, agency
representatives, and other stakeholders in the project area. The objectives of the meeting were:
• To introduce the project and the study team
• To present work-to-date-on various potential design alternatives to the community
• To invite comments regarding the key transportation, safety, and other related issues for the study team to
consider during the study
The study team attending the meeting included representatives from NMDOT, BNSF, TKDA, P3planning, and
Ecosphere. Approximately 100 members of the public attended the meeting, which began at 6:00 PM. Sign-in sheets
from the public meeting are included in Appendix F.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
6
Initially, attendees were given an opportunity to review display boards and discuss the project informally with study
team members. At 6:15, a formal presentation was given with PowerPoint slides, including an introduction to the
study team, description of the organization and agenda for the meeting, and overview of the project concepts,
purpose and need, agency roles, anticipated stakeholders, and issues that have been identified to date. The
NMDOT’s location study procedures and environmental compliance process were summarized, and the preliminary
project alternatives were described. The strengths and weaknesses of each alternative were discussed in terms of
preliminary evaluation criteria that include safety, cost, structure impacts, right-of-way needs, NM 109 closure
requirements, local road impacts, environmental impacts, railroad constraints, effects on maintenance and
operations, utility impacts, schedule, and public support.
At 7:00 PM, the meeting was opened to public comment. Thirteen verbal comments were received at the meeting
and an additional 13 written or email comments were received following the meeting. The comments are
summarized by topic below, and the full meeting minutes are included in Appendix F.
Clarification of Project Design Concepts or Alternatives
• With seven tracks going east, how will the rail line cross the river?
• How many structures are impacted by Alternative D?
• I understand BNSF has plans to expand their tracks. The information provided does not cover the expansion
of the tracks nor the location. I was told the expansion will be 4 additional tracks north of the main line.
North from what point, the River or Jarales Road, the bend to Jarales Road? There could be several
locations along the tracks between the Rio Grande River Bridge and the Jarales Road crossover. Can you tell
me the location of this expansion?
New Alternative that Extends North of Alternative D
• The team should consider a new alternative that extends Alternative D onto BNSF property and intersects
NM 109 further north. This would avoid impacts to residences on NM 109.
• The option to the north seems better. Although it’s longer, there are fewer impacts.
• The north alignment seems to be best, with the least impacts.
• Option D as amended by persons at the meeting to use BNSF property looks good.
Support for the Project
• I live here in Jarales. We have had meetings for the past 2½ or 3 years in support of this project and it is
moving forward because of a collaborative process between elected officials, community members, and the
railroad. The BNSF provides 500 jobs to the community and is our friend. This is a needed project. We have a
petition with 3,000 signatures supporting the project.
• I’m a city councilor in Belen. This is a needed project to accommodate safety, emergency vehicles, and
school buses. Look at the Aragon Road project. Someone may be impacted by the project, but safety and
progress need to go forward. Let’s get going with the project.
• Community concerns made this project happen and we appreciate the progress. Trust is an issue. This
project became the County’s number one priority, but money is an issue. Even with all the work, the money
may not show up. This meeting is a positive step.
• The no-build option is not an option.
• The no-build option is not an option. A bridge of some sort must be built.
• The bridge is long overdue for community safety and noise reduction.
Trains Blocking Existing Roadway
• I understand that trains are currently 2-miles long and some may be 3-miles long in the future. I’ve had to
wait for very long trains to pass. Has the existing fueling facility become obsolete?
• Do the railroad’s needs or community’s needs come first? My mother had a heart attack and the emergency
vehicles were delay by trains stopped on the track. We live in an area that is surrounded by pipelines and
the tracks. We are trapped if there is a fire. We should not lose any lives. What are you going to do for our
safety?
• Trains on the tracks have blocked my access to irrigation gates in the past. The project would be a good
thing to eliminate these kinds of delays.
• The trains that block the tracks are often not responsive to the needs of crossing motorists.
• The existing rail line crossing has negatively impacted my family several times as it is. My wife’s mother may
have died because the ambulance was not able to get to her in time to get her to the hospital and save her
life.
• Safety is an important concern for this project, for ambulances, etc. It’s a hassle to go all the way around and
takes 45 minutes.
• Because of increased length in the trains over the years, the wait for trains crossing right now is extremely
long as it is, and this project will only make those waits even longer also delaying farm and emergency
traffic. Years ago, the railroad used to provide a person to cut / break the train to allow passage. I suggest
that this is a solution if the trains are going to block the path for any longer than a standard wait which I
believe is 15 minutes. The wait is not realistic now and a break is maybe more practical. The break of trains
would help during the project and even now in the other crossing at Castiillo Road.
Environmental Concerns
• Past fuel spills have contaminated the environment and the water tastes bad.
• Historically, there have been fuel spills from accidents in the area. Impacts that affect me include piles of dirt
on my property and dust from the fueling yard. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there
are contamination plumes in the area’s soil and/or groundwater. Do you intend to do anything about the
dust as part of this project, for example put down asphalt on the unpaved areas causing the dust?
• I’m concerned about noise and diesel fuel spills.
Changes In the Community
• It’s important to follow the money. Once the project is done, the NMDOT is responsible for paying
maintenance costs forever. This project benefits the railroad. This is a low-income, minority area. We will
pay the maintenance costs through our taxes.
• I have a lot of family here. I’m concerned that the land inside the tear-shaped track will become a new rail
yard, which will impact our adobe culture. I’m not against progress but it has to be sensitive to the
community
Timing of Construction
• What is the time frame to start construction? How long will construction last?
• What can be done to expedite this process and accelerate the construction process? It seems that Valencia
County, Belen City, and NM State are eager to move forward with this project, what are the current
obstacles that need to be addressed in order to move this forward expeditiously?
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
7
Right-of-Way and Relocation Concerns
• How will home/land value be determined?
• Does BNSF have eminent domain pertaining to Jarales RR Bridge?
• Do home/land owners have leverage in bridge options and concessions on land?
Additional Meetings
• May I suggest that you schedule a meeting with only the home/land owners directly affected, without
professional lobbyists and politicians. Local voices, with the red x through their homes, need to be heard.
Maybe a certified letter would be appropriate.
Access to Property
• We are concerned about viable access for oversized agricultural equipment for farming our property. Please
provide a map, or source of the map, concerning the upcoming project that illustrates the irrigation facilities
within the proposed work area.
• Please consider in your design for the project, the least loss of agricultural property and safety concerns
during the project as to emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire rescue departments. The other
concern during construction and completed project is to consider that farmers have to travel through to
farm and harvest crops. Most equipment today is going to need at least 18 ft. width to do so during the
project and once it’s complete. Perhaps a road on the side of the project can be provided once the
easements have been identified to allow farm equipment and emergency vehicles to pass.
Preference/Opposition for Alternatives
• Of the five plans discussed at the recent meeting, my family prefers Alternative A or B. On behalf of my
family, we strongly oppose Alternative E. Alternative E would take the road directly through the property
that has been the homelands of my family for no less than six generations. The map does not even recognize
it as a taking, as indicated by no "x" on the map just to the north of the bridge and where the yellow and
blue roadway indicators indicate the road will be repositioned pursuant to that Alternative. Also, since we
have not been informed of any specific plans for the rail line expansion or the rail yard expansion, we are
proceeding with our land management as though those plans do not affect us. If the BNSF plans to expand
into our lands or nearer our lands I would hope you would include interested landowners in the planning
process.
I currently live on the east side of Jarales Road. My neighbors and I have been speaking, and we are in
consensus that a bridge through the east side of Jarales Road would be a good thing. We are all willing to
sell for a fair replacement costs for our homes. I'm talking about the homes on the south side of the tracks
all the way to 529 Jarales Road.
I am only telling you this because we feel you should have all the facts. Of course, I cannot speak for my
neighbors on the west side of Jarales road. But from previous conversations with some of them, they do not
wish to leave the land that has been in their families for over a hundred years. They are proud farmers and
good people.
Plan C is the best plan for the Jarales Bridge.
I was reviewing the different plans for the Jarales Bridge and I would like to suggest that Plan “C” would
benefit the people of Jarales. It’s the only one that would help with all emergency situations and help the
families of Jarales!
Hello .....plan C is the better plan for the Jarales Bridge.
Meeting Notification
• Why wasn’t the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District included in the list of agency stakeholders?
• We are concerned that the first notice we received was through the newspaper, rather than by mail. Please
send all correspondence to me at my home address.
Access to the Presentation
• I would like to have access to the meeting presentation.
• Is this information available on a website? If not, when do you think it will be?
• Please send project maps.
• Would like copies of projected maps.
• Please send pdf of presentation.
• Communication for post meeting follow up has been very positive. Mr. Tom Brunton requested providing
additional comment and I am providing him with your contact information for that purpose. I did explain
that on an informal basis while you are in the process of completing your reports that you encourage those
comments. Tom also requested that if at all possible could a copy of the enlarged planned options displayed
at the meeting be made available for posting at our local Community Center in Jarales. If that is available
please let us know and we will make arrangements to pick them up. I think that to be an extremely positive
manner of maintaining community based engagement.
Responses to Public Involvement
The study team provided verbal responses to comments during the public meeting. Requests for hard copies or
digital versions of project maps or materials were accommodated and provided to the relevant members of the
public by the study team. One individual asked the study team to evaluate another alternative that would be located
farther to the northwest than the build alternatives (Alternatives A-E) presented at the public meeting. In response
to this comment, the study team developed the Alternative F, which is analyzed herein. Further comments from the
public were also incorporated into the analysis of this Phase I A/B report.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
8
III. Existing Conditions
Roadway and Rail Crossing
Existing NM 109 is an undivided, two-lane, major collector that runs north/south from Jarales to the City of Belen. It
is the primary connection between the two communities. Intersecting roads include Castillo Road, Serafin Road, and
local streets. There are two undivided, at-grade signalized rail crossings. One consists of three railroad tracks and is
0.8 miles north of Castillo Road. The other consists of one railroad track and is 0.6 miles south of Serafin Road. The
land use is residential and agricultural. Access to properties adjacent to the corridor is provided off NM 109. The
posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (MPH). Reference Figure 3.1-1 for a location map,
Figure 3.1-1 Location Map
Roadway Geometry
Horizontal Geometry
The existing horizontal alignment consists of a winding roadway alignment. A topographic survey was used to
recreate an approximate existing roadway centerline. Between Castillo Road and Serafin Road, there are
11 horizontal curves. These curves meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) horizontal curve criteria for a 40 MPH facility. Several of the curves are configured as reverse curves. In
this configuration, there is a minimum horizontal tangent between curves to allow for superelevation to transition.
Several locations do not meet this minimum tangent distance.
Vertical Geometry
The existing vertical geometry is level except for vertical grade raises at both at-grade rail crossings. The topography
survey was used to recreate an approximate existing roadway profile. The maximum grade of the roadway is 4.5%,
which meets AASHTO criteria.
Refer to Table 3.1-1 for a summary of existing and minimum/desirable design roadway geometry.
Table 3.1-1 Existing and Minimum/Desirable Design Roadway Geometry
Roadway Element Existing Condition Minimum/Desirable Design Criteria
(Proposed Roadway)
Design Speed 40 MPH 40 MPH
Posted Speed 40 MPH 40 MPH
Stopping Sight Distance 305 ft.
Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius 550 ft. 485 ft.
Maximum Grade 4.5% 5.0%
Maximum Superelevation Rate 6.0% 6.0%
Typical Sections
The existing roadway typical section consists of two 11 ft. travel lanes with 1-2 ft. shoulders. The existing cross
slopes vary from 1.5% to 3.5% across both travel lanes. Figure 3.1-2 depicts the existing typical section. Table 3.1-2
refers to existing typical section and minimum/desirable design conditions.
Figure 3.1-2 Existing Typical Section
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
9
Table 3.1-2 Existing and Minimum/Desirable Design Cross Section Criteria
Roadway Element Existing Condition Minimum/Desirable Design Criteria
(Proposed Roadway)
Lane Width 11 ft. 12 ft.
Shoulder Width 1 ft. - 2 ft. 5 ft.
Cross Slope Variable (1.5% - 3.5%) 2.0%
Pavement Condition
Existing pavements exhibit longitudinal and transverse cracking, weathering, raveling, and oxidation.
Pedestrian and Multimodal
The existing narrow shoulders on NM 109 do not provide adequate space for pedestrians and multimodal
transportation. AASHTO recommends a 4 ft. minimum shoulder width.
Traffic
Traffic and Train Counts
Existing traffic volume counts were taken on site in January 2020, over a 2-day period beginning Tuesday,
January 14, 2020. During that period, traffic volumes on NM 109 and on Trujillo Road in both directions were
counted independently using tube type vehicle counters located north and east of the intersection of NM 109 at
Trujillo Road. Trujillo Road was included as it represents the crossroad located within the end limits of studied
alternatives with the highest traffic volume. Data collected at the two tube count locations included volume, speed,
and FHWA vehicle classification.
Video cameras were used to capture pedestrian, bicycle, car, and truck turning movement volumes at the
intersection of NM 109 at Trujillo Road. The counts were collected from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Tuesday,
January 14, 2020. One northbound bicycle and one southbound bicycle entered the intersection during the 12-hour
count. No pedestrians entered the intersection.
The reports generated from the counting effort are included in Appendix D. The existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
volume on NM 109 based on the counts is 860 vehicles per day (vpd). The associated morning AM peak traffic
volume is 85 vehicles per hour (vph). The afternoon PM peak traffic volume is 93 vph. On Trujillo Road, the ADT
based on counts is 110 vpd, with 13 vph during the AM peak hour and 22 vph during the PM peak hour. Existing
train counts average 90 trains per day per BNSF provided information.
Since traffic counts for one average day do not represent the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume on a
roadway segment, data was obtained from the NMDOT Traffic Monitoring Division. Reported data indicates 2018
AADT on NM 109 in the project vicinity is 1708 vehicles per day (vpd). 10 year forecast AADT is 1963 vpd. Straight
line interpolation results in a 2020 existing year AADT of 1759 vpd. Heavy commercial truck volume is 6%, resulting
in 105 trucks per day in 2020.
Vehicle Classification Traffic data collected in January included categorization of traffic according to the FHWA
classification categories. These classifications are based on the overall vehicle size, weights and intended purposes.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the tube counter based classification. The limitations include
limited lane coverage and understanding the tube can be displaced or dislodged. However, as used under the
project site conditions, it provides some insight to the type of traffic which can be expected on NM 109 at this
location.
Classification categories 1, 2 and 3, which include motorcycles, cars and pickup trucks, make up the highest
percentage of road users at 95%, which is consistent with the rural residential and agricultural nature of the land
along NM 109 in and near the project study area. The combined total of 2-axle and 3-axle, Single Unit Truck vehicles
represents 3.6% of the total vehicles. The combined total of 4, 5, and 6 axle trucks represents 1.4% of the total
vehicles. Since classification counts for one average day do not represent the average annual percentage of daily
truck volume, data was obtained from the NMDOT Traffic Monitoring Division. Reported truck percentage on NM
109 in the project area is 6%.
For Trujillo Road, classification categories 1, 2, and 3 represent 99% of the total vehicles. Category 5, 2-axle single
unit trucks, represents 1% of total vehicles.
A brief description of the common vehicle classes is included below. The full listing of the classifications and
descriptions is included in Appendix D.
• Class 1: Motorcycles
• Class 2: Passenger cars, includes all cars, cars with one or two-axle trailers.
• Class 3: Other two-axle, 4-tire single unit vehicles, includes pick-up trucks and vans with or without one
or two-axle trailers.
• Class 5: Two-axle, six-tire single-unit trucks.
Existing Road/Rail Traffic Conditions
NM 109 is currently classified as a Major Collector on NMDOT’s FHWA Approved Functional Classification Map
(NMDOT 2015) and MRCOG’s Future 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Long Range Roadway System
Map (MRCOG 2015). The roadway is designated as an Existing Bicycle Route on the MTP 2040 Long Range Bicycle
System Map (MRCOG 2015). The distance between the grade crossing signals for the three-existing railroad tracks is
approximately 110 ft.
When trains cross NM 109, existing delays may be substantial. Current train lengths are approximately 10,000 ft. If
BNSF operations staff are aware that the crossing will be occupied for an extended period of time they contact
Valencia County emergency dispatch; however, interference with local traffic and emergency services have been a
cause of community concern in the past.
During traffic counts conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 14 and 15, 2020, northbound traffic was
delayed when a train was stopped and blocked the railroad crossing. For the brief period during the counts, some of
the northbound traffic was observed to make a u-turn and travel south on NM 109. A local resident commented that
trains can block the NM 109 crossing for long periods of time.
Another observation made occurred at the intersection of NM 109 and Trujillo Road. Two school buses use the
vacant area between the two Trujillo Road connections to NM 109 as a bus stop. They travel NB on NM 109, then
turn right at the north connector and pull off to make pick up/drop off. They then make a u-turn and travel south on
NM 109. Two parent vehicles also used the vacant area for parking before and after the school bus stops.
Projected Roadway/Rail Crossing Operations
The BNSF Railway intends to construct six additional tracks with an allowance for two future tracks through the
corridor for a potential total of 11 tracks, to add capacity for the fueling facility in the railway’s adjacent Belen Yard.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
10
In addition, the BNSF Railway intends to introduce 16,000 ft. long trains in lieu of the currently used 10,000 ft. long
trains. These additional tracks and longer trains would cause additional delay at the NM 109 crossing for private and
commercial vehicles, emergency vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The current study is intended to directly address
these projected operational issues.
Safety
Crash data was made available for this study for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 from the NMDOT
Planning and Safety Division. Overall along NM 109 between the south connection with Amigos Loop and Cam De
Crystal, a distance of 1.0 mile, there were 6 crashes reported as follows:
1. 2015: Improper turn into fixed object – mailbox – property damage (PD) only.
2. 2015: Vehicle 1 backed from parked position into vehicle 2 – PD only.
3. 2015: Vehicle 1 crashed into vehicle 2 from opposite direction – no driver error entered – PD only.
4. 2016: Vehicle 1 crashed into vehicle 2 same direction – driver inattention – Class C possible injury.
5. 2016: Vehicle 1 crashed into vehicle 2 same direction – no driver error entered – Class C possible injury.
6. 2018: Vehicle 1 crashed into vehicle 2 turning right – excessive speed – Class B visible injury.
Note: Crash number 3 occurred at the second set of railroad tracks. The remaining crashes listed above were not
located at the railroad crossing.
Three of the six crashes (numbered 4, 5, and 6 above) occurred on a Sunday morning between 9:30 AM and 12
Noon, with clear weather, no driver impairment and local drivers.
Crash data was also made available for this study from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for U.S. DOT-AAR
Grade Crossing ID No. 019342H (NM 109). The data included highway-rail grade crossing accident/incident reports
as follows:
1. 2014: Rail equipment struck by highway user – property damage only.
2. 2009: Highway user drove around or thru gate and struck rail equipment – assume Class B visible injury.
3. 2007: Highway user drove around or thru gate and struck rail equipment – assume Class B visible injury.
4. 1987: Highway user drove around or thru gate and was struck by rail equipment – property damage only.
5. 1985: Highway user drove around or thru gate and was struck by rail equipment – assume Class B visible
injury.
Note: FRA accident/incident reports indicate injury but not injury type.
Crash rates were analyzed for NM 109 between the south connection with Amigos Loop and Cam De Crystal based
on the five years of data provided, plus the one FRA crash reported in 2014 listed above. Traffic volumes are based
on AADT provided by the NMDOT Traffic Monitoring Division.
The calculated crash rate is 218 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The 2018 State Wide Crash Rate for
All Highways is 171 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The crash rate indicates a somewhat higher
number of crashes occur on this one mile stretch of roadway compared to statewide averages. However, if two
marginal property damage only crashes are removed from the calculation (back into parked car, and run into
mailbox), the resulting crash rate is only 156 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled which indicates traffic
safety does not appear to be an issue of significant concern through the project study area.
Utilities
Both buried and overhead utilities exist along the NM 109 corridor. These utilities frequently cross the roadway to
provide service to adjacent properties. If additional right-of-way is required for the reconfiguration of NM 109, it is
possible that additional existing utilities and utility owners would be impacted. Utility owner information is
summarized in Table 3.1-3.
Table 3.1-3 Existing Utility Owner Information
Utility Owner
Communication Comcast
Communication Centurylink
Electric Public Service Company of New Mexico
Gas New Mexico Gas Company
Right-of-Way
Existing right-of-way is variable through the NM 109 corridor and is divided into three sections. Table 3.1-4
summarizes the right-of-way width of these locations. The Valencia County Parcel Map was used as a reference for
right-of-way locations.
Table 3.1-4 Right-of-Way Summary
Region Location Average Right-of-Way Width
1 Trujillo Rd to the South Rail Crossing 50 ft.
2 South Rail Crossing to Gallegos Rd 30 ft.
3 Gallegos Rd to the North Rail Crossing 50 ft.
Geotechnical
Regional Geology
The project area occupies a portion of the Central Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande Valley is a small portion of an
interconnected series of north-south aligned grabens and structural basins which have subsided between mountain
and highland uplifts comprising the Rio Grande rift. This region contains mesas to the west of the project site with
north-south normal faults and volcanic deposits. The project area is characterized by flat topography and floodplain
deposits. In between the floodplain and mesas, the geology is characterized by Holocene eolian deposits. The main
channel of the Rio Grande is about 0.8 miles east of the project site.
Site Geology
Site geologic conditions at the project site are consistent with the regional geology. The surficial geologic formations
found at and near the project site are depicted in Figure 3.1-3 and are described as follows:
• Qfp: Historic floodplain of the Rio Grande between valley margins and artificial barriers such as levees
and irrigation ditches. The soils consist predominantly of sand, silt, and clay with varying amounts of gravel.
Up to about 100 ft. in thickness. Interfingers with and is overlain by Qae at valley margins.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
11
• Qae: Holocene and Late Pleistocene sandy and pebbly alluvium and local eolian sand sheets in generally
low relief aprons and arroyo channels along valley margins. Up to 25 ft. in thickness. Interfingers with and
overlies Qfp.
Figure 3.1-3 Geologic Map
Social, Cultural, Environmental Conditions
General Environmental Setting
The project area is located within the Rio Grande Rift physiographic province, in the Albuquerque basin, one of a
series of structural basins between Colorado and Texas that arose during the formation of the Rio Grande Rift
(Kelley 1952). The proposed project is situated on the historic floodplain in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, roughly
21 miles above the San Acacia constriction (Rawlings 2003). The geology of the project area is dominated by
Quaternary age alluvium and Santa Fe group sediments and is correlative to the Los Padillas formation (Rawlings
2003). The Los Padillas formation experienced its last entrenching during the late Pleistocene and was backfilled
with alluvium to its current state during the mid-Holocene (Connell, Love, and Dunbar 2007).
The proposed project area includes a 1.1-mile stretch of Jarales Road that services residences, and farms. Irrigation
ditches in the project area include the Lower Arroyos Acequia, Belen Waste Ditch, and Sanchez Drain. The elevation
in the project area remains relatively static throughout the project area, at approximately 4,800 ft. above mean sea
level (amsl).
The area has a semi-arid climate. The summer months (June through August) experience average temperature highs
of 92-95 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and average lows of 54-62 degrees F. In the winter months (December through
February), average temperature highs are 50-58 degrees F and average lows are 18-23 degrees F. Average yearly
precipitation is 7.6 inches, of which 4.8 inches accumulates as snowfall. Almost half of the mean annual precipitation
falls during the North American monsoon in the months of July through September (Western Regional Climate
Center 2020).
Natural Resources
Geology and Soils
Within the project area, the surface geology is comprised entirely of historic Rio Grande floodplain alluvium
consisting of sand, silt, and clay (Rawlings 2003). The project area is comprised of a dynamic mosaic of eleven soil
types ranging from 1 to 29 percent of the project area (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service 2019). All eleven of the soil types found in the project area are derived from alluvial parent
material. At 28.6 percent of the project area, Gila loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes MLRA 42-1 is the most abundant type
of soil. At 0.5 percent of the project area, Brazito sandy clay loam with a thick surface is the least abundant soil type.
See Table 3.1-5 for a complete list of soils and percent compositions – along with their unique features.
Table 3.1-5. Project Area Soils
Soil Type % of
Project
Area
Parent
Material
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Hydric
Soil
(Y/N)
Unique Feature
Agua loam 5.3 Mixed
alluvium
B No Farmland of statewide
importance
Belen clay loam 1.9 Clayey
alluvium
D No Farmland of statewide
importance
Belen clay loam,
moderately alkali
4.9 Clayey
alluvium
B No Farmland of statewide
importance
Brazito sandy clay loam,
thick surface
0.5 Mixed
alluvium
C No Farmland of statewide
importance
Gila loamy fine sand 9.8 Recent
alluvium
C No Farmland of statewide
importance
Gila loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes MLRA 42-1
28.6 Coarse-
loamy
alluvium
derived from
igneous,
metamorphic
and
sedimentary
rock
B No Farmland of statewide
importance
Gila loam, slightly saline 8.7 Recent
alluvium
C No Farmland of statewide
importance
Gila loam, strongly saline
and alkali
5.8 Recent
alluvium
C No Not prime farmland
Vinton loamy fine sand,
slightly saline
12.7 Alluvium
derived from
igneous,
metamorphic
and
sedimentary
rock
B No Farmland of statewide
importance
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
12
Soil Type % of
Project
Area
Parent
Material
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Hydric
Soil
(Y/N)
Unique Feature
Vinton loam 12.4 Alluvium
derived from
igneous,
metamorphic
and
sedimentary
rock
B No Farmland of statewide
importance
Vinton loam, loamy subsoil
variant MLRA 42
9.4 Alluvium
derived from
igneous,
metamorphic
and
sedimentary
rock
C No Farmland of statewide
importance
Vegetation
The project area is semi-rural, characterized by agricultural fields and housing developments; the historic Rio Grande
floodplain is situated between artificial barriers including levees and irrigation ditches. Although the entire project
area occupies historic floodplain riparian habitat (Dick-Peddie 1993), it is currently composed of a mosaic of housing
developments, agricultural farmland, alkali sinks, and early successional floodplain riparian habitat. Woodland areas
are dominated by plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis), and Siberian elm (Ulmus
pumila). Large patches of alkali sinks exist within this recent floodplain riparian area as well.
The New Mexico Department of Agriculture lists certain species as noxious weeds. “Noxious” in this context means
plants not native to New Mexico, which are targeted for management and control, and have a negative impact on
the economy or environment. Class C listed weeds are common, widespread species that are fairly well established
within the state. Class B weeds are considered common, but not widespread within certain regions of the state.
Class A weeds have limited distributions within the state. Given the disturbed nature of the project area, particularly
along the early successional floodplain riparian areas, it is likely that noxious weeds occur in the project area.
Wildlife
Reptiles that occur regularly in the vicinity of the proposed project include eastern fence lizards (Sceloporus
undulatus), New Mexico whiptails (Aspidoscelis neomexicanas), garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), gopher snakes
(also known as bullsnakes; Pituophis catenifer), ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata), coachwhip snakes (Masticophis
flagellum), and western diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox). Mammals that are likely to occur near the
project area include muskrat striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), pocket gopher
(Thomomys species), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Coyote (Canis latrans), common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),
and rock squirrels (Spermophilus variegatus) are also commonly encountered in the area during the warmer months.
Migratory birds (including waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds) are quite abundant along the adjacent Rio Grande
and commonly feed in the agricultural fields and ditches occupying the project area. The river valley and
surrounding uplands support several raptors, including American kestrel (Falco sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Many of these birds, as well as some other types of
terrestrial wildlife, are supported by a diversity of insect life that occurs along the Middle Rio Grande, including
native bees and wasps, dozens of species of butterflies, and dragonflies.
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
The USFWS has responsibility for implementing the Endangered Species Act, including listing species as threatened
or endangered, and protecting these species. The State of New Mexico lists wildlife species as endangered,
threatened, or sensitive. The New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department Forestry Division
has statutory responsibility for the State Endangered Plant Species List.
A list of protected plant and animal species was compiled from the USFWS (USFWS 2020a) and the New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M 2020) websites. This list was
developed by identifying species listed for Valencia County.
Fourteen threatened or endangered plant and animal species and three designated critical habitats occur or may
occur within Valencia County (BISON-M 2020). No designated or proposed critical habitat for federally protected
species occurs within the project area (USFWS 2020a). Potential habitat is present in the vicinity of the project for
three state-listed species: common ground dove (Columbina passerina), broad-billed hummingbird (Cynanthus
latirostris), and Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii). Other state-listed species may forage in the area or pass through during
migration.
Water Resources
Surface Water
Waters of the United States (WUS) are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3 (b) and are protected by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1344), which is administered and enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). Section 404 of the CWA provides for the protection of WUS through regulation of the discharge of dredged
or fill material. Water quality within the project area is regulated through Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA and
enforced by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Surface Water Quality Bureau.
Several hydrological features occur within the project area, including the historic Rio Grande floodplain and ditches
and drains used to irrigate farmland from the water of the Rio Grande. The surface water in this area is administered
by the MRGCD, which diverts water from the Rio Grande at the Isleta diversion. During irrigation season, water from
the Rio Grande is diverted into these acequias, irrigations canals, and smaller ditches. The irrigation water that does
not recharge the ground water, evaporates or evapotranspirates, then enters waste ways or interior drains that
return the water to the Rio Grande (Bartolino and Cole 2002). The entire project area falls within the boundary of
the Middle Rio Grande Administrative Area. Within the project area are three main hydrological features: (1)
Sanchez Interior Drain, (2) New Belen Wasteway, and (3) Lower Arroyos Acequia. Construction activity within the
ordinary high-water mark of these drainages would require permitting through the USACE under the CWA. A Section
404 Nationwide Permit would likely apply to the project if the discharge of dredged or fill material does not cause
the loss of greater than ½ acre. A permit would also be required from the MRGCD for work within their irrigation
facilities.
Groundwater
The proposed project area is in the greater Albuquerque basin (Kelly 1952), also referred to as the Middle Rio
Grande basin (Bartolino and Cole 2002). The Albuquerque basin is an asymmetrical and elongated basin that extends
from Cochiti damn to the north and the San Acacia Constriction to the South; it is approximately 90 miles long by
30 miles wide (Kelly, 1953). The water in the Albuquerque basin is supplied by the Santa Fe group aquifer system,
which is thousands of feet thick and primarily composed of silt and sand with lesser quantities of clay and gravel
(Bartolino and Cole 2002). Thirty-one wells occur within the project area with an average depth to ground water of
13 ft. below the ground surface (New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 2020). However, shallower groundwater
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
13
conditions should be anticipated at or near MRGCD crossings. The groundwater depth estimates are based on
conditions at the time of field exploration and may not be indicative of other times, or other locations. Groundwater
conditions can change with varying seasonal and weather conditions, and other factors. De-watering of groundwater
during construction would be regulated under the NPDES program of the CWA.
Wetlands
Wetlands include those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. To be
jurisdictional and protected from unauthorized dredge and fill activities under Section 404 of the CWA, a wetland
must have a significant connection to a known jurisdictional, navigable waterway. The National Wetlands Inventory
Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2020b) indicates several types of wetlands associated with the seasonally flooded Rio
Grande; however, there are none mapped in the proposed project area. The mapper does indicated that the
drainage/wasteway/acequias are Excavated Riverine wetlands, indicating that they are man-made.
Historic and Cultural Resources
To identify potential cultural resources and historic properties near the project area, a records review was
conducted with the New Mexico Cultural Resources Inventory System (NMCRIS) managed by the Archaeological
Resource Management Section (ARMS) of the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division (HPD). Additionally, a
limited field reconnaissance was conducted of the built environment. Results from the NMCRIS search identified
eight previously recorded cultural resources within approximately 1600 ft. of the project area—all of which are
considered historic properties or are listed on the State Register of Cultural Properties (SRCP) or the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Several of the identified cultural resources were outside of the project area,
including a segment of the Old Jarales Acequia (HCPI 45666), which dates to at least 1896 and possibly as early as
the 1700s. Additionally, there is a segment of an unnamed lateral of the Old Jarales Acequia (HCPI 45667) and a
segment of an unnamed lateral acequia (HCPI 44287) dating to at least 1949.
Cultural resources identified in NMCRIS within the project area include:
• A portion of the Camino Real de Tierra de Adentro (State Register [SR] 1952) National Historic Trail (NHT),
the oldest long-distance trade route in New Mexico, which extended all the way from Mexico City north to
the silver districts of Chihuahua and thence to San Gabriel del Yunque by 1598. The Camino Real NHT in the
project Area is the alignment of NM 109, although there is also an alternate segment on the east side of the
Rio Grande near Jarales.
• The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Railway (AT&SF) Belen Cutoff (HCPI 31896) segment from Madrone to
Belen, which was constructed from February 1-11, 1903.
• Segments of three different components of the local irrigation system, including the Sanchez Drain (LA
116045), the Arroyos Ditch (LA 116046), and the Belen Waste Ditch (LA 116047). All these acequias or drains
were present in 1935 when the MRGCD acquired the irrigation system.
In addition to the resources identified in NMCRIS, the reconnaissance survey identified 30 historic buildings greater
than 50 years old in the project area. Construction dates for the buildings ranged from the early 1900s to the late
1960s. The most common architectural styles for historic buildings in the project area are the local variant of the
New Mexico Vernacular exhibiting corrugated metal-clad gable roofs with lower-pitch than those found further
north, Pueblo Revival, Four-Square or Hipped Box, and Ranch. These buildings are all either unmodified but in very
poor condition or in better condition with many modifications. None of the historic buildings would likely be
considered eligible to the NRHP under any criteria.
Social Resources
Community Resources
Community context includes potential project-related effects on emergency preparedness, residential areas or
community facilities, access, community cohesion, and provision of pedestrian and multimodal access.
The project would maintain and enhance the existing connection from Jarales and surrounding rural areas to the
center of commerce and employment in Belen as well as emergency services in the surrounding area. Currently,
when trains cross NM 109, delays may be substantial. Delays caused by trains blocking NM 109 were one of the
major issues identified by the community during an initial public involvement meeting held on June 11, 2019 at the
Gil Sanchez Elementary School in Jarales. With continued growth of BNSF Railway’s inter-state operations, along
with the proposed addition of tracks through the NM 109 crossing, delays are anticipated to increase. For example,
under this plan, the width of the crossing would expand, likely affecting adjacent land uses and travel. In addition,
the proposed introduction of 16,000 ft. long trains in lieu of the currently used 10,000 ft. long trains would cause
additional delays at the NM 109 crossing. These delays on NM 109 can significantly impede response times for
emergency response vehicles, which can have severe consequences to patients requiring emergency treatment, or
to citizens needing the police or fire department. There are currently no hospitals or trauma centers within Valencia
County; therefore, trauma patients must be transported to the closest hospitals located in downtown Albuquerque.
As such, the project would enhance response capabilities of police, fire, and emergency medical services.
Community resources in the Jarales area include a U.S. Post Office, Jarales Community Center, Gil Sanchez
Elementary School, Jarales Fire Department, Jarales Catholic Church, several businesses, and significant residential
development. The Belen area includes basic medical care, police, emergency services, the Belen School District, and
other community facilities serving the entire region. The proposed project would improve regional mobility and
would not directly affect local public institutions or businesses; however, because of a range of physical, regulatory,
and engineering constraints, property acquisition is required for all proposed project alternatives, including rights-
of-way for the roadway and parcels impacted due to removal of localized access, and/or structures.
Transportation projects may affect community cohesion; for example, split neighborhoods, isolate portions of
neighborhoods or ethnic groups, generate unwanted development, change property values, or separate residents
from community facilities. To the south of the crossing there are numerous residences adjacent to the road with
direct access from driveways or perpendicular local streets (e.g., Duke Road, Audra Court, Trujillo Road, Amigos
Loop, and others). To the north, there are a few adjacent residences and connecting roads (e.g., Lazy Lane, Gallegos
Road, and Camino de Crystal), but much of the land is vacant. The proposed project would create a localized barrier
for travel across NM 109 for the distance of the bridge structure and retaining walls, which varies from about 3,000
to 4,500 ft. for the various alternatives. Although some localized changes in access to the surrounding
neighborhoods would occur with each alternative, the project would maintain overall connection to the existing
street system and enhance broader access in Jarales. Based on this, significant disruption to community access or
cohesion is not anticipated to result from the project.
Pedestrian, bicycle, and multimodal access is an important consideration in community health and wellbeing.
Although only limited count data for bikes and pedestrians are available, NM 109 is designated as an Existing Bicycle
Route on the MRCOG’s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Long Range Bicycle System Map (MRCOG 2015). But
existing shoulders on NM 109 are typically less than 2-ft. wide and are currently inadequate for bike and pedestrian
use. The addition of tracks without a grade separation would exacerbate the difficulty in crossing the rail line;
however, the proposed project would directly address this issue and include facilities for bicycles and pedestrians.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
14
Demographics and Environmental Justice
Community context includes civil rights and environmental justice considerations, which relate to potential
disproportionate adverse impacts on minority, low-income, or other special-status populations. Data from the U.S.
Census Bureau (2017) were reviewed to characterize economic and demographic information about the project
area. The regional context of the project includes the State of New Mexico, Valencia County, and the adjacent City of
Belen. The project is contained within two Census Tracts (9709.1 and 9709.2); however, the tract boundaries extend
broadly to the north and south and include parts of the City of Belen. The Jarales Census Designated Place (CDP) was
considered more representative of the area because its boundaries are consolidated around the project. Table 3.1-6
provides an overview of demographic and economic characteristics. Compared to statewide data, Valencia County,
and City of Belen averages, the Jarales CDP area has a higher percentage of Hispanic people. Incomes in the Jarales
CDP are comparable to those in Valencia County, higher than the City of Belen, and slightly below the statewide
averages. Poverty levels in the Jarales CDP, however, are below those in the State of New Mexico, Valencia County,
and City of Belen. Because the project is restricted to a limited area and addresses a specific facility, rather than
ranging across a wide spectrum of neighborhoods with significantly different demographic characteristics, it is not
expected that any of the project alternatives would have disproportionate adverse impacts on minority, low-income,
or other special-status populations.
Table 3.1-6. Comparison of Project Area Demographic Characteristics
New Mexico Valencia County Jarales CDP City of Belen
Total Population 2,084,828 100.0% 75,845 100.0% 2,054 100.0% 7,125 100.0%
Race and Ethnicity
White 1,547,843 74.2% 61,227 80.7% 1,690 82.3% 6,885 82.4%
African American 42,187 2.0% 716 0.9% 91 4.4% 46 0,6%
Native American 197,191 9.5% 3,302 4.4% 0 0.0% 495 6.9%
Asian 29,991 1.4% 586 0.8% 5 0.2% 0 0.0%
Pacific Islander 1,390 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Some other race 197,944 9.5% 7,743 10.2% 162 7.9% 475 6.7%
Two or more races 68,282 3.3% 2,271 3.0% 106 5.2% 240 3.4%
Hispanic 1,004,103 48.2% 45,505 60.0% 1,482 72.2% 4,271 59.9%
Age (years)
Under 5 131,062 6.3% 4,488 5.9% 127 6.2% 492 6.9%
5-9 140,361 6.7% 4,750 6.3% 96 4.7% 560 7.9%
10-14 142,616 6.8% 5,917 7.8% 166 8.1% 482 6.8%
15-19 139,735 6.7% 5,321 7.0% 122 5.9% 559 7.8%
20-24 149,424 7.2% 4,805 6.3% 168 8.2% 667 9.4%
25-34 278,395 13.4% 8,917 11.8% 229 11.1% 925 13.0%
New Mexico Valencia County Jarales CDP City of Belen
35-44 244,717 11.7% 8,865 11.7% 237 11.5% 538 7.6%
45-54 258,110 12.4% 10,256 13.5% 262 12.8% 924 13.0%
55-59 140,633 6.7% 5,440 7.2% 143 7.0% 310 4.4%
60-64 131,093 6.3% 4,968 6.6% 105 5.1% 482 6.8%
65-74 194,658 9.3% 7,363 9.7% 251 12.2% 672 9.4%
75-84 97,707 4.7% 3,607 4.8% 106 5.2% 304 4.3%
85 and over 36,317 1.7% 1,148 1.5% 42 2.0% 210 2.9%
Income
Median Household
Income $46,718 X $43,428 X $41,061 X $29,705 X
Per Capita Income $25,257 X $20,572 X $20,737 X $15,947 X
Families Below Poverty X 15.6% X 17.5% X 3.4% X 26.2%
All People Below Poverty X 20.6% X 22.0% X 5.5% X 30.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017
Economic and Land Use Issues
The largest industries in the Jarales/Belen area are retail trade, health care and social assistance, and
accommodation and food services. Transportation is also an important economic sector; the Belen rail yard is one of
the largest rail facilities in the state and one of Valencia County's single biggest employers. The proposed project
would allow the BNSF Railway to accommodate fueling the larger 16,000 ft. long trains currently being introduced
and thus provide more efficient operations. It would also reduce delay and lost time for commuters and other
travelers on NM 109. There are no businesses within the area directly impacted by the project.
The proposed project would likely induce land use changes in what is now a rural residential neighborhood along
NM 109. The project would result in acquisition and relocation of as many as 18 residences currently located
adjacent to the alternative alignments. In addition, some secondary roads that currently intersect NM 109 would
require relocation, depending on alternative, which would result in changes in access to surrounding properties.
Relocations and right-of-way acquisition would follow state guidelines that ensure fair compensation to property
owners; nevertheless, the project is likely to affect the economic and land use character of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Farmlands
The Farmland Protection Policy Act was enacted to minimize the irreversible conversion of farmland to
nonagricultural use and to assure that federal programs are administered in a manner that would be compatible
with state and local government, and private programs to protect farmland (7 USC 4201 et seq.). Most of the soils
(about 95 percent) in the project area are classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (see Table 3.1-5) and some properties in the project area are currently irrigated and used for
agricultural production. Because the project alternatives utilize or are adjacent to existing roads or disturbed
developed areas, impacts to farmland are expected to be negligible.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
15
Visual Resources
The visual landscape of the project area consists primarily of rural residential and agricultural land uses along NM
109. The Manzano Mountains form a distant background to the east. There are currently no aesthetic treatments or
themes that unify the visual character of the corridor. A crossing structure carrying NM 109 over the railroad tracks
would be visible from the surrounding land and would likely affect the aesthetic qualities of the area.
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act is intended to prevent air quality impacts that cause or contribute to violations of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Air Quality Control Regions are interstate or intrastate areas designated by
the Environmental Protection Agency for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The project area falls
within the Albuquerque-Mid Rio Grande Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 152. There are no areas such as
national parks or wilderness areas near the project that have been established as mandatory Class I areas under the
Clean Air Act. Valencia County is in attainment of all current air quality standards.
Some temporary impacts on air quality may be expected from dust during construction. Standard air quality best
management practices would be implemented, including using a water truck to wet exposed soils to minimize
generation of dust. Construction equipment would be in good mechanical condition with proper exhaust controls to
limit the effects of emissions to local air quality.
The proposed study would constitute a short-term minor increase in the use of fossil fuel and associated greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions during construction. The GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be limited
to short-term use of construction equipment. In the longer term, implementation of the proposed project is not
expected to increase traffic along NM 109, rather it would eliminate delays at the railroad crossing and thus reduce
higher emission levels from idling vehicles. The project is not expected to contribute appreciably to GHG emissions
or to climate change.
Noise
The NMDOT’s noise policies and procedures are based on the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement
Guidance (2011) and are described in the NMDOT Infrastructure Design Directive IDD-2011-02, Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (NMDOT 2011). Under the NMDOT’s policy, a noise
analysis is required for a “Type I” project. A Type I project involves the construction of a highway on a new location
or the physical alteration of an existing highway, which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical
alignment, increases the number of through traffic lanes, or modifies the existing typical section. The proposed
project meets the definition of a Type I project.
Noise-sensitive receivers in the project area include single-family residences along NM 109 and in the areas east and
west of the proposed bridge facility. Although traffic volumes and speeds are relatively low, raising the elevation of
NM 109 at the railroad crossing would project noise outward into the surrounding neighborhoods. Currently, noise
from traffic on NM 109 is at least partially abated beyond the first row of properties along the existing roadway by
terrain, structures, and other natural features. Noise abatement may be needed where noise levels increase
substantially as a result of the project. An analysis of noise impacts, mitigation options, and federal and state noise
abatement criteria would be performed as part of project implementation. Public involvement would be part of this
process.
Hazardous Materials
A review of several federal and state environmental databases indicated that no documented releases of petroleum
products or other hazardous materials have occurred within 1 mile of the project area (GeoSearch 2020). The BNSF
fueling facility in Belen operates under discharge permit (DP) 278 issued by the NMED (NMED 2018). After
processing in oil/water separators and removal and disposal of contaminated sediment and used oil, DP-278
authorizes BNSF to discharge up to 8,250 gallons per day of wastewater from spilled grease, diesel fuel, wash-down
water, and precipitation runoff from three locomotive fueling platforms and the rail tank car fuel offloading area
into two synthetically lined evaporative impoundments. These impoundments are located 1.07 miles from the
proposed crossing at NM 109. The NMED’s online Enviromapper did not indicate any violations or enforcement
actions against the facility (NMED 2020). Contamination from hazardous materials was identified as a concern at the
public involvement meeting, and this issue will be investigated in greater detail as part of the project development
and environmental documentation process.
Section 4(f)
As part of the Section 4(f) requirements, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) evaluates projects for impacts
on public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. FHWA projects are required to
avoid such properties unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using a Section 4(f) property. If a 4(f)
property is used, the project must take steps to minimize harm to that property. Based on initial review of the
project area, the portion of the Camino Real NHT (SR 1952) along NM 109 and the Belen Cutoff (HCPI 31896)
segment may be potential Section 4(f) historic properties. Subsequent cultural resource surveys would identify any
qualified Section 4(f) historic properties.
Floodplains
The entirety of the project area and the majority of the cities of Belen and Jarales are within Zone A floodplain per
the current effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map dated 8/19/2010, as shown in Figure 3.1-4. In the previously
effective map dated 7/2/1991, the site was not in the floodplain. Per the Valencia County Floodplain Insurance
Study, the floodplain was increased as a result of a FEMA determination that the Rio Grande Levee provided
insufficient protection However, it should be noted that the USACE is currently advancing a project to improve the
levee along the river adjacent to the project area. The resulting floodplain spans 2 miles from State Highway 304
east of the river to I-25 west of the river, but has not been studied in detail to determine flood elevations. A
comparatively small overpass at the project site in a 2-mile-wide floodplain is unlikely to cause a rise, however any
fill may still need to be analyzed to verify a FEMA No-Rise condition.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
16
Figure 3.1-4 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
Constructing a model to demonstrate No-Rise presents a problem, as survey of the river channel and the residential
area between the levee and the site is not financially feasible. TKDA coordinated with Valencia County to determine
if a floodplain permit could be waived. Valencia County deferred potential floodplain permitting of the site to the
State Floodplain Coordinator at the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.
The State Floodplain Coordinator determined that any fill in the floodplain at the site will require a detailed analysis
to demonstrate a No-rise condition, and that compensatory storage for any fill should be provided. To avoid the
large financial cost of extensive channel survey, a preliminary approach was agreed upon with the State Floodplain
Coordinator to use channel geometry from the upstream detailed study ending at Los Chavez, completed site ditch
and topo survey, and available LIDAR to develop a two dimensional model of the Rio Grande, without the need for
channel survey. Correspondence regarding this direction is provided in Appendix G.
Drainage
The three main water bodies in the project area are the three drainage/irrigation ditches. All three of the channels
occur on MRGCD right-of-way, and all three are controlled by various screw and sluice gates. The MRGCD has
Ditchrider, Water Master, and Division Manager estimates of operational flow, which range from 20 to 45 cubic ft.
per second (cfs). Several inspection and status reports since 2008 have indicated that these are intermittently
abandoned. It is unclear if the MRGCD would require maintenance of these estimated flow rates, or if the ditches
are truly abandoned.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
17
IV. Project Purpose and Need The existing conditions within the project study area have been described in the previous sections. There are many
aspects of these conditions that demonstrate the need for improvements and need for the project. The following
sections summarize those critical conditions that clearly indicate Project Need.
Physical Deficiencies
The primary physical deficiency identified through the corridor is the limited shoulder space available for
pedestrians and multimodal transportation. The narrow shoulders do not provide adequate space for pedestrians or
bicyclists to travel.
Safety
Crash history has been reviewed for the area. The crash rate for the area is 2.18 crashes per million vehicle miles
(MVM) compared to the statewide average of 1.71 crasher per MVM for all highways (urban included). This rate is
considered to be well within the order of magnitude that might be expected with the existing site conditions and
traffic volumes. Though the crash rate does suggest some level of safety concern, removal of two marginal property
damage only crashes (back into parked car, and run into mailbox) results in a rate of 1.56 crashes per MVM, which
does not indicate a significant safety concern through the project study area. The existence of a road/rail at-grade
crossing is in of itself, however, a possible safety concern as indicated by the five highway user/rail equipment
crashes reported between 1985 and 2014 described in Section III Existing Conditions. Recognizing the possible
future configuration with the addition of up to 6 additional tracks, development of a grade separated crossing
eliminates any potential safety concerns associated with the interaction of pedestrian, multimodal, vehicular, and
rail traffic.
Travel Demand and Congestion
Currently, when trains cross NM 109, delays to vehicular traffic may be substantial and is a cause of community
concern. With continued growth of BNSF Railway’s inter-state operations, along with the proposed addition of
tracks through the NM 109 crossing, delays are anticipated to increase. These delays on NM 109 can significantly
impede response times for emergency response vehicles, which can have severe consequences to patients requiring
emergency treatment, or to citizens needing the police or fire department. There are currently no hospitals or
trauma centers within Valencia County; therefore, trauma patients must be transported to the closest hospitals
located in downtown Albuquerque. As such, the project would enhance response capabilities of police, fire, and
emergency medical services.
Access
NM 109 in the project area provides access to numerous driveways and several cross streets. NM 109 is a two-lane
rural Major Collector posted at 40 mph. Per the NMDOT State Access Management Manual, full access intersections
are ideally spaced a minimum of 660 ft. apart, driveways spaced a minimum of 300ft. apart, and driveways spaced
no closer than 300ft. to an adjacent intersection. The existing conditions provide less than the suggested 660 ft.
intersection spacing between Trujillo Road, Audra Court and Duke Road. There are 30 driveways spaced less than
300 ft. from adjacent driveways. In addition, there are 17 driveways that are spaced less than 300ft. from a nearby
intersection. This proposed grade separation project provides an opportunity to consolidate driveways and
intersections to better meet Access Management Manual guidelines.
System Connectivity
The current condition in which trains block access for extended periods on an importation major collector route
impedes connectivity between Jarales and points south to Belen and points north. There is a need to address this
condition to maintain the system connectivity of the existing roadway network.
In addition, NM 109 is designated as an Existing Bicycle Route on the MRCOG’s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan: Long Range Bicycle System Map (MRCOG 2015). Currently, the existing shoulders on NM 109 are inadequate
and present a serious danger for bicycle and pedestrian use. Moreover, the addition of tracks without a grade
separation would exacerbate the difficulty in crossing the rail corridor. Increased delay times may tempt pedestrians
to proceed into the crossing either through or between trains, creating a significant safety concern.
Project Purpose
The need for the project has been described based on the physical deficiencies, safety concerns, travel delays, and
multi-modal transportation conditions associated with the current crossing. Therefore, the purpose of the proposed
project is:
• To provide a safe, uninterrupted route for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic across the railroad
corridor that accommodates current and future rail operations.
These conditions are addressed by a grade-separated crossing.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
18
V. Description of Alternatives Seven alternatives were identified using the purpose and need criteria in Section IV. Alternatives A, C, D, E, and F
shift the horizontal alignment of NM 109. Alternative B follows the existing roadway alignment. Alternative G is the
no build option. Figure 5.1-2 depicts the alternative alignments in plan view. Layouts of each alternative are
provided in Appendix A.
The following is a list of the seven project alternatives:
A. 70 ft. west of in-place NM 109
B. In-line with in-place NM 109
C. 70 ft. east of in-place NM 109
D. 750 ft. west of in-place NM 109
E. 500 ft. east of in-place NM 109
F. 600 ft. west of in-place NM 109 on extended realignment
G. No build
Design Criteria
The design criteria for this project were based on meeting or exceeding the current design standards presented in
the current AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
A proposed 40 MPH design speed was used on NM 109. This matches the existing posted speed.
A standard typical section was used in the development of the alternatives. This includes two 12 ft. travel lanes and
5 ft. shoulders. The crown is 2%. On the bridge approaches, a combination of retaining walls and earthen
embankment are used to achieve a vertical grade raise. Figure 5.1-1 depicts the at grade proposed typical section.
Figure 5.1-1 Typical Section 1 – Roadway at Grade
Figure 5.1-2 Alignment Alternatives Plan View Summary
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
19
Preliminary Alternatives
Alternative A
Alignment Alternative A consists of the realignment and grade separation of NM 109 approximately 70 ft. west of
the in-place NM 109 rail crossing, as shown in Figure 5.1-3. The roadway realignment is approximately 0.6 miles long
with termini located 200 ft. north of the Trujillo Road intersection and 100 ft. north of the in-place Gallegos Road
intersection. The Audra Court and Gallegos Road intersections are recommended to be reconstructed to tie into the
proposed NM 109 alignment. Access to NM 109 is reconfigured southwest, southeast, and northeast of the
proposed NM 109 Bridge. In the southwest, access is routed through Audra Court. In the southeast, access is routed
off of the old NM 109 alignment and Trujillo Road. In the northeast, access is routed through Lazy Lane and Gallegos
Road.
Figure 5.1-3 Alignment Alternative A Plan View
Alternative B
Alignment Alternative B consists of a grade separation in-line with the in-place NM 109 alignment. The alternative is
0.6 miles long with termini located 50 ft. south of Audra Court and 350 ft. south of Camino De Crystal, as shown in
Figure 5.1-4. The Audra Court, Duke Road, and Gallegos Road intersections are recommended to be reconstructed to
tie into the proposed NM 109 alignment. Access to NM 109 is reconfigured southwest and southeast of the
proposed NM 109 Bridge. In the southwest, access is routed through Audra Court. In the southeast, Duke Road is
realigned and the intersection with NM 109 is shifted 300 ft. south of the in-place intersection.
Figure 5.1-4 Alignment Alternative B Plan View
Alternative C
Alignment Alternative C consists of the realignment and grade separation of NM 109 approximately 70 ft. east of in-
place NM 109 rail crossing. The roadway realignment is 0.7 miles long with termini located 200 ft. south of Audra
Court and at Camino De Crystal, as shown in Figure 5.1-5. The Audra Court, Duke Road and Gallegos Road
intersections are recommended to be reconstructed to tie into the proposed NM 109 alignment. Access to NM 109
is reconfigured southwest, southeast, and northwest of the proposed NM 109 Bridge. In the southwest, access is
routed through the old NM 109 alignment and Audra Court. In the Southeast, Duke Road is realigned and the
intersection with NM 109 moved 300 ft. south of the in-place intersection. In the northwest, access is routed
through the old NM 109 alignment.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
20
Figure 5.1-5 Alignment Alternative C Plan View
Alternative D
Alignment Alternative D consists of the realignment and grade separation of NM 109 approximately 750 ft. west of
in-place NM 109 rail crossing. The roadway realignment is 0.8 miles long with termini located 180 ft. south of Trujillo
Road and 400 ft. south of Comino De Crystal, as shown in Figure 5.1-6. The Trujillo Road, Audra Court, and Gallegos
Road intersections are recommended to be reconstructed to tie into the proposed NM 109 alignment. Access to NM
109 is reconfigured southeast and northeast of the proposed NM 109 Bridge. In the southeast, access is routed
through the old NM 109 alignment and Trujillo Road. In the northeast, access is routed through the old NM 109
alignment or Gallegos Road.
Figure 5.1-6 Alignment Alternative D Plan View
Alternative E
Alignment Alternative E consists of the realignment and grade separation of NM 109 approximately 500 ft. east of
in-place NM 109 rail crossing and follows the in-place Trujillo Road alignment for the first 0.3 miles. The roadway
realignment is 0.9 miles long with termini located at Amigos Loop and 400 ft. south of Camino De Crystal, as shown
in Figure 5.1-7. Trujillo Road and Gallegos Road intersections are recommended to be reconstructed to tie into the
proposed NM 109 alignment. Access to NM 109 is reconfigured southwest, southeast, and northwest of the
proposed NM 109 Bridge. In the southwest, access for Audra Court and Duke Road is routed through the old NM 109
alignment. In the southeast, Trujillo Road is widened and realigned, and the intersection with NM 109 is moved
900 ft. north. In the northwest, access is routed along the old NM 109 alignment.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
21
Figure 5.1-7 Alignment Alternative E Plan View
Alternative F
Alignment Alternative F consists of the realignment and grade separation of NM 109 approximately 675 ft. west of
in-place NM 109 rail crossing. The roadway realignment is 1.2 miles long with termini 120 ft. north of Amigos Loop
and at the North NM 109 Rail Crossing, as shown in Figure 5.1-8. The Trujillo Road and Audra Court intersections are
recommended to be reconstructed to tie into the proposed NM 109 Alignment. Access to NM 109 is reconfigured
southeast and northeast of the proposed NM 109 Bridge. In the southeast, access from Duke Road is routed through
Trujillo Road. In the northeast, access from Gallegos Road was routed along the old NM 109 alignment.
Figure 5.1-8 Alignment Alternative F Plan View
Alternative G – No Build
Alternative G involves leaving the rail crossing and NM 109 in-place.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
22
Initial Evaluation Criteria
An initial, screening-level evaluation was completed to eliminate alternatives that were clearly not feasible or
inferior to other alternatives. The objective of the Initial Evaluation of Alternatives was to review the major
differences between the alternatives on a qualitative level; therefore, detailed evaluations were not performed
during this phase. The following is a list of the screening metrics and criteria:
• Responsiveness to the Purpose and Need
• Structure Impacts
• Utility Impacts
• Drainage Impacts
• Impacts to NM 109 and Other Local Roads
• Impacts to Rail Service and Yard Operations
• Public Input
In the evaluation, a rating was applied for each metric or criteria. Table 5.1-2 summarizes the rating system. Based
on these ratings, alternatives were eliminated or advanced for consideration. Table 5.1-3 summarizes the evaluation
results. Detailed assessments of the alternatives that advanced from Phase I A were completed in Phase I B and
were documented in future sections of this report.
Alternatives Analysis
Responsiveness to the Purpose and Need
The purpose and need were established in Section IV. This metric addressed the degree that the alternative meets
the purpose and need. If the alternative did not meet the purpose and need, it was considered “fatally flawed” and
was eliminated from consideration. Alternative G, the no-build alternative, did not meet the purpose and need
because it left the at-grade rail crossing in-place. All other alternatives satisfied the purpose and need because they
provided grade separation between the railroad and the roadway.
Structure Impacts
Structure impacts associated with each of the Alternates are identified on the layouts provided in Appendix A. On
the layouts, structures within the finished construction footprint that require relocation as part of the Project are
identified by a red “X” with a description added identifying the type of structure engaged. Structure types are
classified as Residences, Garages, Barns, Sheds, or Trailers. For evaluation, only those structures identified as
Residences or Trailers were quantified for consideration. Ranking the Alternates in Table 5.1-3 is provided according
to the combined total of impacted Residences and Trailers associated with each Alternate.
Utility Impacts
Utility impacts were considered where there were conflicts between in-place utilities and the alternative footprint.
Alternatives A and B have conflicts with overhead power lines and were rated as having negative effects. All others
had minor utility impacts and were rated as having negligible effects.
Drainage Impacts
For purposes of alternative analysis, it is assumed that any crossing of the water bodies described previously will
require a culvert to maintain the estimated flowrates of existing conditions. Some potential proposed crossings are
at the same location as existing crossings. These crossings labeled as “Maintain” in the table below are assumed to
not require any modification to the culverts currently onsite. Alternatives with maintained crossings will be the
lowest cost and most ideal as they will likely only require erosion control during construction. Some potential
proposed crossings are within 20 ft. of existing crossing locations, and will require culvert extensions. These
locations are labeled as “Extend” in the table below and are likely to be a moderate construction cost, as the length
of extension will be relatively small. The third and most expensive likelihood at crossings with the three major water
bodies is Alternatives which must cross at a “New” location. These will be the most expensive and least ideal
options as they will require the most fill volume and lengths of new culvert construction. In addition to crossings
with the major water bodies, some of the alignments cross control gates which would need to be reconstructed or
relocated, and minor laterals which will need smaller culverts installed. The cost of these additional minor
adjustments is assumed to be much less than the major crossings but is still a factor worth considering. The drainage
impacts are summarized in Table 5.1-1. Scoring the major crossing options and minor adjustments in order of
construction complexity yields the Drainage Impact Evaluation rankings found in table 5.1-3
Table 5.1-1. Drainage Impacts
Alternative
Sanchez
Interior Drain
Crossing
New Belen
Wasteway
Crossing
Arroyo
Acequia
Crossing
Additional
Minor Lateral
Crossings
Gate
Relocations/
Rebuilds
A Maintain Extend New - -
B Maintain Maintain Maintain - -
C Extend Extend New - -
D Extend New New Yes Yes
E Maintain New New Yes -
F New New New Yes Yes
Impacts to NM 109 and Other Local Roads
Impacts to NM 109 and other local roads considered whether access was restricted during or after construction.
Other than Alternative G, there will be temporary closures to tie-in the existing roadway to the new roadway during
construction. In those cases, the impact was considered neutral. Impacts to locations where right-of-way property
acquisitions took place were also considered neutral. Alternate B was rated as having very negative effects because
it involved the closure of NM 109 during construction. Alternate G was rated as neutral because it is the no-build
option. Alternative E was rating as having a negative effect as it requires reconstruction and widening of Trujillo
Road to be feasible. All other alternatives were rated as providing positive effects because they involved a grade
separation between the railroad and the roadway.
Impacts to Rail Service and Yard Operations
Impacts to rail service considered impacts to rail operations during and after construction. Alternative D was rated
as providing a negative impact because it requires railroad closures for the relocation of the in-place railroad signal
bridge. Alternative F was rated as providing a very negative impact as it requires railroad closure for the relocation
of the in-place railroad signal bridge and requires allocation of a significant segment of BNSF property that may be
utilized for future capital projects. All other options were considered neutral because the positive impacts of the
grade separation cancelled out the impacts from track protection during construction.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
23
Public Input
As described above, a public information meeting was held on June 11, 2019 at Gil Sanchez Elementary School in
Jarales, New Mexico. At this meeting the alternatives were introduced, and public comments received. Table 5.1-3
summarizes the positive and negative comments received following the public meeting.
Initial Evaluation Matrix
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
24
Table 5.1-2 Rating Criteria
Rating Description
↑↑ Very Positive Effects
↑ Positive Effects
↔ Negligible or No Effects
↓ Negative Effects
↓↓ Very Negative Effects
Table 5.1-3 Alternative Initial Evaluation Summary
Criteria Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G
(No Build)
Responsiveness to the
Purpose and Need
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↓↓
(At-grade Crossing)
Structure Impacts ↔
(8 Relocations)
↓↓
(18 Relocations)
↓
(13 Relocations)
↑↑
(4 Relocations)
↔
(8 Relocations)
↑↑
(3 Relocations)
(None)
Utility Impacts ↓
(OH Power Relocation)
↓
(OH Power Relocation)
↔
(None)
↔
(None)
↔
(None)
↔
(None)
(None)
Drainage Impacts ↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↓↓
(None)
Impacts to NM 109
and Other Local Roads
↑
(Temp. at Limits)
↓↓
(Closed for Duration)
↑
(Temp. at Limits)
↑
(Temp. at Limits)
↓
(Temp. at Limits)
(Trujillo Road Impacts)
↑
(Temp. at Limits)
(None)
Impacts to Rail Service
and Yard Operations
↔
(Track Protection)
↔
(Track Protection)
↔
(Track Protection)
↓
(Track Protection)
(Track Closure)
(OH Signal Relocation)
↔
(Track Protection)
↓↓
(Track Protection)
(Track Closure)
(OH Signal Relocation)
(Property Acquisition)
(None)
Public Input
↔
(1 Positive)
(0 Negative)
↔
(1 Positive)
(0 Negative)
↑↑
(4 Positive)
(0 Negative)
↔
(1 Positive)
(0 Negative)
↓
(1 Positive)
(1 Negative)
↑
(3 Positive)
(0 Negative)
(0 Positive)
(3 Negative)
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
25
Phase I A Recommendations
The findings compiled in Phase I A have verified the need for a grade separation at the existing at-grade rail crossing
on NM 109. Based on the preliminary assessment and taking public and agency input into account, the following
recommendations were made as part of the Initial Evaluation of Alternatives:
The following alternatives are recommended to be advanced for further consideration in the Detailed Evaluation of
Alternatives phase:
• Alternative C: Grade separation 70 ft. east of in-place NM 109
• Alternative D: Grade separation 750 ft. west of in-place NM 109.
• Alternative E: Grade separation 500 ft. east of in-place NM 109.
The following alternatives are not recommended for further evaluation:
• Alternative A: Grade separation 70 ft. west of in-place NM 109. This alternative was not recommended for
further evaluation because of negative public support, impacts to in-place overhead power, and moderate
number of property relocations. In addition, Alternate A offers no advantages over Alternate C.
• Alternative B: Grade separation in-line with in-place NM 109. This alternative was not recommended for
further evaluation because it required NM 109 to be closed during construction and generated the
maximum number of property relocations.
• Alternative F: Grade separation 600 ft. west of in-place NM 109 and extended realignment on the north end
of the project. This alternative was not recommended for further evaluation because of its considerable
length compared to other Alternates resulting in a large right-of-way acquisition requirement that impacts
future BNSF operations. Furthermore, Alternate F offers no advantages over Alternative D in terms of
impacts to residences and relocations.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
26
VI. Refined Analysis
Conceptual Roadway and Structure Plans
Concept level roadway and bridge plans for Alternatives C, D, and E are provided in the Appendices B and C. The
concept plans were developed in accordance with AASHTO, AREMA, and NMDOT guidelines to provide a minimum
vertical clearance through the railroad corridor of 23’-6” and a design speed of 40 MPH. Concept roadway plans
identify the basic elements of the proposed configuration for development of quantitative evaluation metrics. The
basic elements include:
• NM109 alignment and profile
• Bridge length
• Approach embankment and retaining wall limits
• Drainage features
• Local roadway connections
• Existing roadway removals
• Property impacts
To help identify the various elements, a color coding system has been used to define regions of the proposed
configuration. For each plan, new roadway sections supported on existing grade or new earthen embankments are
identified by blue shaded regions; new roadway sections utilizing retaining walls to develop the new embankment
are identified by yellow shaded regions; and bridge locations are identified by orange regions. Embankment limits
and retaining wall locations, where needed, associated with the new roadway sections constructed on fill are
identified. Similarly, existing features to be removed are noted by black cross-hatching.
Using the alignment, profile, and cross section information, a concept bridge general plan and elevation sheet has
been developed for each alternative. The general plan and elevation shows the basic geometric layout required for
each bridge crossing and identifies the anticipated material and component configurations for the specific bridge
elements.
Geotechnical Considerations
As each of the alternatives requires construction of earthen approach embankments and a bridge structure,
development of the concept level plans is based on preliminary geotechnical recommendations specific to the
project site. The recommendations are based on geological literature study, site reconnaissance, review of existing
geotechnical reports and data, and experience from other work near the project site.
For the approach embankments, fill slopes on the order of 25 ft. to 35 ft. are required. Based on the relatively low
strength characteristics of the subsurface soils, and cohesive nature of some soils, long-term consolidation of the
new embankment materials on the underlying native foundations soils will be a component of the design.
Surcharging or preloading is anticipated to reduce long-term settlement.
Embankments may be constructed using permanent slopes or retaining walls. In general, permanent slopes are
preferred as they reduce construction cost and require limited long-term maintenance. Retaining walls are utilized
to limit the construction footprint and minimize right-of-way or other project impacts.
At the project location, permanent fill slopes to achieve the desired embankment heights depend on the soils used
for construction and may range from 2.1Horizontal (H):1Vertical (V) to 3H:1V. To establish project footprints and
associated construction costs, the 3H:1V embankment slope has been assumed.
In regions where embankment limits encounter other project constraints such as right-of-way boundaries or the
railroad corridor, retaining walls are used to restrain the construction limits. Wall systems considered for the site
are Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) and Cast-In-Place (CIP) concrete. In accordance with railroad guidelines, CIP
walls are used adjacent to the railroad corridor and MSE walls may be considered elsewhere. Typically, MSE walls
are supported on shallow foundations. For this site, the underlying soil and groundwater conditions are susceptible
to a behavior known as liquefaction. Liquefaction is the temporary loss of support in saturated granular materials
during seismic events. It is anticipated that the liquefaction potential is moderate to high depending on the
magnitude of the earthquake considered, with a moderate to high probability for lateral ground spreading and soil
settlement occurring along the project alignment. To mitigate this phenomena, CIP walls supported on deep
foundations are used throughout.
Similar to the CIP walls, each bridge substructure will be supported on a deep foundation for liquefaction mitigation.
Deep foundation types considered are driven piling and drilled shafts. Based on existing groundwater conditions
and soil types expected to be encountered during deep foundation installation, the driven piling system has less
construction risk than the drilled shafts. However, the construction footprint associated with a driven pile
foundation is too great to be feasible within the railroad corridor. Therefore, drilled shaft foundations are
incorporated into bridge substructures located within the railroad corridor and driven pile foundations are used
elsewhere. For both foundation types, the design dimensions, required embedment lengths, and number of
foundation elements will be a function of the structural loading conditions.
For driven piling, a round steel section is anticipated based on the site geology with pile diameters ranging of 16 to
24 inches. To provide the structural resistance, an embedment depth in the range of 80 ft. to 100 ft. below existing
grade is required. Alternately, drilled shaft diameters between 5 ft. and 8 ft. are anticipated with embedment
lengths in the range of 60 ft. to 80 ft. below existing grade. For the concept bridge and roadway plans, assumed
supports for pier foundations within the rail corridor are 75 ft. long 5 ft. diameter drilled shafts. Pier, abutment, and
wall foundations outside of the rail corridor are assumed to be supported on mats of 95 ft. long 20 inch diameter
driven piles.
Refined Development of Phase I B Alternatives
Alternative C
Alternative C represents an off-line overhead grade separation to be constructed east of the in-place NM 109
crossing. The proposed alignment is offset from the in-place alignment to keep the crossing open to the public
throughout construction of the overhead structure and roadway approaches.
Roadway typical section geometry is provided in Appendix B. Both roadway approaches will employ a concrete
paving section and incorporate a cast-in-place retaining wall system along the west side of the roadway alignment to
minimize right-of-way impacts.
North of the BNSF corridor, the causeway spans over an in-place culvert conveying an irrigation channel. The existing
culvert will need to be extended, and will require analysis for additional loading from the causeway fill and may
require strengthening or replacement. Extending and / or replacing two other culverts north of the railroad corridor
may be required for the new NM 109 alignment and proposed access road.
Access roads north and south of the railroad corridor will be constructed for adjacent property owners. To the
South, access to the old NM 109 will be constructed off of Audra Court. Access to Duke Road and Benavidez Road
will be provided off the proposed NM 109. North of the railroad, access to the old NM 109 will be gained at the
Gallegos Road intersection. All access roads will include two 12 ft. lanes with two 4 ft. shoulders.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
27
The proposed bridge for Alternative C is a 3-span precast, prestressed concrete beam bridge with a cast-in-place
concrete deck to span the BNSF corridor and existing irrigation channel. To provide lateral clearance through the rail
corridor, individual span lengths of 128 ft., 115 ft. and 80 ft. are anticipated. Each span is configured with five-lines
of 72 inch deep prestressed concrete beams. The bridge deck surface width is 34ft. and consists of two 12 ft. driving
lanes and two 5 ft. shoulders. Confining the driving lanes and shoulders on the deck are two 42 inch tall concrete
barrier railings, each incorporating a wire fence compatible with railroad guidelines.
Construction of the bridge deck is assumed to utilize stay-in-place decking forms as a method of accelerated bridge
construction (ABC). Eliminating the removal of conventional timber decking forms from above in-service tracks
would save time and could provide cost savings for the project.
Foundation units supporting the superstructure components are assumed as cast-in-place concrete pier frames and
cast-in-place concrete abutments. Drilled shaft deep foundations are used as support for the pier frames and driven
piles are used at the abutments. Each substructure incorporates a 27 degree skew angle to accommodate the
roadway and rail alignments and each pier will incorporate a crash-strut for rail impact protection.
Alternative D
Alternative D represents an off-line overhead grade separation to be constructed west of the in-place NM 109
crossing. For this alternative, the proposed NM 109 alignment is offset from the in-place alignment approximately
750 ft. This proposed alignment is designed to potentially minimize impacts to dwellings adjacent to the railroad
corridor.
Alternate D will employ the same typical section geometry as Alternate C. Also similar to Alternate C, both roadway
approaches will employ a concrete paving section and incorporate a cast-in-place retaining wall system to minimize
right-of-way impacts. The retaining walls are located along the east side of the roadway alignment for Alternate D.
North of the BNSF corridor, construction of new culverts will be required to convey in-place irrigation channels
through the proposed embankment. Precast concrete box culverts are assumed for this purpose. Extension of an
in-place culvert will be required where the proposed alignment ties back into the existing roadway. An in-kind
extension is anticipated at this location.
Access roads north and south of the railroad corridor will be constructed for adjacent property owners utilizing the
in-place NM 109. To the South, access to existing NM 109 will be constructed off of Trujillo Road. Access to Duke
Road and Benavidez Road will be provided off the proposed NM 109. North of the railroad, access to Gallegos Road
and the in-place NM 109 will be provided from the new alignment. All access roads will include two 12 ft. lanes with
two 4 ft. shoulders.
The proposed bridge for Alternative D is a 6-span precast, prestressed concrete beam bridge with a cast-in-place
concrete deck to span the railroad corridor and an existing irrigation channel. The geometry requires the entire
bridge section to be located within a horizontal curve section of the alignment. To provide lateral clearance through
the rail corridor, individual span lengths measured along the centerline alignment of 128 ft., 71 ft., 105 ft., 110 ft.,
110 ft., and 60 ft. are anticipated; however, individual beam lengths and foundation skews will vary resulting in a
complicated superstructure geometry. Each span is configured with five-lines of 72 inch deep prestressed concrete
beams. The bridge deck surface width is 34 ft. and consists of two 12 ft. driving lanes and two 5 ft. shoulders.
Confining the driving lanes and shoulders on the deck are two 42 inch tall concrete barrier railings, each
incorporating a wire fence compatible with railroad guidelines. ABC techniques for bridge deck construction
identified for Alternate C are included.
Foundation units supporting the superstructure components are assumed as cast-in-place concrete pier frames and
cast-in-place concrete abutments. Drilled shaft deep foundations are used as support for the pier frames 2, 3, and 4
through the rail corridor. These piers also incorporate a crash-strut for rail impact protection. For consistency, and
to limit the foundation footprint adjacent to the existing irrigation channel, drilled shaft deep foundations will be
used at piers 5 and 6 as well. Crash-strut pier protection will not be required at these locations however. Driven pile
deep foundations are used at the abutments. Piers 1, 2, and 3 incorporate skew angles to accommodate the rail
alignments while the remaining foundations are positioned radially to the roadway alignment.
Alternative E
Alternative E represents an off-line overhead grade separation to be constructed east of the in-place NM 109
crossing. For this alternative, the proposed NM 109 alignment is offset from the in-place alignment approximately
500 ft. This proposed alignment is intended to limit the overall project impacts by following Trujillo Road to the
greatest extent possible.
Alternate E will employ the same typical section geometry as Alternates C and D. Both roadway approaches will
employ a bituminous paving section within the slope supported embankment region and a concrete paving section
within the cast-in-place retaining wall region. To minimize right-of-way impacts, retaining walls are located along
the east and west sides of the roadway alignment, north of the rail corridor.
North and south of the BNSF corridor, construction of new culverts will be required to convey in-place irrigation
channels through the proposed embankment. Precast concrete box culverts are assumed for this purpose. Extension
of an in-place culvert may be required where the proposed alignment ties back into the existing roadway north of
the railroad corridor. An in-kind extension is anticipated at this location.
Access roads north and south of the railroad corridor will be constructed for adjacent property owners by utilizing
the in-place NM 109 alignment. To the South, access to existing NM 109 and Trujillo Road east of the proposed
bridge will be constructed off the proposed NM 109 alignment. North of the railroad, access to Gallegos Road and
the in-place NM 109 will be provided from the new alignment. All access roads will include two 12 ft. lanes with two
4 ft. shoulders.
The proposed bridge for Alternative E is a 3-span precast, prestressed concrete beam bridge with a cast-in-place
concrete deck to span the railroad corridor and an existing irrigation channel. The geometry is the simplest of the
three Alternates with individual span lengths of approximately 104 ft., 102 ft. and 72 ft. anticipated. Each span is
configured with five-lines of 72 inch deep prestressed concrete beams. The bridge deck surface width is 34 ft. and
consists of two 12 ft. driving lanes and two 5 ft. shoulders. Confining the driving lanes and shoulders on the deck are
two 42 inch tall concrete barrier railings, each incorporating a wire fence compatible with railroad guidelines. ABC
techniques for bridge deck construction identified for Alternate C are included.
Foundation units supporting the superstructure components are assumed as cast-in-place concrete pier frames and
cast-in-place concrete abutments. Drilled shaft deep foundations are used as support for the pier frames and driven
piles are used at the abutments. Each substructure is square to the roadway alignment and each pier will
incorporate a crash-strut for rail impact protection.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
28
Alternative G – No Build
The No-Build alternative assumes that improvements to address the identified transportation needs would not be
implemented. Traffic delays due to rail operations through the at-grade crossing would continue and increased
disruptions would be anticipated following installation of additional tracks proposed with the planned expansion of
the rail facility.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
29
VII. Engineering and Environmental Evaluation of Alternatives
Design Year Traffic Forecasts
Design year traffic forecasts on NM 109 within the study area were obtained from the NMDOT Traffic Monitoring
Division. The existing 2020 AADT volume on NM 109 is 1759 vpd. Design year 2040 AADT volume is forecast to be
2323 vpd. This represents a growth rate of approximately 1.4% per year. Truck volume is reported at 6% of AADT,
or 105 vpd in 2020 and 139 vpd in 2040. Conversely, cars represent 1654 vpd in 2020, and 2184 vpd in 2040.
The design year 2040 AADT volume of 2323 vpd is well within the 2,800 vpd capacity of a two-lane rural highway per
the Highway Capacity Manual.
Access Analysis
NM 109 in the project area provides access to numerous driveways and several cross streets. NM 109 is a two-lane
rural Major Collector posted at 40 mph. Per the NMDOT State Access Management Manual, full access intersections
are ideally spaced a minimum of 660 ft. apart, driveways spaced a minimum of 300 ft. apart, and driveways spaced
no closer than 300 ft. to an adjacent intersection. Alternatives C, D, and E all exhibit access management
improvements compared to the existing condition to varying degrees.
Alternative C:
• 3 intersections are spaced less than 660 ft. apart (200 ft., 350 ft., 500 ft.).
• 8 driveways are spaced less than 300 ft. apart.
• 4 driveways are spaced less than 300 ft. from an adjacent intersection.
Alternative D:
• 4 intersections are spaced less than 660 ft. apart (640 ft. & 370 ft.)
• 7 driveways are spaced less than 300 ft. apart.
• 3 driveways are spaced less than 300 ft. from an adjacent intersection.
Alternative E:
• 2 intersections are spaced less than 660 ft. apart (600 ft.)
• 13 driveways are spaced less than 300 ft. apart.
• 4 driveways are spaced less than 300 ft. from an adjacent intersection.
The possible need for left and right turn lanes on NM 109 for Alternatives C, D and E was evaluated as part of the
study and was determined turn lanes were not warranted up through the 2040 time frame based on the criteria as
outlined in the NMDOT State Access Management Manual. Less than an average of 21 vph turn left, and less than
31 vph turn right from either SB or NB NM 109 in Alternatives C, D, or E.
Structure Maintenance and Inspection (M&I)
Structure maintenance and inspection involved the annual inspection and future maintenance of the bridge
structures and retaining wall systems during their respective lifespans. The metric used to assign a rating is the
length of bridge structure. Longer bridges are anticipated to require greater effort to inspect and maintain and are
rated accordingly.
Structure maintenance and inspection ratings are presented in Table 7.1-2.
Drainage Analysis
Drainage impacts developed in the Phase I A evaluation are presented. Refined analysis of this metric was not
warranted.
Constructability Analysis
Each of the three Alternatives is configured such that NM 109 may remain largely open through construction with
limited disruptions anticipated for transitioning between the existing and proposed works. Accordingly, the
constructability metric is not a differentiating component of the Alternatives, at least as it pertains to NM 109.
Impacts to the local roadway system, however, do vary between the Alternatives, and the demands placed on
Trujillo Road warrant discussion. Currently, the cross-section of Trujillo Road will not accommodate the design
speed of 40MPH; thus, a widening of the section is required. Construction of the widening will require partial
closure of Trujillo Road with access to local residences to remain disrupted by the activity. As such, a Negative
Impact is assigned to Alternate E for this metric while the other two are assigned a neutral designation.
Right-of-Way Requirements
For each alternative considered, approximate ROW requirements were determined using parcel boundaries
recovered from the Valencia County GIS database. For each alternative, the construction limits were compared
against the parcel map and impacted properties identified. If any portion of the project’s finished footprint engaged
an in-place structure, the entire parcel was identified for acquisition. If the finished footprint engaged a portion of
private property without engaging a structure, a portion of the parcel was identified for acquisition by adding a
buffer to the construction limit. Determination of the overall ROW take requirement was estimated by summing the
total area of each individual impacted property.
Utility Impacts
Utility impacts developed in the Phase I-A evaluation are presented. Refined analysis of this metric was not
warranted.
Construction Costs
A cost was determined for each alternative with ratings assigned based on the calculated amount. Using the concept
plans developed for each alternative, quantities for standard NMDOT bridge and roadway construction pay items
were calculated. Overall construction costs were generated using reported average unit pricing values from 2019.
Construction costs also include estimates for property acquisitions where required. To develop, a common unit
price of $50,000 per acre, $200,000 per residence were used.
See Table 7.1-2 for the cost ratings. Construction cost calculations are provided in Appendix E and include a 20%
allowance for taxes and contingencies.
Environmental Analysis
Analysis of potential environmental impacts primarily considers factors such as residential relocations, changes in
access and property utilization, increased noise, visual impacts, and cultural resources. Because of the developed
condition of the project area, natural resource impacts are anticipated to be relatively minor for all the alternatives.
None of the alternatives are expected to affect threatened or endangered species, critical habitat, wetlands, or
riparian areas, although all would require removing trees and vegetation that potentially provide nesting sites for
migratory birds. All the alternatives cross irrigation ditches, but irrigation flows, operation of the ditches, and access
would be accommodated with appropriate crossing structures. All of the alternatives could require de-watering of
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
30
groundwater during construction, which would be regulated under the NPDES program of the CWA. Cultural
resource issues include potential impacts to the setting and feeling of historic properties such as portion of the
Camino Real, the Sanchez Drain, Arroyos Ditch, Waste Ditch, and the Belen Cutoff of the AT&SF Railway. Potential
environmental impacts for each of the alternatives are discussed below.
Alternative C:
• Relocations: This alternative would require taking up to 13 residences and four outbuildings on the east side
of NM 109 and acquiring 13 acres of land. The relocations would disrupt the lives of those affected;
however, some owners have indicated a desire to have their properties purchased. Acquisitions would
follow the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which ensures
fair compensation to property owners. Specific investigations for hazardous materials such as asbestos
would be required for the structures acquired.
• Access: South of the railroad tracks, access to the residential properties on the west side of NM 109 would
be maintained by providing a connection from Audra Court to existing NM 109, which would be cul-de-saced
at the railroad tracks. The residences east of those taken would be provided access via a new road that
would connect to NM 109 and terminate at a cul-de-sac south of the railroad tracks. On the north side of the
railroad, existing NM 109 would be maintained to provide access and would connect to a new intersection
on the west side at Gallegos Road. This section of NM 109 would extend to a cul-de-sac on the north side of
the tracks. Overall, adequate access to properties that are not acquired would be maintained and unusable
remnant properties would not be created.
• Noise: Raising the elevation of NM 109 at the railroad crossing would project noise outward into the
surrounding neighborhoods, which could impact adjacent residences that are now buffered from roadway
noise. Although traffic volumes and speeds are expected to remain relatively low on NM 109, noise
abatement may be needed if noise levels increase substantially as a result of the project. Railroad noise
would continue with all of the alternatives and likely increase with the expanded number of tracks.
• Visual: The project would result in a large structure visible in the surrounding area. The NM 109 overpass
would block views for residence on both sides of the roadway and create shadow areas during some parts of
the day.
• Natural Resources: This alternative would require removing numerous trees along the Belen Waste Ditch
and Arroyos Ditch. New crossings of the Arroyos Ditch and Sanchez Drain would also be needed.
• Cultural Resources: This alternative could impact 24 buildings or structures that are greater than 50 years
old; including physical impacts of up to 13 residences and four outbuildings on the east side of NM 109, with
additional buildings or structures in the project area that could include visual, auditory or vibration impacts.
None of these buildings, however, retain sufficient integrity to be considered historic properties. The
proposed overpass on NM 109 over the railroad would modify the alignment of this portion of the Camino
Real (SR 1952); however, the setting and feeling for this portion of the Camino Real has already been
impacted with modifications to the historic buildings, acequias and railroad in the area, therefore it is
unlikely that this alternative would be considered an adverse effect to the likely eligibility of this portion of
the Camino Real under Criterion A. There are three acequias (Sanchez Drain [LA 116045], Arroyos Ditch [LA
116046], and Belen Waste Ditch [LA 116047]) that would be impacted, although the impacts would be
limited to placing minor portions of the acequias in culverts, which is unlikely to have an adverse effect on
their overall historic integrity and likely NRHP eligibility under Criteria A and C. The AT&SF segment
(HCPI 31896) segment from Madrone to Belen, has already been modified extensively with multiple tracks
added in the last 120 years, therefore this alternative and the proposed overpass would not likely be an
adverse effect to the railroad’s setting, feeling, and likely NRHP eligibility under Criterion A.
• Overall Environmental Rating: Alternative C would have moderately high overall environmental impacts due
to the high number of relocations. Construction of the bridge structure adjacent to numerous existing
residences would have visual impacts and change the character of the area. Alternative C would have the
advantage of maintaining NM 109 along its existing alignment rather than intruding into rural-residential
neighborhoods that are currently buffered from the roadway’s traffic, noise and activity. This alternative is
expected to have relatively minor natural or cultural resource impacts.
Alternative D:
• Relocations: Alternative D would require relocation of up to four residences and one outbuilding on the
west side of NM 109, and acquisition of 30 acres of land. Acquisitions would follow the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Specific investigations for hazardous materials
such as asbestos would be required for the structures acquired.
• Access: South of the railroad, existing NM 109 would be reconnected to Trujillo Road and terminated at a
cul-de-sac south of the tracks; access would remain unchanged for the properties along NM 109. Access to
other properties south of the tracks would be provided with connections to the new NM 109 alignment or a
new access route connecting to Audra Court. Because the new alignment of NM 109 would cut diagonally
across existing properties, it would create several remnant parcels that may be unusable and subject to
acquisition as part of the project. On the north side of the tracks, the new NM 109 alignment would cross
vacant land. Existing NM 109 would connect to the new alignment via a new intersection and end north of
the tracks in a cul-de-sac. Much of the new NM 109 alignment north of the tracks would be built on a fill
section, which would limit access to adjacent property. The BNSF Railway owns most of the property
affected in this area, but one apparent private parcel in agricultural use would be bisected and acquired as
part of the project.
• Noise: Potential noise impacts from Alternative D would be similar to Alternative C, except that the
surrounding area likely experiences less traffic noise from NM 109 under current conditions.
• Visual: Alternative D would introduce a large structure visible in the surrounding area, similar to the other
alternatives. However, this alternative would be immediately adjacent to fewer existing residences, thus it
would have less impact on views and a shadow effect.
• Community Character: Alternative D would remove 3 residences and likely render some vacant property
unusable. It would result in a large structure within a rural residential area; however, much of the land on
the north side of the tracks is vacant.
• Natural Resources: This alternative would require removing trees and vegetation on private property and
would affect several properties in current agricultural use. New crossings of the Arroyos Ditch, Belen Waste
Ditch, and Sanchez Drain would be needed.
• Cultural Resources: Alternative D This alternative could impact 18 buildings or structures that are greater
than 50 years old; including physical impacts of up to four residences and one outbuilding, with additional
buildings or structures in the project area that could include visual, auditory or vibration impacts. None of
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
31
these buildings, however, retain sufficient integrity to be considered historic properties. The proposed
overpass of the railroad west of NM 109 would change the visual setting for this portion of the Camino Real
(SR 1952) and modify the alignment by creating a cul-de-sac north and south of the railroad. The setting and
feeling for this portion of the Camino Real, however, has already been impacted with modifications to the
historic buildings, acequias and railroad in the area, therefore it is unlikely that this alternative would be
considered an adverse effect to the likely eligibility of this portion of the Camino Real under Criterion A.
Potential impacts to the three acequias (Sanchez Drain [LA 116045], Arroyos Ditch [LA 116046], and Belen
Waste Ditch [LA 116047]) and AT&SF segment (HCPI 31896) would be the same as under Alternative C.
• Overall Environmental Rating: Alternative D would have relatively low environmental impacts compared to
the other alternatives due to the low number of relocations. Construction of the bridge structure would
occur on rural-residential land that is currently buffered from existing NM 109, which would have visual
impacts and change the character of the area. However, this area is relatively low density and vacant on the
north side of the railroad tracks. Alternative D is expected to have relatively minor natural or cultural
resource impacts.
Alternative E:
• Relocations: Alternative E would require taking eight residences and two outbuildings, and acquiring 20
acres of land. Most of the residential relocations are along Trujillo Road, which is too narrow to
accommodate the proposed cross section of the new NM 109 alignment. As with the other alternatives,
acquisitions would follow the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 and require investigations for hazardous materials.
• Access: On the south side of the tracks, existing NM 109 and the northern end of Trujillo Road would be
reconnected to the new alignment via new intersections. Remnant properties along existing Trujillo Road
would presumably have access to the new NM 109 alignment; however, several properties adjacent to the
fill section south of the tracks may be rendered unusable or acquired as part of the project. On the north
side of the railroad, the old alignment of NM 109 would be reconnected to the new roadway at Gallegos
Road and terminated in a cul-de-sac north of the tracks. The south end of Lazy Hollow Lane would be cut off.
Several properties around the fill section on the north side of the tracks would be rendered unusable and
acquired as part of the project.
• Noise: Potential noise impacts from Alternative E would be similar to Alternative D; the surrounding area
likely experiences less traffic noise from NM 109 under current conditions.
• Visual: Alternative E would introduce a large structure visible in the surrounding area, similar to the other
alternatives. This alternative is adjacent to numerous existing residences.
• Community Character: Alternative E would remove 8 residences and 2 outbuildings, include many along
Trujillo Road, and likely render some vacant property unusable. It would result in a large structure within the
residential neighborhood that remains along Trujillo Road and the neighborhood along Lazy Hollow Lane.
• Natural Resources: This alternative would require removing trees and vegetation along the Belen Waste
Ditch and Arroyos Ditch and would affect several properties in current agricultural use. New crossings of the
Arroyos Ditch and Belen Waste Ditch would be needed.
• Cultural Resources: Alternative E could impact 18 buildings or structures that are greater than 50 years old;
including physical impacts of up to eight residences and two outbuildings, with additional buildings or
structures in the project area that could include visual, auditory or vibration impacts. None of these
buildings, however, retain sufficient integrity to be considered historic properties. The proposed overpass of
the railroad east of NM 109 would change the visual setting for this portion of the Camino Real (SR 1952)
and modify the alignment by creating a cul-de-sac north and south of the railroad. The setting and feeling
for this portion of the Camino Real, however, has already been impacted with modifications to the historic
buildings, acequias and railroad in the area, therefore it is unlikely that this alternative would be considered
an adverse effect to the likely eligibility of this portion of the Camino Real under Criterion A. Potential
impacts to the three acequias (Sanchez Drain [LA 116045], Arroyos Ditch [LA 116046], and Belen Waste
Ditch [LA 116047]) and AT&SF segment (HCPI 31896) would be the same as under Alternative C.
• Overall Environmental Rating: Alternative E would have high environmental impacts due to the number of
relocations and construction of the bridge structure within the residential areas that remains along Trujillo
Road and Lazy Hollow Lane. These are relatively buffered neighborhoods and the project would have visual
impacts and change the character of the area. Alternative E is expected to have relatively minor natural or
cultural resource impacts.
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
32
VIII. Refined Evaluation Matrix and Phase B Recommendations
Refined Evaluation Matrix
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
33
Table 7.1-1 Rating Criteria
Rating Value Description
↑↑ +2 Very Positive Effects
↑ +1 Positive Effects
↔ 0 Negligible or No Effects
↓ -1 Negative Effects
↓↓ -2 Very Negative Effects
Table 7.1-2 Refined Evaluation Matrix
Criteria Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative G
(No Build)
Responsiveness to the
Purpose and Need
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↑↑
(Grade Separation)
↓↓
(At-grade Crossing)
Structure Inspection
and Maintenance
↔
(330 ft. bridge)
↓↓
(584 ft. Bridge)
(Curved Alignment)
↑
(284 ft. Bridge)
(None)
Right-of-Way Feasibility ↑
(13 Acres)
↓
(30 Acres)
↔
(20 Acres)
(None)
Structure Impacts ↓
(13 Relocations)
↑↑
(4 Relocations)
↔
(8 Relocations)
(None)
Utility Impacts ↔
(None)
↔
(None)
↔
(None)
(None)
Drainage Impacts ↔ ↓ ↔
(None)
Impacts to NM 109
and Other Local Roads
↑
(Temp. at Limits)
↑
(Temp. at Limits)
↓
(Temp. at Limits)
(Trujillo Road Impacts)
(None)
Impacts to
Environment/Community ↓↓ ↔ ↓↓ (None)
Access Impacts ↑
(15 Impacts)
↑↑
(14 Impacts)
↔
(19 Impacts)
↓↓
(50 Impacts)
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
34
Table 7.1-2 Refined Evaluation Matrix, Continued
Criteria Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative G
(No Build)
Impacts to Rail Service ↔
(Track Protection)
↓
(Track Protection)
(Track Closure)
(OH Signal Relocation)
↔
(Track Protection)
(None)
Public Input
↑↑
(4 Positive)
(0 Negative)
↔
(1 Positive
(0 Negative)
↓
(1 Positive
(1 Negative)
(0 Positive
(3 Negative)
Cost ↔
($27.0 Million)
↑
($26.6 Million)
↓
($30.2 Million)
$0.0 Million
Total +4 +3 -1
NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation Combined Phase I-A/B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
35
Conclusions and Phase B Recommendations
Preferred Alternative
Using the analysis presented herein, and the rating of Alternatives according to the evaluation metrics summarized
in the Refined Evaluation Matrix, the Preferred Alternative for the NM 109, Jarales Road Grade Separation project is
Alternative C. This alternative meets the Project’s Purpose and Need and provides the best solution when assessed
according to the evaluation metrics considered. Specifically, Alternative C has the following favorable characteristics
associated with the defining metrics:
Structure Maintenance and Inspection
The bridge length associated with Alternate C is 330 ft. which is approximately 16% longer than the Alternative E
Bridge at 284 ft.; thus constituting the preferred ranking of Alternate E over Alternate C. Both bridges are three-
span structures, so consideration of substructure units is neutral, even though the substructures of Alternate C
incorporate a skew. When compared to the Alternate D Bridge, however, Alternative C and E structures are
preferred as the overall length required to cross the railroad corridor and corresponding complexity of building a
bridge on a curved alignment yield the greatest anticipated maintenance and inspection requirements.
Right-of-Way Feasibility
The anticipated Right-of-Way required to construct Alternative C is 13 acres. This is approximately 43% of that
required for Alternative D and 65% of that required for Alternative E.
Drainage Impacts
Drainage impacts associated with Alternate C require extension of two existing culvert crossings and construction of
one new culvert. These impacts are less than those associated with Alternate D which requires extension of one
culvert and construction of two new culverts, and Alternate E which requires construction of two new culverts.
Impacts to NM 109 and Other Local Roads
Alternatives C and D may both be largely constructed off-line while traffic is maintained on the existing NM 109
alignment. As such, the impacts to the NM 109 and the adjacent local roads is not a defining feature for these two.
When compared to Alternate E, however, Alternates C and D are preferred as reconstruction of Trujillo Road is
necessary for this Alternate to be feasible.
Impacts to Rail Service
The Alternative D alignment requires construction of the NM 109 Bridge at a location that interferes with an existing
signal bridge within the rail yard. For Alternative D to be feasible, this signal bridge would have to be relocated,
creating a problematic condition for maintenance of rail operation. In addition, the pier locations associated with
Alternatives C and E allow the substructure construction to occur outside of the existing track alignments. The
widened railroad corridor at the Alternative D crossing location, however, requires one of the new piers to be
constructed between existing active tracks. This condition requires additional track closures and disruptions to rail
operations when compared to the other Alternatives and is therefore considered significantly inferior.
Public Input
In general, comments received following the public meeting indicate strong support for construction of a new grade
separated crossing. The responses indicate a mix of preferences between the various Alternatives considered.
Alternative C, however, stood out as having the highest number of positive comments.
Recommended Level of Environmental Documentation
The preferred alternative would have some community impacts and possible cultural and natural resource impacts
pending further detailed investigations; however, there appears to be widespread public support for the project
because of the need for enhanced safety, emergency responsiveness, access and mobility, and transportation
system connectivity. Based on current NMDOT and FHWA practices, the recommended level of effort for the
environmental documentation is a categorical exclusion with supporting natural and cultural resource reports and
environmental studies.
1
APPENDIX A
100 105 110
115 120125
130135
140145
AMI
GO
S
LO
OP
400 0
SCALE IN FEET
200
BN
SF
RAI
LR
OA
D
DU
KE
RO
AD
TRUJILLO ROAD
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
GA
LL
EG
OS
RO
AD
LAZY LANE
CA
MI
NO
DE
CR
YS
TA
L
BNSF
RAIL
RO
AD
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
100'
PROFILE
PROPOSED
EL. 4837.52
STA. 122+68.00
HIGH POINT
23.5'
EL. 4,8
37.4
6
VP
T 122
+90.0
0
VPI 121+80.0
0
EL. 4,8
38.0
1
EL. 4,8
33.0
6
VP
C 120
+70.0
0
220.00' V.C.
K = 44ex = -1.38'SSD = 305'
120.00' V.C.
K = 60
ex = -0.30'SSD = 305'
EL. 4,8
36.1
1
VP
C 125
+60.0
0
EL. 4,8
34.3
1
VP
T 126
+80.0
0
VPI 126
+20.0
0
EL. 4,8
35.8
1
-4.50%
EL. 4,8
28.3
1
VPI 129
+20.0
0E
L. 4,8
29.8
1
VP
C 128
+60.0
0
120.00' V.C.
K = 60ex = -0.30'
SSD = 305'
EL. 4,8
25.6
1
VP
T 129
+80.0
0
EL. 4,8
04.4
6
VP
C 134
+50.0
0
260.00' V.C.
K = 65ex = 1.30'SSD = 325'
-0.50%
VPI 135
+80.0
0
EL. 4,7
98.6
1
EL. 4,7
97.9
6
VP
T 137
+10.0
0
EL. 4,7
97.0
1
VPI 139
+00.0
0
EL. 4,7
98.4
4
VP
C 111+85.0
0
260.00' V.C.
K = 65
ex = 1.30'SSD = 325'
+4.50%
+0.50%
VPI 113
+15.0
0
EL. 4,7
99.0
9
EL. 4,8
04.9
4
VP
T 114
+45.0
0
-0.50%
-2.50%
VPI 107
+00.0
0
EL. 4,7
96.0
1
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
10'
48454845
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
TRAFFIC
4835
4825
4815
4805
4795
4785
106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146
4785
4795
4805
4815
4825
4835
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE A
OLD NM 109
RESIDENCERESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
SHED
SHED
SHED
SHED
RESIDENCE
GARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE
(TYP.)
UNIT IMPACT
STRUCTURE
100
105110
115120
125
130135
140 145
AMI
GO
S
LO
OP
400 0
SCALE IN FEET
200
BN
SF
RAI
LR
OA
D
TRUJILLO ROAD
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
GA
LL
EG
OS
RO
AD
LAZY LANE
CA
MI
NO
DE
CR
YS
TA
L
BNSF
RAIL
RO
AD
VPI 104
+40.0
0
EL. 4,7
98.2
5
+0.50%
+4.50%
VPI 113
+40.0
0
EL. 4,8
38.7
5
-0.50%
220.00' V.C.
K = 44
ex = -1.38'
SSD = 305'
VPI 119
+35.0
0
EL. 4,8
35.7
8
-4.50%
180.00' V.C.
K = 45
ex = -0.90'
SSD = 305'
VPI 127
+05.0
0
EL. 4,8
01.1
3
-0.50%
260.00' V.C.
K = 65
ex = 1.30'
EL. 4,7
97.5
5
VP
C 103
+00.0
0
EL. 4,8
04.5
5
VP
T 105
+80.0
0
EL. 4,8
33.8
0
VP
C 112
+30.0
0
EL. 4,8
38.2
0
VP
T 114
+50.0
0
EL. 4,8
36.2
3
VP
C 118
+45.0
0
EL. 4,8
31.7
3
VP
T 120
+25.0
0
EL. 4,8
06.9
8
VP
C 125
+75.0
0
EL. 4,8
00.4
8
VP
T 128
+35.0
0
EL. 4,7
97.0
5
PO
T 101+50.0
0
EL. 4,7
97.6
5
PO
T 134
+00.0
0
280.00' V.C.
K = 70
ex = 1.40'
SSD = 325' SSD = 325'
TRAFFIC
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
100'
PROFILE
PROPOSED
104102100
EL. 4838.26
STA. 114+28.00
HIGH POINT
23.5'
10'
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4790
4780
106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 128126 130 132 134 136
4780
4790
4800
4810
4830
4820
4840
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE B
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCERESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
TRAILERGARAGE
SHED
DUKE ROAD
SHED SHED
SHED
SHED
GARAGE
SHED
SHEDSHED
GARAGE
GARAGE
(TYP.)
UNIT IMPACT
STRUCTURE
100 105 110 115 120125
130 135 140145
150
AMI
GO
S
LO
OP
400 0
SCALE IN FEET
200
BN
SF
RAI
LR
OA
D
TRUJILLO ROAD
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
GA
LL
EG
OS
RO
AD
LAZY LANE
CA
MI
NO
DE
CR
YS
TA
L
BNSF
RAIL
RO
AD
VPI 113
+50.0
0
EL. 4,7
99.4
6
+0.50%
+4.50%
260.00' V.C.
K = 65
ex = 1.30'
VPI 122
+10.0
0
EL. 4,8
38.1
6
220.00' V.C.
K = 44
ex = -1.37'
SSD = 305'
VPI 127
+90.0
0
EL. 4,8
35.2
6
-0.50%
180.00' V.C.
K = 45
ex = -0.90'
SSD = 305'
VPI 135
+00.0
0
EL. 4,8
03.3
1
260.00' V.C.
K = 65
ex = 1.30'
EL. 4,7
96.9
9
EL. 4,7
98.8
1
VP
C 112
+20.0
0
EL. 4,8
05.3
1
VP
T 114
+80.0
0
EL. 4,8
33.2
1
VP
C 121+00.0
0
EL. 4,8
37.6
1
VP
T 123
+20.0
0
EL. 4,8
35.7
1
VP
C 127
+00.0
0
EL. 4,8
31.2
1
VP
T 128
+80.0
0
PO
T 108
+55.0
0
EL. 4,7
97.8
6
PO
T 145
+90.0
0
-4.50%
-0.50%
EL. 4,8
09.1
6
VP
C 133
+70.0
0
EL. 4,8
02.6
6
VP
T 136
+30.0
0
SSD = 325'
SSD = 325'
TRAFFIC
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
100'
PROFILE
PROPOSED
EL. 4837.66
STA. 122+98.00
HIGH POINT
23.5'
10'
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4790
106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146
4790
4800
4810
4820
4830
4840
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE C
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
DUKE ROAD
OLD NM 109
OLD NM 109
(TYP.)
UNIT IMPACT
STRUCTURE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
TRAILER
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
GARAGE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
SHED
RESIDENCE
SHED
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
SHEDRESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
100 105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145150
AMI
GO
S
LO
OP
400 0
SCALE IN FEET
200
PROPOSED BRIDGE
BN
SF
RAI
LR
OA
D
DU
KE
RO
AD
TRUJILLO ROAD
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
GA
LL
EG
OS
RO
AD
LAZY LANE
CA
MI
NO
DE
CR
YS
TA
L
BNSF
RAIL
RO
AD
EL. 4,7
94.2
2
VPI 103
+20.0
0
EL. 4,7
97.3
2
VPI 146
+00.0
0
+0.50%
+4.50%
260.00' V.C.K = 65
ex = 1.30'
EL. 4,7
98.2
7
VP
C 111+30.0
0
EL. 4,8
04.7
7
VP
T 113
+90.0
0
EL. 4,7
98.9
2
VPI 112
+60.0
0
EL. 4,8
31.5
4
VP
C 119
+85.0
0
EL. 4,8
36.0
4
VP
T 121+65.0
0
EL. 4,8
35.5
9
VPI 120
+75.0
0
+0.50%
220.00' V.C.K = 44
ex = -1.38'SSD = 243'
EL. 4,8
38.8
2
VP
T 127
+20.0
0
EL. 4,8
34.4
2
VP
C 129
+40.0
0
EL. 4,8
39.3
7
VPI 128
+30.0
0
-4.50%
-0.50%
260.00' V.C.K = 65
ex = 1.30'
EL. 4,8
07.8
7
VP
C 135
+30.0
0
EL. 4,8
01.3
7
VP
T 137
+90.0
0
EL. 4,8
02.0
2
VPI 136
+60.0
0
TRAFFIC
100'
102 104
PROFILE
PROPOSED
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
EL. 4838.87
STA. 127+42.00
HIGH POINT
23.5'
180.00' V.C.
K = 45ex = -0.90'SSD = 256'
10'
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4790
106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146
4790
4800
4810
4820
4830
4840
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE D
OLD NM 109OLD NM 109
(TYP.)
UNIT IMPACT
STRUCTURE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
SHED
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140 145150
AMI
GO
S
LO
OP
400 0
SCALE IN FEET
200
BN
SF
RAI
LR
OA
D
DU
KE
RO
AD
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
GA
LL
EG
OS
RO
AD
LAZY LANE
CA
MI
NO
DE
CR
YS
TA
L
BNSF
RAIL
RO
AD
104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144
4,790
4,800
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,850
146102100
4,840
4,790
4,800
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,850
4,840
TRAFFIC
23.5'
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
100'
PROFILE
PROPOSED
EL. 4836.65
STA. 126+78.00
HIGH POINT
+0.00%
270.00' V.C.K = 60
ex = 1.52'
+4.50%
-0.50%
220.00' V.C.K = 44
ex = -1.38'SSD = 243'
-4.50%
180.00' V.C.K = 45
ex = -0.90'SSD = 256'
-0.50%
260.00' V.C.K = 65
ex = 1.30'
EL. 4,7
94.8
5
VP
C 115
+15.0
0
EL. 4,7
94.8
5
VPI 116
+50.0
0
EL. 4,8
00.9
2
VP
T 117
+85.0
0
EL. 4,8
32.2
0
VP
C 124
+80.0
0
EL. 4,8
36.6
0
VP
T 127
+00.0
0
EL. 4,8
37.1
5
VPI 125
+90.0
0
EL. 4,8
34.9
0
VP
C 130
+40.0
0
EL. 4,8
30.4
0
VP
T 132
+20.0
0
EL. 4,8
07.0
0
VP
C 137
+40.0
0
EL. 4,8
01.1
5
VPI 138
+70.0
0
EL. 4,8
00.5
0
VP
T 140
+00.0
0
EL. 4,7
98.0
0
VP
T 145
+00.0
0
EL. 4,7
94.8
5
VP
T 100
+00.0
0
EL. 4,8
34.4
5
VPI 131+30.0
0
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
10'
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
TRUJILLO ROAD
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE E
OLD NM 109
OLD NM 109
(TYP.)
UNIT IMPACT
STRUCTURE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
BARN
GARAGE
135
130
165
160
155
150
145
140
125
120
115
110
105100
AMI
GO
S
LO
OP
400 0
SCALE IN FEET
200
BN
SF
RAI
LR
OA
D
DU
KE
RO
AD
TRUJILLO ROAD
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
GA
LL
EG
OS
RO
AD
LAZY LANE
CA
MI
NO
DE
CR
YS
TA
L
BNSF
RAIL
RO
AD
23.5'
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
PROFILE
PROPOSED
100 102
4,760
4,780
4,800
4,840
4,860
4,880
100'
10'
104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154
4,760
4,780
4,800
4,840
4,860
4,880
EL. 4,7
96.0
3
VPI 101+50.0
0
EL. 4837.97
STA. 125+66.00
HIGH POINT
288.00' V.C.
K = 64
ex = 1.62'
+4.50%
+0.50%
176.00' V.C.
K = 44
ex = -0.88'
SSD = 254'
+0.50%
-4.50%
220.00' V.C.
K = 44
ex = -1.38'
SSD = 243'
256.00' V.C.
K = 64
ex = 1.28'
-0.50%
+0.00%
32.00' V.C.
K = 64
ex = 0.02'
EL. 4,7
96.0
3
VPI 111+59.0
0
EL. 4,7
96.0
3
VP
C 110
+15.0
0
EL. 4,8
02.5
1
VP
T 113
+03.0
0
EL. 4,8
31.4
0
VP
C 119
+45.0
0
EL. 4,8
35.3
6
VPI 120
+33.0
0
EL. 4,8
35.8
0
VP
T 121+21.0
0
EL. 4,8
37.9
1
VP
C 125
+44.0
0
EL. 4,8
33.5
1
VP
T 127
+64.0
0
EL. 4,8
38.4
6
VPI 126
+54.0
0
EL. 4,8
04.3
4
VP
T 135
+26.0
0
EL. 4,8
04.9
8
VPI 133
+98.0
0
EL. 4,8
10.7
4
VP
C 132
+70.0
0
EL. 4,7
97.4
9
VP
C 148
+97.0
0
EL. 4,7
97.4
1
VP
T 149
+29.0
0E
L. 4,7
97.4
1
VPI 149
+13.0
0
4,820 4,820
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
TRAFFIC
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
+0.00%
EL. 4,7
97.4
1
VPI 163
+75.0
0
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATE F
OLD NM 109
OLD NM 109RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
SHED
(TYP.)
UNIT IMPACT
STRUCTURE
2
APPENDIX B
0.02 0.020.02
12'
0.02
5'12'
LANE LANE SHLD.
CHAIN LINK RAILINGCHAIN LINK RAILING
BARRIER
CONCRETE
BARRIER
CONCRETE
CL
12'
LANE
GRADE
PROFILE
0.02 0.02
12'
LANESHLD.
0.02 0.02
CL
GRADE
PROFILE
EXIST. GROUND
SHLD.
5'5'
5'
17'
SHLD.
5'
SHLD.
5'
17'17'
EXIST. GROUND
FACE OF CIP WALL
2' (TYP.)
FACE OF CIP WALL
2' (TYP.)
NM 109
NM 109 5'
BERM
0.040.02 0.020.02
12'
0.02
5'12'
LANE LANE SHLD.
CL
GRADE
PROFILE
SHLD.
5'5'
0.02 0.020.02
12'
0.02
5'12'
LANE LANE SHLD.
CL
GRADE
PROFILE
SHLD.
5'5'
1:3
GROUND
EXIST.
5'
BERM
0.04
GROUND
EXIST.
1:3
NM 109
5'
BERM
0.04
CHAIN LINK RAILING
BARRIER
CONCRETE
FACE OF CIP WALL
CL
12'
LANE
GRADE
PROFILE
0.02 0.02
12'
LANESHLD.
0.02 0.02
2' (TYP.)
5'
17'
SHLD.
5'
SHLD.
5'
17'17'
1:3
GROUND
EXIST.
NM 109
BARRIER
CONCRETE
CL
12'
LANE
GRADE
PROFILE
0.02 0.02
12'
LANESHLD.
0.02 0.02
5'
17'
SHLD.
5'
SHLD.
5'
17'17'
1:3
5'
BERM
0.04
RAILING
CHAIN LINK
GROUND
EXIST.
FACE OF CIP WALL
2' (TYP.)
NM 109
CHAIN LINK RAILING
BARRIER
CONCRETE
CHAIN LINK RAILING
BARRIER
CONCRETE
CL
12'
LANE
GRADE
PROFILE
12'
LANE
0.020.02 0.02 0.02
SHLD.
5'
SHLD.
5'
17'17' 17'17'17'17'
SHLD.
5'
SHLD.
5'
SHLD.
5'
SHLD.
5'
NM 109
(NOT TO SCALE)
(NOT TO SCALE)
(NOT TO SCALE)
(NOT TO SCALE)
(NOT TO SCALE)
(NOT TO SCALE)
SECTION 1 - ROADWAY AT GRADE SECTION 2 - EARTHEN EMBANKMENT
RETAINING WALL
SECTION 3 -
AND RETAINING WALL
EARTHEN EMBANKMENT
SECTION 4 -
AND RETAINING WALL
EARTHEN EMBANKMENT
SECTION 5 -
SECTION 6 - BRIDGE
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
TYPICAL SECTIONS
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~
~
PI 120+96.69
L 241.50'
R 3,820.00'
110 115 120
PT. 122
+17.40
125
6.0%max
e
PC. 119
+75.90
e RC
LEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY (CONCRETE)
PAVED ROADWAY (BITUMINOUS)
RETAINING WALL
BRIDGE
OBLITERATE ROADWAY
TRAFFIC FLOW
EBANKMENT LIMITS
PARCEL BOUNDARIES
IN-PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE CULVERT
PROPOSED CULVERT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE BNSF RAILROAD
STRUCTURE UNIT IMPACT
200 0
SCALE IN FEET
100
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM 109
ST
A. 128
+00
100' R.
5' SHLD
12' LANE
5' SHLD
12' LANE
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
TRUJILLO ROAD
< NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
WALL
RETAINING
WALL
RETAINING
GUARDRAIL
500' R.
100' R.
DUKE ROAD
WALL
RETAINING
45'
R.
45'
R.
BEGIN NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 108+55.00
GUARDRAIL
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
4' SHLD
24' LANE
4' SHLD
4' SHLD
24' LANE
4' SHLD
BNSF
RAIL
RO
AD
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 1 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE C
OLD NM 109
TRAILERGARAGE
SHED
SHED
SHED
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
~
~
~
~
~
~
PI 131+76.21
L 524.59'
R 3,820.00'
PI 142+91.05
L 431.30'
R 3,820.00'
130
PT. 134
+38.09
135
140 145
e RC
6.0%max
e
e RC
6.0%max
e
PO
T. 145
+90.00
PC. 140
+75.17
PT. 145
+06.47
PC. 129
+13.51
LEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY (CONCRETE)
PAVED ROADWAY (BITUMINOUS)
RETAINING WALL
BRIDGE
OBLITERATE ROADWAY
TRAFFIC FLOW
EBANKMENT LIMITS
PARCEL BOUNDARIES
IN-PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE CULVERT
PROPOSED CULVERT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE BNSF RAILROAD
STRUCTURE UNIT IMPACT
200 0
SCALE IN FEET
100
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM 109
ST
A. 128
+00
5' SHLD
12' LANE
12' LANE
< NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
WALL
RETAINING
GA
LLE
GOS
RO
AD
45' R.
STA. 145+90.00
1100' R.
50' R.
CA
MIN
O
DE
CR
YS
TA
L
LAZY LANE
END NM 109 (JARALES ROAD) 5' SHLD
GAURDRAIL
4' SHLD 24' LANE 4' SHLD
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 2 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE C
OLD NM 109
RESIDENCE
TRAFFIC
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
100'
PROFILE
PROPOSED
23.5'
10'
BRIDGE
PROPOSED
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4790
108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136
EL. 4,838.16
VPI 122
+10.00
EL. 4,796.99
PO
T 108
+55.00
EL. 4,799.46
VPI 113
+50.00
EL. 4,803.31
VP
T 135
+00.00
EL. 4,835.26
VPI 127
+90.00
136 138 140 142 144 146
4790
4800
4810
4820
4830
EL. 4,797.86
PO
T 145
+90.00
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4790
+0.50%
EL. 4,798.81
VP
C 112
+20.00
EL. 4,805.31
VP
T 114
+80.00
+4.5
0%
EL. 4,833.21
VP
C 121
+00.00
EL. 4,837.61
VP
T 123
+20.00
EL. 4837.66
STA. 122+98.00
HIGH POINT
-0.50%
EL. 4,835.71
VP
C 127
+00.00
EL. 4,831.21
VP
T 128
+80.00
SSD = 305'
ex = -0.90'
K = 45
180.00' V.C.
-4.50%
EL. 4,809.16
VP
C 133
+70.00
SSD = 325'
ex = 1.30'
K = 65
260.00' V.C.
-0.50%
EL. 4,802.66
VP
T 136
+30.00
SSD = 325'
ex = 1.30'
K = 65
260.00' V.C.
SSD = 305'
ex = -1.37'
K = 44
220.00' V.C.
BEGIN NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 108+55.00
END NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 145+90.00
4790
4800
4810
4820
4830
TRAFFIC
100'
10'
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM
109
ST
A. 136
+00
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM
109
ST
A. 136
+00
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
PROFILE
PROPOSED
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 3 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE C
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~
~
PC. 104
+76.73
105
110
PT. 112+92.66
115 P
C. 116+91.22
120
125
PI 109+01.18
L 815.93'
R 1,200.00'
6.0%max
e
PO
T. 103
+20.00
e 4.4%
LEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY (CONCRETE)
PAVED ROADWAY (BITUMINOUS)
RETAINING WALL
BRIDGE
OBLITERATE ROADWAY
TRAFFIC FLOW
EBANKMENT LIMITS
PARCEL BOUNDARIES
IN-PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE CULVERT
PROPOSED CULVERT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE BNSF RAILROAD
STRUCTURE UNIT IMPACT
200 0
SCALE IN FEET
100
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM 109
ST
A. 126
+00
TRUJILLO ROAD
WALL
RETAINING
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
GUARDRAIL
GUARDRAIL
GUARDRAIL
GUARDRAIL
BEGIN NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 103+20.00
< NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
WALL
RETAINING
WALL
RETAINING
PROPOSED BRIDGE
GUARDRAIL
GUARDRAIL
4' SHLD
24' LANE
4' SHLD
DU
KE
RO
AD
BN
SF
RAIL
RO
AD
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 1 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE D
OLD NM 109
5'
SHLD
12' L
ANE
12' L
ANE
5'
SHLD
45'
R.
200' R.
16' LANE
SHED
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
130
135
140
PT. 144
+64.53
145
PI 126+42.56
L 1,608.79'
R 1,200.00'
PI 141+03.89
L 746.30'
R 1,200.00'
6.0%max
e
6.0%max
e
PC. 137+18.23
P0
T. 146
+00.00
PT. 133+00.00e 4.4%
e 4.4%
LEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY (CONCRETE)
PAVED ROADWAY (BITUMINOUS)
RETAINING WALL
BRIDGE
OBLITERATE ROADWAY
TRAFFIC FLOW
EBANKMENT LIMITS
PARCEL BOUNDARIES
IN-PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE CULVERT
PROPOSED CULVERT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE BNSF RAILROAD
STRUCTURE UNIT IMPACT
200 0
SCALE IN FEET
100
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM 109
ST
A. 126
+00
STA. 146+00.00
END NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
CA
MIN
O
DE
CR
YS
TA
L
GA
LLE
GOS
RO
AD
LAZY LANE
GUARDRAIL
GUARDRAIL
PROPOSED BRIDGE
24' LANE
4' SHLD
4' SHLD
BNSF
RAIL
RO
AD
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 2 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE D
5' SHLD 12' LANE
12' LANE 5' SHLD
< NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
45'
R.
OLD NM 109
23.5'
END NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 146+00.00
VPI 136
+60.0
0
EL. 4,8
02.0
2
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM
109
ST
A. 130
+00
BEGIN NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 103+20.00
VPI 112
+60.0
0
EL. 4798.9
2
VPI 120
+75.00
EL. 4,835.59
VPI 128
+30.00
EL. 4,839.37
PROFILE
PROPOSED
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM
109
ST
A. 130
+00
130129128127126125124123122121120119118117116115114113112111110109108107106105
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4790
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4790
134133132131130 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4840
4830
4820
4810
4800
4790 4790
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
EL. 4,834.42
VP
C 129
+40.00
EL. 4,797.32
VPI 146
+00.00
EL. 4,801.37
VP
T 137
+90.00
260.00' V.C.
K = 65
ex = 1.30'
EL. 4,807.87
VP
C 135
+30.00
-4.50%
-0.50%
EL. 4,794.22
VPI 103
+20.00
EL. 4,798.27
VP
C 111
+30.00
EL. 4,804.77
VP
T 113
+90.00
+4.5
0%
+0.50%
ex = 1.30'
K = 65
260.00' V.C.
EL. 4,831.54
VP
C 119
+85.00
SSD = 256'
ex = -0.90'
K = 45
180.00' V.C.
EL. 4,836.04
VP
T 121
+65.00
+0.50% -4.50%
EL. 4838.87
STA. 127+42.00
HIGH POINT
SSD = 243'
ex = -1.38'
K = 44
220.00' V.C.
EL. 4,838.82
VP
T 127
+20.00
100'
10'
100'
10'
103 104
GROUNDLINE
EXISTING
PROFILE
PROPOSED
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 3 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE D
6.0%max
e
100
PC. 101
+00.00
105
PT. 108+01.96
110
115
120
PT. 124
+47.04
125
PI 104+61.34
L 701.96'
R 1,200.00'
PI 119+04.26
L 1,195.28'
R 1,200.00'
6.0%max
e
PO
T. 100
+00.00
PC. 112+51.76
e 4.4%
e 4.4%
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
LEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY (CONCRETE)
PAVED ROADWAY (BITUMINOUS)
RETAINING WALL
BRIDGE
OBLITERATE ROADWAY
TRAFFIC FLOW
EBANKMENT LIMITS
PARCEL BOUNDARIES
IN-PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE CULVERT
PROPOSED CULVERT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE BNSF RAILROAD
STRUCTURE UNIT IMPACT
200 0
SCALE IN FEET
100
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM 109
ST
A. 126
+00
5' SHLD
12' LANE
5' SHLD
12' L
ANE
TRUJILLO ROAD
GUARDRAIL
AU
DR
A
CO
UR
T
BEGIN NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 100+00.00
DU
KE
RO
AD
24' LANE
4' SHLD
200' R.
4' SHLD
24' LANE
4' SHLD
4' SHLD
100' R.
RETAINING WALL
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 1 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE E
OLD NM 109
< NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
45'
R.
45'
R.
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
BARN
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
130
135
140145
PI 139+16.98
L 539.89'
R 1,200.00'
6.0%max
e
PC. 136
+42.39
PT. 141
+82.27
PO
T. 145
+00.00
e 4.4%
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~
~
~
LEGEND
PAVED ROADWAY (CONCRETE)
PAVED ROADWAY (BITUMINOUS)
RETAINING WALL
BRIDGE
OBLITERATE ROADWAY
TRAFFIC FLOW
EBANKMENT LIMITS
PARCEL BOUNDARIES
IN-PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE CULVERT
PROPOSED CULVERT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN-PLACE BNSF RAILROAD
STRUCTURE UNIT IMPACT
200 0
SCALE IN FEET
100
END NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 145+00.00
5' SHLD
12' LANE
5' SHLD
12' LANE
GA
LLE
GOS
RO
AD
LAZY LANE
GUARDRAIL
PROPOSED BRIDGE
RETAINING WALL
RETAINING WALL
100' R.
300' R.
4' SHLD
24' LANE
4' SHLD
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 2 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE E
OLD NM 109
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM 109
ST
A. 126
+00
45' R.
< NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCEGARAGE
+0.00%
+4.5
0%
270.00' V.C.
K = 60
ex = 1.52'
EL. 4,794.85
VP
C 115
+15.00
EL. 4,794.85
VPI 116
+50.00
EL. 4,800.92
VP
T 117
+85.00
EL. 4,832.20
VP
C 124
+80.00
EL. 4,794.85
VP
T 100
+00.00
104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125
4,790
4,800
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,850
103101 102100
4,840
TRAFFIC
100'
BEGIN NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
STA. 100+00.00
-0.50%
220.00' V.C.
K = 44
ex = -1.38'
SSD = 243'
-4.50%
180.00' V.C.
K = 45
ex = -0.90'
SSD = 256'
-0.50%
260.00' V.C.
K = 65
ex = 1.30'
EL. 4,836.60
VP
T 127
+00.00
EL. 4,837.15
VPI 125
+90.00
EL. 4,834.90
VP
C 130
+40.00
EL. 4,830.40
VP
T 132
+20.00
EL. 4,807.00
VP
C 137
+40.00
EL. 4,801.15
VPI 138
+70.00
EL. 4,800.50
VP
T 140
+00.00
EL. 4,798.00
VP
T 145
+00.00
EL. 4,834.45
VPI 131
+30.00
125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
4,790
4,800
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,850
4,840
23.5'
STA. 145+00.00
END NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
PROPOSED BRIDGEEL. 4836.65
STA. 126+78.00HIGH POINT
10'
4,790
4,800
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,850
4,840
4,790
4,800
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,850
4,840
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM
109
ST
A. 125
+00
MA
TC
H
LI
NE -
NM
109
ST
A. 125
+00
10'
100'
TRAFFIC
GROUNDLINE EXISTING
PROFILE PROPOSED
PROFILE PROPOSED
GROUNDLINE EXISTING
PHASE 1-A/B DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
NM 109, JARALES ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SHEET 3 OF 3
DETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE - ALTERNATIVE E
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
NM 109 (JARALES ROAD)
3
APPENDIX C
SHEET:
R
PLAN NO:
K:\a-f\B
NSF\16897000\04_Pro
duction\01_C
AD\05_Bridge\Base\BridgeC_Concept_
GPE.dgn
4/14/2020 3:32:09 PMTime Printed:Date Printed:
File
Locati
on:
OF
BRIDGE NUMBER 894.81
7100-0894.810-001 1 1
tkda.com
651.292.4400
Saint Paul, MN 55101
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
25'-
0"
25'-
0"
30'-
0"ACCESS
RD
ACCESS
RD
24'-
0"
25'-
0"
PEDESTRIAN SCREEN FENCE (TYP.)
25'-0"
ACCESS RD
25'-0" 24'-0" 30'-0" 25'-0"
ACCESS RD
FUTURE TRACK MAIN 2 MAIN 1 7720
FUEL PAD 4 EXTENSION
FUEL PAD 3 EXTENSION
FUEL PAD 2 EXTENSION
FUTURE TRACK
BRIDGE
OVERHEAD
PROPOSED
23'-6"
NOTE
INFORMATION SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
17'-0"
17'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION BEAM (TYP.)
72" DEEP PREST. CONC.
RETAINING WALL SUPPORTED CAUSEWAYRETAINING WALL SUPPORTED CAUSEWAY
24'-
0"
24'-
0"
ROW (APPROX.)
EXISTING BNSF
RETAINING WALL
SUPPORTED CAUSEWAY (TYP.)
24'-0" 24'-0"
LIMITS (TYP.)
EXISTING CHANNEL
(TYP.)
(TYP.)
CONC. BEAM
72" DEEP PREST.
RECONSTRUCTED CHANNEL LIMITS
FUEL PAD 1
EXTENSION
FUTURE TRACK
MAIN 2 TRACK
30'-
0"
MAIN 1 TRACK
FUEL PAD 4 EXTENSION
FUEL PAD 3 EXTENSION
FUEL PAD 2 EXTENSION
FUEL PAD 1 EXTENSION
FUTURE TRACK
7220 TRACK
WALL (TYP.)
EXISTING CULVERT
(T
YP.)
VIEW A-A
17'-0"
37'-0"
17'-0"
12'-0" - LANE5'-0"
SHLD.
12'-0" - LANE
2% 2%2%
1
GRADE SEP. MANUAL (TYP.)
FENCING PER BNSF/UPRR
BARRIER RAILING (TYP.)
NMDOT 42" CONCRETE BRIDGE
2%
SHLD.
5'-0"
ROW (APPROX.)
EXISTING BNSF A
A
NOTES:
BRIDGE DECK.
8•" REINFORCED CONCRETE 1
EAST CLOVIS TO BELEN JCT.
WALL
CIP RETAINING
WALL
CIP RET.
> NM 109 - ALTERNATE C
NM 109 OVERHEAD ALTERNATE C - PLAN VIEW
DES:
DRAWN:
CHECK:MPB
MPB
HLE
DATE: LINE SEG:APRIL 2020 7100
CHECK: HLE
NM 109 OVERHEAD NEAR BELEN, NM
NM 109 OVERHEAD BRIDGE ALTERNATE C
> BRG. ABUTMENT 1 > BRG. ABUTMENT 4> PIER 3> PIER 2
ASSUMPTIONS:
THROUGH THE CAUSEWAY EMBANKMENTS.
PRECAST CONCRETE CULVERTS WILL BE USED TO CONVEY IRRIGATION CHANNELS
FILLS AND DRIVEN PILE DEEP FOUNDATIONS.
CAUSEWAY APPROACHES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED USING CIP WALLS WITH CONVENTIONAL
SHOULDERS.
BRIDGE DECK SECTION WILL PROVIDE TWO TWELVE FOOT LANES AND TWO FIVE FOOT
STRUCTURES WITHOUT MODIFICATION.
DRILLED SHAFTS MAY BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO INPLACE IRRIGATION CHANNEL
PIERS WITHIN THE RAIL CORRIDOR TO INCORPORATE A CRASH STRUT.
ABUTMENTS: 20" DIA. PILES; 95'-0" IN LENGTH
ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE:
SIZE AND LENGTH ARE UNKNOWN, FOR COST ESTIMATING PURPOSES, THE FOLLOWING
ABUTMENT FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTED ON A MAT OF DRIVEN STEEL PIPE PILING.
PIERS: 60" DIA. SHAFTS; 75'-0" IN LENGTH
ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE:
SIZE AND LENGTH ARE UNKNOWN, FOR COST ESTIMATING PURPOSES, THE FOLLOWING
PIER FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTED ON REINFORCED CONCRETE DRILLED SHAFTS.
APPROXIMATE > EXISTING NM 109
> NM 109
SHEET:
R
PLAN NO:
K:\a-f\B
NSF\16897000\04_Pro
duction\01_C
AD\05_Bridge\Base\BridgeD_Concept_
GPE.dgn
4/14/2020 4:09:02 PMTime Printed:Date Printed:
File
Locati
on:
OF
BRIDGE NUMBER 894.81
7100-0894.810-001 1 1
tkda.com
651.292.4400
Saint Paul, MN 55101
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
PEDESTRIAN SCREEN FENCE (TYP.)
BRIDGE
OVERHEAD
PROPOSED
NOTE
INFORMATION SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
17'-0"
17'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION BEAM (TYP.)
72" DEEP PREST. CONC.
ROW (APPROX.)
EXISTING BNSF
(TYP.)
CONC. BEAM
72" DEEP PREST.
VIEW A-A
17'-0"
37'-0"
17'-0"
12'-0" - LANE5'-0"
SHLD.
12'-0" - LANE
2% 2%2%
1
GRADE SEP. MANUAL (TYP.)
FENCING PER BNSF/UPRR
BARRIER RAILING (TYP.)
NMDOT 42" CONCRETE BRIDGE
2%
SHLD.
5'-0"
A
A
1 EAST CLOVIS TO BELEN JCT.
FUTURE TRACK FUTURE TRACK
FUEL PAD 1 EXTENSION
FUEL PAD 2 EXTENSIONFUEL PAD 3 EXTENSION
FUEL PAD 4 EXTENSION
7720
(T
YP.)
23'-6"
MI
N.
25'-0"
ACCESS RD
2
24'-5"24'-5"24'-5"22'-3"
FUTURE TRACK
EX.
MAIN TRACK
EX.
MAIN TRACK
EX.
MAI
N TR
AC
K
EX.
MAI
N TR
AC
K
7220 TR
AC
K
FUEL P
AD 4 E
XT.
FUEL P
AD 3 E
XT.
FUEL P
AD 2 E
XT.
FUEL P
AD 1 E
XT.
FUT
URE TR
AC
K
22'-
3"
24'-5"
24'-5"
24'-5"
25'-0"
ACCESS RD
2
2
2
3
MAIN
EX.
MAIN
EX.
MAIN
EX.
MAIN
EX.
ROW (APPROX.)
EXISTING BNSF
(VARIES)
(VARIES) (VARIES) (VARIES)
(VARIES) (VARIES) (VARIES)
3
EMBANKMENT
ROW (APPROX.)
EXISTING BNSF
EMBANKMENT SLOPE
APPROX. TOE OF
CHANNEL
IRRIGATION
EXISTING
(APPROX. LIMITS)
THROUGH CAUSEWAY
PROPOSED CULVERT
CULVERT
CHANNEL / PROPOSED
EXISTING IRRIGATION
EARTHEN
CAUSEWAY
EMBANKMENT
EARTHEN
CAUSEWAY
CIP RET. WALL
SUPPORTED CAUSEWAY
EARTHEN EMBANKMENT
CIP RETAINING WALL
> NM 109
NM 109 OVERHEAD NEAR BELEN, NM
NM 109 OVERHEAD BRIDGE ALTERNATE DDES:
DRAWN:
MPB
MPB CHECK: HLE
CHECK: HLE
DATE: APRIL 2020 LINE SEG: 7100
ALTERNATE D
> NM 109 -
> BRG. ABUTMENT 7
> PIER 6
> PIER 5> PIER 4
> PIER 3
> PIER 2
> BRG.
ABUTMENT 1
NM 109 OVERHEAD ALTERNATE D - PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
EARTHEN EMBANKMENT CAUSEWAY.
REQUIREMENTS.
TO MEET BNSF CLEARANCE
TO BE POSITIONED AND SKEWED
PIERS WITHIN RAIL CORRIDOR
BRIDGE DECK.
8•" REINFORCED CONCRETE
ASSUMPTIONS:
ABUTMENTS: 20" DIA. PILES; 95'-0" IN LENGTH
PURPOSES, THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE:
PIPE PILING. SIZE AND LENGTH ARE UNKNOWN, FOR COST ESTIMATING
ABUTMENT FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTED ON A MAT OF DRIVEN STEEL
PIERS: 60" DIA. SHAFTS; 75'-0" IN LENGTH
PURPOSES, THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE:
SHAFTS. SIZE AND LENGTH ARE UNKNOWN, FOR COST ESTIMATING
PIER FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTED ON REINFORCED CONCRETE DRILLED
WALLS WITH CONVENTIONAL FILLS AND DRIVEN PILE DEEP FOUNDATIONS.
THE SOUTH CAUSEWAY APPROACH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED USING CIP
TWO FIVE FOOT SHOULDERS.
BRIDGE DECK SECTION WILL PROVIDE TWO TWELVE FOOT LANES AND
CHANNEL STRUCTURES WITHOUT MODIFICATION.
DRILLED SHAFTS MAY BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO INPLACE IRRIGATION
PIERS WITHIN THE RAIL CORRIDOR TO INCORPORATE A CRASH STRUT.
CHANNELS THROUGH THE CAUSEWAY EMBANKMENTS.
PRECAST CONCRETE CULVERTS WILL BE USED TO CONVEY IRRIGATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE WILL BE USED FOR THE APPROACH ROADWAY SECTION.
TYPICAL EARTHEN EMBANKMENT.
THE NORTH CAUSEWAY APPROACH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED USING A
SHEET:
R
PLAN NO:
K:\a-f\B
NSF\16897000\04_Pro
duction\01_C
AD\05_Bridge\Base\BridgeE_Concept_
GPE.dgn
4/14/2020 3:28:31 PMTime Printed:Date Printed:
File
Locati
on:
OF
BRIDGE NUMBER 894.81
7100-0894.810-001 1 1
tkda.com
651.292.4400
Saint Paul, MN 55101
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
NOTE
INFORMATION SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EAST CLOVIS TO BELEN JCT.
TYPICAL SECTION
17'-0"
37'-0"
BEAM (TYP.)
72" DEEP PREST. CONC.
GRADE SEP. MANUAL (TYP.)
FENCING PER BNSF/UPRR
BARRIER RAILING (TYP.)
NMDOT 42" CONCRETE BRIDGE
17'-0"
12'-0" - LANE5'-0"
SHLD.
12'-0" - LANE 5'-0"
SHLD.
2% 2%2% 2%
1
FUEL P
AD 1 E
XTE
NSI
ON
FUEL P
AD 2 E
XTE
NSI
ON
FUEL P
AD 3 E
XTE
NSI
ON
FUEL P
AD 4 E
XTE
NSI
ON
FUT
URE TR
AC
K
FUT
URE T
RA
CK
25'-0"
ACCESS RD
30'-0"24'-0"24'-0"24'-0"
7220 TR
AC
K
MAI
N 1 T
RA
CK
MAI
N 2 T
RA
CK
ACCESS RD
25'-0" VARIES VARIES VARIES
BRIDGE
OVERHEAD
PROPOSED
90° (TYP.)
1
A AROW (APPROX.)
EXISTING BNSF
RETAINING WALL
CAUSEWAY (TYP.)
SUPPORTED
17'-0"
17'-0"
15'-0" 15'-0"
ROW (APPROX.)
EXISTING BNSF
NM 109 OVERHEAD BRIDGE ALTERNATE E - PLAN VIEW
14'-6" 14'-6"
22
2
VIEW A-A
PEDESTRIAN SCREEN FENCE (TYP.)
(T
YP.)
23'-6"
MI
N.
BEAM (TYP.)
PREST. CONC.
72" DEEP
25'-0"
ACCESS RD
FUTURE TRACK FUTURE TRACK
25'-0"
ACCESS RD
30'-0"
FUEL PAD 1 EXTENSION
FUEL PAD 2 EXTENSION
24'-0"24'-0"
FUEL PAD 3 EXTENSION
24'-0"
FUEL PAD 4 EXTENSION
7720MAIN 2 MAIN 1
VARIES VARIES VARIES
CAUSEWAY (TYP.)
SUPPORTED
RETAINING WALL
RETAINING WALL SUPPORTED CAUSEWAYRETAINING WALL SUPPORTED CAUSEWAY
NOTES:
CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.
POSITIONED TO MEET BNSF
PIERS WITHIN RAIL CORRIDOR
BRIDGE DECK.
8•" REINFORCED CONCRETE
DES:
DRAWN:
DATE:
MPB
MPB CHECK:
HLE
HLE
7100
CHECK:
APRIL 2020 LINE SEG:
ASSUMPTIONS:
THROUGH THE CAUSEWAY EMBANKMENTS.
PRECAST CONCRETE CULVERTS WILL BE USED TO CONVEY IRRIGATION CHANNELS
FILLS AND DRIVEN PILE DEEP FOUNDATIONS.
CAUSEWAY APPROACHES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED USING CIP WALLS WITH CONVENTIONAL
SHOULDERS.
BRIDGE DECK SECTION WILL PROVIDE TWO TWELVE FOOT LANES AND TWO FIVE FOOT
STRUCTURES WITHOUT MODIFICATION.
DRILLED SHAFTS MAY BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO INPLACE IRRIGATION CHANNEL
PIERS WITHIN THE RAIL CORRIDOR TO INCORPORATE A CRASH STRUT.
ABUTMENTS: 20" DIA. PILES; 95'-0" IN LENGTH
ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE:
SIZE AND LENGTH ARE UNKNOWN, FOR COST ESTIMATING PURPOSES, THE FOLLOWING
ABUTMENT FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTED ON A MAT OF DRIVEN STEEL PIPE PILING.
PIERS: 60" DIA. SHAFTS; 75'-0" IN LENGTH
ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE:
SIZE AND LENGTH ARE UNKNOWN, FOR COST ESTIMATING PURPOSES, THE FOLLOWING
PIER FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTED ON REINFORCED CONCRETE DRILLED SHAFTS.
NM 109 OVERHEAD BRIDGE ALTERNATE E
NM 109 OVERHEAD NEAR BELEN, NM
> NM 109
> NM 109 - ALTERNATE E
104'-0" - SPAN 1
> BRG. ABUTMENT 1 > PIER 2 > PIER 3 > BRG. ABUTMENT 4
4
APPENDIX D
1
Basic Axle Classification Report: Jarales Rd (NM 109)
Station ID :Info Line 1 :Info Line 2 :
GPS Lat/Lon :DB File : 190 1SB0.DB
BelenNorth of Trujillo RdJarales Rd (NM 109) Last Connected Device Type :
Version Number :Serial Number :
Number of Lanes :Posted Speed Limit : 0.0 mph
1
240911.62Apollo
Lane #1 Configuration
# Dir. Information Vehicle Sensors Sensor Spacing Loop Length Comment
1. Southbound Ax-Ax 4.0 ft 6.0 ft
Lane #1 Basic Axle Classification Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
1/14/202 00:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Tue 01:00 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
02:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
06:00 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
07:00 0 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 21
08:00 0 23 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
09:00 0 8 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
10:00 0 10 12 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 24
11:00 0 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
12:00 0 12 10 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
13:00 0 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
14:00 0 15 10 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 27
15:00 1 22 14 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 39
16:00 0 24 13 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 40
17:00 0 18 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 27
18:00 0 20 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
19:00 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
20:00 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
21:00 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
22:00 0 3 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
23:00 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
1 234 146 0 4 18 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 410Daily Total :Percent : 0% 57% 36% 0% 1% 4% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : 0 10 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #1 Axle Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
1/15/202 00:00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Wed 01:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
02:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
06:00 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
07:00 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
08:00 0 23 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
09:00 0 9 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
10:00 0 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
11:00 0 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 28
12:00 1 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
13:00 2 19 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
14:00 1 15 7 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 28
15:00 0 23 16 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 41
16:00 0 21 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
17:00 0 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
18:00 0 17 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
19:00 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
20:00 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
21:00 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
22:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
23:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4 239 130 0 1 8 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 387Daily Total :Percent : 1% 62% 34% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Average : 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2
2
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #3 Axle Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Lane #3 Configuration
# Dir. Information Vehicle Sensors Sensor Spacing Loop Length Comment
3. Northbound Ax-Ax 4.0 ft 6.0 ft
Lane #3 Basic Axle Classification Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
1/14/202 00:00 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
04:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
06:00 0 9 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
07:00 0 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
08:00 0 24 18 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 47
09:00 0 17 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
10:00 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 33
11:00 0 16 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
12:00 0 9 10 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 24
13:00 0 17 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
14:00 0 21 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
15:00 0 27 18 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 47
16:00 0 18 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
17:00 0 26 16 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
18:00 0 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
19:00 0 11 6 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20
20:00 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
21:00 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
22:00 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
23:00 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 273 171 0 8 12 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 470Daily Total :Percent : 0% 58% 36% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : 0 11 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #3 Axle Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
1/15/202 00:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
06:00 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
07:00 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
08:00 0 25 14 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
09:00 0 15 18 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 36
10:00 0 16 11 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 30
11:00 0 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
12:00 0 19 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
13:00 3 18 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 35
14:00 0 13 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
15:00 1 30 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
16:00 0 18 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
17:00 0 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
18:00 0 18 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
19:00 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
20:00 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
21:00 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
22:00 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
23:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4 259 178 0 8 4 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 458Daily Total :Percent : 1% 57% 39% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4
3
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Axle Data Summary From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Basic Axle Class Summary: Jarales Rd (NM 109)
Description Lane#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
TOTAL COUNT : #1. 5 473 276 0 5 26 0 3 6 0 3 0 0 797
#3. 4 532 349 0 16 16 0 2 7 0 1 0 1 928
9 1005 625 0 21 42 0 5 13 0 4 0 1 1725
Percents : #1. 1% 59% 35% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 46%
#3. 0% 57% 38% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 54%
1% 58% 36% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : #1. 0 10 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
#3. 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
0 21 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Days & ADT : #1. 2.0 398
#3. 2.0 464
2.0 862
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 5
Basic Axle Classification Report: Trujillo Rd
Station ID :Info Line 1 :Info Line 2 :
GPS Lat/Lon :DB File : TRU1SB.DB
BelenEast of Jarales Rd (NM 109)Trujillo Rd Last Connected Device Type :
Version Number :Serial Number :
Number of Lanes :Posted Speed Limit : 0.0 mph
1
970011.62Apollo
Lane #1 Configuration
# Dir. Information Vehicle Sensors Sensor Spacing Loop Length Comment
1. Westbound Ax-Ax 4.0 ft 6.0 ft
Lane #1 Basic Axle Classification Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
1/14/202 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
06:00 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
07:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
08:00 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
09:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10:00 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
11:00 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
12:00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
13:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
14:00 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
15:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
16:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
17:00 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
18:00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 30 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51Daily Total :Percent : 0% 59% 41% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #1 Axle Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
1/15/202 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
06:00 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
07:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:00 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
09:00 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
10:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
11:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12:00 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
13:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
14:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
15:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
16:00 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
17:00 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
18:00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
19:00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
20:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
21:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 30 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56Daily Total :Percent : 0% 54% 46% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #3 Axle Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Lane #3 Configuration
# Dir. Information Vehicle Sensors Sensor Spacing Loop Length Comment
3. Eastbound (Northbound) Ax-Ax 4.0 ft 6.0 ft
Lane #3 Basic Axle Classification Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
1/14/202 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
08:00 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
09:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10:00 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
11:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
12:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
13:00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
14:00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
15:00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
16:00 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
17:00 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
18:00 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
19:00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 35 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54Daily Total :Percent : 0% 65% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #3 Axle Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
1/15/202 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
08:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
09:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
10:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
11:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12:00 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
13:00 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
14:00 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
15:00 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
16:00 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
17:00 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
18:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
19:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
20:00 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 35 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59Daily Total :Percent : 0% 59% 37% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4
Station: Trujillo Rd Axle Data Summary From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Basic Axle Class Summary: Trujillo Rd
Description Lane#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13
Cycle Cars 2A-4T Buses 2A-SU 3A-SU 4A-SU 4A-ST 5A-ST 6A-ST 5A-MT 6A-MT Other Total(DEFAULTC)
TOTAL COUNT : #1. 0 60 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107
#3. 0 70 41 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113
0 130 88 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220
Percents : #1. 0% 56% 44% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 49%
#3. 0% 62% 36% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 51%
0% 59% 40% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Average : #1. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
#3. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Days & ADT : #1. 2.0 53
#3. 2.0 56
2.0 110
Centurion Basic Classification Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 5
Special Speed Study Report: Jarales Rd (NM 109)
Station ID : Jarales Rd (NM 109)Info Line 1 : North of Trujillo RdInfo Line 2 : Belen
DB File : 190 1SB0.DBNumber of Lanes :
0.0 mph1
Posted Speed Limit :
240911.62ApolloLast Connected Device Type :
Version Number :Serial Number :
GPS Lat/Lon :
Lane #1 Configuration
# Dir. Vehicle SensorsInformation Sensor Spacing Loop Length Comment
1. Southbound Ax-Ax 4.0 ft 6.0 ft
Lane #1 Special Speed Study Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time
#1 #2 #3 #5#4 #7#6 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #16#15#14
Total
0 - 19.9
20 -
24.9
25 -
29.9
30 -
34.9
35 -
39.9
40 -
44.9
45 -
49.9
50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 -
54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 79.9 Other89.9
85 -
84.9
80 -
1/14/202 00:00 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Tue 01:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
06:00 0 1 2 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
07:00 0 0 2 4 5 2 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
08:00 1 3 2 1 7 12 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
09:00 1 0 1 2 5 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
10:00 1 0 2 3 8 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
11:00 0 0 1 4 5 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
12:00 1 4 0 4 11 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
13:00 0 0 1 7 7 10 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
14:00 1 2 0 2 9 7 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
15:00 0 1 1 3 11 11 7 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 39
16:00 0 2 0 5 9 14 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
17:00 0 0 1 2 6 6 7 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 27
18:00 0 0 3 4 5 8 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
19:00 0 1 0 1 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
20:00 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
21:00 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
22:00 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
23:00 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Daily Total : 114 100 72 31 7 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 4105 14 18 431% 3% 4% 10% 28% 24% 18% 8% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :1% 5% 9% 20% 47% 72% 89% 97% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 1 1 2 5 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
Average Speed 50% Speed : 67% Speed : 85% Speed : 40.5 mph 40.6 mph 43.7 mph 48.7 mph10mph Pace: 35.0 - 44.9 (52.2%)
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #1 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time
#1 #2 #3 #5#4 #7#6 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #16#15#14
Total
0 - 19.9
20 -
24.9
25 -
29.9
30 -
34.9
35 -
39.9
40 -
44.9
45 -
49.9
50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 -
54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 79.9 Other89.9
85 -
84.9
80 -
1/15/202 00:00 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
06:00 0 0 2 1 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
07:00 0 1 0 2 3 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
08:00 2 4 0 7 13 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
09:00 4 0 1 3 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
10:00 0 0 2 1 3 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
11:00 0 2 0 2 7 6 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
12:00 1 2 1 2 7 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
13:00 2 0 2 6 8 8 7 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 39
14:00 1 3 1 0 5 8 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
15:00 1 2 2 6 9 13 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
16:00 0 0 3 4 13 6 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
17:00 0 1 3 0 8 5 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
18:00 0 2 3 3 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
19:00 0 2 0 2 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
20:00 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
21:00 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Daily Total : 105 85 61 31 8 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 38711 19 20 433% 5% 5% 11% 27% 22% 16% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :3% 8% 13% 24% 51% 73% 89% 97% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 1 1 2 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Average Speed 50% Speed : 67% Speed : 85% Speed : 39.5 mph 39.6 mph 43.5 mph 48.4 mph10mph Pace: 35.0 - 44.9 (49.1%)
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #3 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Lane #3 Configuration
# Dir. Information Vehicle Sensors Sensor Spacing Loop Length Comment
3. Northbound Ax-Ax 4.0 ft 6.0 ft
Lane #3 Special Speed Study Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time
#1 #2 #3 #5#4 #7#6 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #16#15#14
Total
0 - 19.9
20 -
24.9
25 -
29.9
30 -
34.9
35 -
39.9
40 -
44.9
45 -
49.9
50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 -
54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 79.9 Other89.9
85 -
84.9
80 -
1/14/202 00:00 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
06:00 0 0 2 1 3 5 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
07:00 0 0 2 1 4 4 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
08:00 2 0 2 6 12 12 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 47
09:00 0 1 1 4 3 8 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
10:00 0 2 2 3 6 10 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
11:00 1 2 2 4 2 9 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
12:00 0 0 2 3 6 7 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
13:00 0 1 3 2 6 9 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
14:00 2 0 5 1 9 4 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
15:00 0 2 3 10 6 13 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
16:00 0 0 5 1 9 9 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
17:00 1 2 3 4 10 10 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
18:00 0 0 3 4 9 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
19:00 1 0 0 1 4 7 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
20:00 0 0 1 1 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
21:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
22:00 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
23:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Daily Total : 99 116 88 42 13 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 4707 10 39 491% 2% 8% 10% 21% 25% 19% 9% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :1% 4% 12% 22% 43% 68% 87% 96% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 0 2 2 4 5 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Average Speed 50% Speed : 67% Speed : 85% Speed : 40.8 mph 41.6 mph 44.6 mph 49.4 mph10mph Pace: 36.9 - 46.8 (45.7%)
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #3 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time
#1 #2 #3 #5#4 #7#6 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #16#15#14
Total
0 - 19.9
20 -
24.9
25 -
29.9
30 -
34.9
35 -
39.9
40 -
44.9
45 -
49.9
50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 -
54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 79.9 Other89.9
85 -
84.9
80 -
1/15/202 00:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
06:00 0 0 1 2 0 3 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
07:00 0 0 0 1 3 1 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
08:00 1 0 5 3 9 9 10 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
09:00 0 2 1 3 6 12 7 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
10:00 0 1 0 0 7 11 4 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
11:00 0 1 2 3 9 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
12:00 1 2 4 4 8 13 5 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 43
13:00 1 0 1 1 3 14 6 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 35
14:00 1 0 2 2 9 11 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
15:00 1 2 1 1 6 14 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
16:00 0 2 3 3 3 12 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
17:00 1 1 5 5 7 8 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
18:00 0 2 4 1 13 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
19:00 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
20:00 0 1 3 2 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
21:00 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
22:00 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
23:00 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Daily Total : 91 133 86 31 14 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 4586 16 35 361% 3% 8% 8% 20% 29% 19% 7% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :1% 5% 12% 20% 40% 69% 88% 95% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 1 1 2 4 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Average Speed 50% Speed : 67% Speed : 85% Speed : 40.9 mph 41.8 mph 44.3 mph 49.1 mph10mph Pace: 37.2 - 47.1 (48.9%)
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Special Speed Study Summary: Jarales Rd (NM 109)
Description 19.9 0 -
#1 #2
20 -
24.9 29.9
25 - #3
30 -
34.9
#4 #5
35 -
39.9 44.9
40 - #6
49.9
45 - #7 #8
50 -
54.9 59.9
55 - #9 #10
60 -
64.9 69.9
65 - #11 #12
70 -
74.9 79.9
75 - #13 #14
80 -
84.9 89.9
85 - #15 #16
Other Total
Grand Total #1: 16 33 38 86 219 185 133 62 15 3 3 1 0 1 0 7972% 4% 5% 11% 27% 23% 17% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :
2
2% 6% 11% 22% 49% 72% 89% 97% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 1 1 2 5 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
Average Speed 40.0 mph 50% Speed : 40.1 mph 67% Speed :10mph Pace: 35.0 - 44.9 (50.7%)
43.6 mph 85% Speed : 48.6 mphADT = 398
Grand Total #3: 13 26 74 85 190 249 174 73 27 14 2 0 1 0 0 9281% 3% 8% 9% 20% 27% 19% 8% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :
0
1% 4% 12% 21% 42% 69% 87% 95% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 1 2 2 4 5 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
Average Speed 40.8 mph 50% Speed : 41.6 mph 67% Speed :10mph Pace: 36.5 - 46.4 (47.3%)
44.7 mph 85% Speed : 49.3 mphADT = 464
Comb. Total : 29 59 112 171 409 434 307 135 42 17 5 1 1 1 0 17252% 3% 6% 10% 24% 25% 18% 8% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :
2
2% 5% 12% 22% 45% 70% 88% 96% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 1 2 4 9 9 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
Average Speed 40.5 mph 50% Speed : 41.0 mph 67% Speed :10mph Pace: 35.0 - 44.9 (48.9%)
44.3 mph 85% Speed : 49.1 mphADT = 862
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 6
Special Speed Study Report: Trujillo Rd
Station ID : Trujillo RdInfo Line 1 : East of Jarales Rd (NM 109)Info Line 2 : Belen
DB File : TRU1SB.DBNumber of Lanes :
0.0 mph1
Posted Speed Limit :
970011.62ApolloLast Connected Device Type :
Version Number :Serial Number :
GPS Lat/Lon :
Lane #1 Configuration
# Dir. Vehicle SensorsInformation Sensor Spacing Loop Length Comment
1. Westbound Ax-Ax 4.0 ft 6.0 ft
Lane #1 Special Speed Study Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time
#1 #2 #3 #5#4 #7#6 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #16#15#14
Total
0 - 19.9
20 -
24.9
25 -
29.9
30 -
34.9
35 -
39.9
40 -
44.9
45 -
49.9
50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 -
54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 79.9 Other89.9
85 -
84.9
80 -
1/14/202 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
06:00 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
07:00 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
08:00 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
09:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10:00 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
11:00 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
12:00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
13:00 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
14:00 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
15:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
16:00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
17:00 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
18:00 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daily Total : 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5111 9 17 1222% 18% 33% 24% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :22% 39% 73% 96% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Average Speed 50% Speed : 67% Speed : 85% Speed : 24.5 mph 27.3 mph 27.8 mph 32.5 mph10mph Pace: 27.0 - 36.9 (56.9%)
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #1 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time
#1 #2 #3 #5#4 #7#6 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #16#15#14
Total
0 - 19.9
20 -
24.9
25 -
29.9
30 -
34.9
35 -
39.9
40 -
44.9
45 -
49.9
50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 -
54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 79.9 Other89.9
85 -
84.9
80 -
1/15/202 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
06:00 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
07:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:00 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
09:00 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
10:00 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
11:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12:00 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
13:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
14:00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
15:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
16:00 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
17:00 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
18:00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
19:00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
20:00 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
21:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daily Total : 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5610 21 13 818% 38% 23% 14% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :18% 55% 79% 93% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Average Speed 50% Speed : 67% Speed : 85% Speed : 24.0 mph 23.0 mph 27.5 mph 32.4 mph10mph Pace: 21.9 - 31.8 (60.7%)
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #3 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Lane #3 Configuration
# Dir. Information Vehicle Sensors Sensor Spacing Loop Length Comment
3. Eastbound (Northbound) Ax-Ax 4.0 ft 6.0 ft
Lane #3 Special Speed Study Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time
#1 #2 #3 #5#4 #7#6 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #16#15#14
Total
0 - 19.9
20 -
24.9
25 -
29.9
30 -
34.9
35 -
39.9
40 -
44.9
45 -
49.9
50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 -
54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 79.9 Other89.9
85 -
84.9
80 -
1/14/202 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:00 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
08:00 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
09:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10:00 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
11:00 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
12:00 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
13:00 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
14:00 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
15:00 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
16:00 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
17:00 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
18:00 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
19:00 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daily Total : 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 548 16 17 1015% 30% 31% 19% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :15% 44% 76% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Average Speed 50% Speed : 67% Speed : 85% Speed : 24.9 mph 27.2 mph 27.7 mph 32.4 mph10mph Pace: 22.1 - 32.0 (61.1%)
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #3 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time
#1 #2 #3 #5#4 #7#6 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #16#15#14
Total
0 - 19.9
20 -
24.9
25 -
29.9
30 -
34.9
35 -
39.9
40 -
44.9
45 -
49.9
50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 -
54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9 79.9 Other89.9
85 -
84.9
80 -
1/15/202 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:00 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
08:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
09:00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
10:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
11:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12:00 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
13:00 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
14:00 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
15:00 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
16:00 2 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
17:00 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
18:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
19:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
20:00 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daily Total : 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5916 20 12 1027% 34% 20% 17% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :27% 61% 81% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Average Speed 50% Speed : 67% Speed : 85% Speed : 22.1 mph 22.7 mph 27.3 mph 32.3 mph10mph Pace: 21.9 - 31.8 (54.2%)
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4
Station: Trujillo Rd Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Special Speed Study Summary: Trujillo Rd
Description 19.9 0 -
#1 #2
20 -
24.9 29.9
25 - #3
30 -
34.9
#4 #5
35 -
39.9 44.9
40 - #6
49.9
45 - #7 #8
50 -
54.9 59.9
55 - #9 #10
60 -
64.9 69.9
65 - #11 #12
70 -
74.9 79.9
75 - #13 #14
80 -
84.9 89.9
85 - #15 #16
Other Total
Grand Total #1: 21 30 30 20 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10720% 28% 28% 19% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :
0
20% 48% 76% 94% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Average Speed 24.3 mph 50% Speed : 26.7 mph 67% Speed :10mph Pace: 21.6 - 31.5 (56.1%)
27.8 mph 85% Speed : 32.4 mphADT = 53
Grand Total #3: 24 36 29 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11321% 32% 26% 18% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :
0
21% 53% 79% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Average Speed 23.4 mph 50% Speed : 23.4 mph 67% Speed :10mph Pace: 21.4 - 31.3 (57.5%)
27.5 mph 85% Speed : 32.3 mphADT = 56
Comb. Total : 45 66 59 40 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22020% 30% 27% 18% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percent :
Cum. Percent :
Average :
0
20% 50% 77% 95% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Average Speed 23.8 mph 50% Speed : 24.5 mph 67% Speed :10mph Pace: 20.5 - 30.4 (56.8%)
27.9 mph 85% Speed : 32.3 mphADT = 110
Centurion Special Speed Study Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 6
Basic Volume Report: Jarales Rd (NM 109)
Station ID : Jarales Rd (NM 109)Info Line 1 : North of Trujillo RdInfo Line 2 : Belen
DB File : 190 1SB0.DBNumber of Lanes :
0.0 mph1
Posted Speed Limit :
240911.62ApolloLast Connected Device Type :
Version Number :Serial Number :
Lane #1 Configuration
# Dir. Information Volume Mode Volume Sensors Divide By 2 Comment
1. Southbound Normal Veh. No
GPS Lat/Lon :
Lane #1 Basic Volume Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total
1/14/2020 00:00 1 0 0 2 3
Tue 01:00 2 3 0 0 5
02:00 0 0 0 2 2
03:00 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 1 0 1
05:00 1 0 2 2 5
06:00 0 2 3 4 9
07:00 7 5 3 6 21
08:00 4 14 10 7 35
09:00 4 5 5 8 22
10:00 5 3 6 10 24
11:00 3 4 8 4 19
12:00 5 8 6 7 26
13:00 13 9 6 7 35
14:00 7 3 9 8 27
15:00 13 11 4 11 39
16:00 5 13 14 8 40
17:00 10 7 4 6 27
18:00 7 7 11 2 27
19:00 5 2 0 4 11
20:00 2 4 2 2 10
21:00 0 2 1 3 6
22:00 0 2 3 4 9
23:00 0 1 1 5 7
Day Total : 410
AM Total :
PM Total :
Peak AM Hour :
Peak PM Hour :
Average Period :
Average Hour :
Peak AM Factor :
Peak PM Factor :
146 (35.6%)
264 (64.4%)
0.625
0.804
4.3
17.1
08:00 =
16:15 =
35 (8.5%)
45 (11.0%)
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #1 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total
1/15/2020 00:00 2 1 0 1 4
Wed 01:00 1 0 0 0 1
02:00 0 1 0 0 1
03:00 2 1 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 1 1 1 1 4
06:00 3 2 2 5 12
07:00 6 3 1 5 15
08:00 9 10 11 5 35
09:00 2 9 6 2 19
10:00 3 4 7 4 18
11:00 8 8 7 5 28
12:00 7 3 8 9 27
13:00 10 11 10 8 39
14:00 3 7 8 10 28
15:00 9 7 14 11 41
16:00 10 9 11 3 33
17:00 7 9 3 6 25
18:00 10 2 9 5 26
19:00 2 3 4 1 10
20:00 0 5 3 0 8
21:00 0 5 2 0 7
22:00 0 1 0 1 2
23:00 0 0 1 0 1
Day Total : 387
AM Total :
PM Total :
Peak AM Hour :
Peak PM Hour :
Average Period :
Average Hour :
Peak AM Factor :
Peak PM Factor :
140 (36.2%)
247 (63.8%)
0.795
0.786
4.0
16.1
07:45 =
15:30 =
35 (9.0%)
44 (11.4%)
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #3 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Lane #3 Configuration
Lane #3 Basic Volume Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
# Dir. Information Volume Mode Volume Sensors Divide By 2 Comment
3. Northbound Normal Veh. No
Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total
1/14/2020 00:00 0 0 0 5 5
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 1 1
03:00 0 1 0 0 1
04:00 0 0 1 0 1
05:00 1 2 1 1 5
06:00 1 3 5 7 16
07:00 5 5 8 6 24
08:00 7 7 20 13 47
09:00 10 6 5 7 28
10:00 6 8 8 11 33
11:00 7 9 10 4 30
12:00 9 5 6 4 24
13:00 8 8 11 4 31
14:00 5 5 10 11 31
15:00 15 5 17 10 47
16:00 7 8 7 9 31
17:00 13 14 9 8 44
18:00 7 4 4 9 24
19:00 4 7 7 2 20
20:00 7 2 1 2 12
21:00 1 2 1 1 5
22:00 2 1 2 1 6
23:00 0 2 0 2 4
Day Total : 470
AM Total :
PM Total :
Peak AM Hour :
Peak PM Hour :
Average Period :
Average Hour :
Peak AM Factor :
Peak PM Factor :
191 (40.6%)
279 (59.4%)
0.625
0.706
4.9
19.6
08:15 =
14:45 =
50 (10.6%)
48 (10.2%)
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3
Station: Jarales Rd (NM 109) Lane #3 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total
1/15/2020 00:00 1 0 0 1 2
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 1 0 0 0 1
03:00 1 0 0 1 2
04:00 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 2 2 0 1 5
06:00 0 3 4 7 14
07:00 4 2 3 6 15
08:00 6 10 21 7 44
09:00 11 8 9 8 36
10:00 10 7 4 9 30
11:00 7 5 9 6 27
12:00 8 5 15 15 43
13:00 9 6 10 10 35
14:00 7 5 11 10 33
15:00 8 5 14 10 37
16:00 8 8 6 10 32
17:00 7 9 5 16 37
18:00 6 5 6 9 26
19:00 5 2 1 1 9
20:00 4 5 5 2 16
21:00 4 1 1 0 6
22:00 1 1 2 2 6
23:00 0 1 0 1 2
Day Total : 458
AM Total :
PM Total :
Peak AM Hour :
Peak PM Hour :
Average Period :
Average Hour :
Peak AM Factor :
Peak PM Factor :
176 (38.4%)
282 (61.6%)
0.583
0.703
4.8
19.1
08:15 =
12:30 =
49 (10.7%)
45 (9.8%)
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4
Basic Volume Summary: Jarales Rd (NM 109)
Grand Total For Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Total Count # Of Days ADT Avg. Period PM Total & PercentAvg. Hour AM Total & PercentLane
#1. 797 2.00 399 4.2 16.6 286 511(46.2%) (64.1%)(35.9%)
#3. 928 2.00 464 4.8 19.3 367 561(53.8%) (60.5%)(39.5%)
ALL 1725 2.00 863 9.0 35.9 653 1072 (62.1%)(37.9%)
Lane Peak AM Hour Peak AM Factor Peak PM Hour Peak PM FactorDate Date
#1. 08:00 = 35 0.625 16:15 = 45 0.80401/14/2020 01/14/2020
#3. 08:15 = 50 0.625 14:45 = 48 0.70601/14/2020 01/14/2020
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 5
Basic Volume Report: Trujillo Rd
Station ID : Trujillo RdInfo Line 1 : East of Jarales Rd (NM 109)Info Line 2 : Belen
DB File : TRU1SB.DBNumber of Lanes :
0.0 mph1
Posted Speed Limit :
970011.62ApolloLast Connected Device Type :
Version Number :Serial Number :
Lane #1 Configuration
# Dir. Information Volume Mode Volume Sensors Divide By 2 Comment
1. Westbound Normal Veh. No
GPS Lat/Lon :
Lane #1 Basic Volume Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total
1/14/2020 00:00 0 0 0 0 0
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 1 1 1 0 3
06:00 1 0 2 2 5
07:00 1 0 1 1 3
08:00 1 1 1 2 5
09:00 0 1 0 0 1
10:00 1 1 2 1 5
11:00 1 1 1 2 5
12:00 1 2 0 0 3
13:00 1 0 1 0 2
14:00 0 2 2 1 5
15:00 0 1 0 1 2
16:00 0 1 1 0 2
17:00 3 1 1 1 6
18:00 1 0 2 1 4
19:00 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0
Day Total : 51
AM Total :
PM Total :
Peak AM Hour :
Peak PM Hour :
Average Period :
Average Hour :
Peak AM Factor :
Peak PM Factor :
27 (52.9%)
24 (47.1%)
0.625
0.500
0.5
2.1
06:00 =
17:00 =
5 (9.8%)
6 (11.8%)
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 1
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #1 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total
1/15/2020 00:00 0 0 0 0 0
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 1 0 0 1
05:00 0 2 0 1 3
06:00 1 0 2 2 5
07:00 0 1 0 0 1
08:00 0 5 0 2 7
09:00 1 1 1 1 4
10:00 2 0 0 1 3
11:00 0 0 0 1 1
12:00 0 0 1 2 3
13:00 0 0 1 0 1
14:00 1 0 0 1 2
15:00 1 0 0 0 1
16:00 2 4 0 1 7
17:00 0 3 1 3 7
18:00 0 1 2 0 3
19:00 0 1 1 1 3
20:00 1 1 0 1 3
21:00 1 0 0 0 1
22:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0
Day Total : 56
AM Total :
PM Total :
Peak AM Hour :
Peak PM Hour :
Average Period :
Average Hour :
Peak AM Factor :
Peak PM Factor :
25 (44.6%)
31 (55.4%)
0.400
0.438
0.6
2.3
08:15 =
16:00 =
8 (14.3%)
7 (12.5%)
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 2
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #3 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Lane #3 Configuration
Lane #3 Basic Volume Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
# Dir. Information Volume Mode Volume Sensors Divide By 2 Comment
3. Eastbound Normal Veh. No
Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total
1/14/2020 00:00 0 0 0 0 0
Tue 01:00 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 1 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 0 0
07:00 1 0 2 0 3
08:00 1 0 2 2 5
09:00 0 0 0 1 1
10:00 1 0 1 2 4
11:00 2 0 0 1 3
12:00 1 0 1 0 2
13:00 1 2 0 1 4
14:00 2 2 0 0 4
15:00 1 0 2 1 4
16:00 3 0 3 1 7
17:00 1 1 1 3 6
18:00 1 1 2 2 6
19:00 2 0 0 1 3
20:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 1 0 1
22:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0
Day Total : 54
AM Total :
PM Total :
Peak AM Hour :
Peak PM Hour :
Average Period :
Average Hour :
Peak AM Factor :
Peak PM Factor :
17 (31.5%)
37 (68.5%)
0.625
0.583
0.6
2.3
08:00 =
15:45 =
5 (9.3%)
7 (13.0%)
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 3
Station: Trujillo Rd Lane #3 Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total
1/15/2020 00:00 0 0 0 0 0
Wed 01:00 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 1 0 0 0 1
05:00 1 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 0 0
07:00 0 2 0 0 2
08:00 0 0 2 0 2
09:00 0 1 0 2 3
10:00 0 0 1 1 2
11:00 0 0 1 0 1
12:00 0 0 0 3 3
13:00 0 1 0 2 3
14:00 1 0 1 1 3
15:00 1 1 5 2 9
16:00 4 4 1 1 10
17:00 2 1 2 2 7
18:00 0 0 0 1 1
19:00 0 1 0 0 1
20:00 4 1 1 3 9
21:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 1 0 0 0 1
23:00 0 0 0 0 0
Day Total : 59
AM Total :
PM Total :
Peak AM Hour :
Peak PM Hour :
Average Period :
Average Hour :
Peak AM Factor :
Peak PM Factor :
12 (20.3%)
47 (79.7%)
0.375
0.750
0.6
2.5
08:30 =
15:30 =
3 (5.1%)
15 (25.4%)
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 4
Basic Volume Summary: Trujillo Rd
Grand Total For Data From: 00:00 - 01/14/2020 To: 23:59 - 01/15/2020
Total Count # Of Days ADT Avg. Period PM Total & PercentAvg. Hour AM Total & PercentLane
#1. 107 2.00 54 0.6 2.2 52 55(48.6%) (51.4%)(48.6%)
#3. 113 2.00 57 0.6 2.4 29 84(51.4%) (74.3%)(25.7%)
ALL 220 2.00 111 1.2 4.6 81 139 (63.2%)(36.8%)
Lane Peak AM Hour Peak AM Factor Peak PM Hour Peak PM FactorDate Date
#1. 08:15 = 8 0.400 16:00 = 7 0.43801/15/2020 01/15/2020
#3. 08:00 = 5 0.625 15:30 = 15 0.75001/14/2020 01/15/2020
Centurion Basic Volume Report Printed: 1/16/2020 Page 5
File Name : Jarales & TrujilloSite Code : Start Date : 1/14/2020Page No : 1
Collected by: MH16
Groups Printed- Bikes
EastboundTrujillo Rd
WestboundJarales Rd (NM 109)
NorthboundJarales Rd (NM 109)
SouthboundStart Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
*** BREAK ***
11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1*** BREAK ***
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1*** BREAK ***
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
*** BREAK ***
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2Apprch % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0
Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 50 0 0 50
Jarales Rd (NM 109)
Tru
jillo R
d
Jarales Rd (NM 109)
Right0
Thru1
Left0
Peds0
InOut Total1 1 2
Rig
ht0
Th
ru0
Le
ft0
Pe
ds0
Ou
tT
ota
lIn
0
0
0
Left0
Thru1
Right0
Peds0
Out TotalIn1 1 2
Le
ft0
T
hru
0
Rig
ht0
Pe
ds0
To
tal
Ou
tIn
0
0
0
1/14/2020 06:001/14/2020 18:00 Bikes
North
Mike Henderson Consulting, LLC5301 Camino Sandia NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111
(505) 275-5706
File Name : Jarales & TrujilloSite Code : Start Date : 1/14/2020Page No : 1
Collected by: MH16
Groups Printed- Car - Truck
EastboundTrujillo Rd
WestboundJarales Rd (NM 109)
NorthboundJarales Rd (NM 109)
SouthboundStart Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
06:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 206:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 0 2 0 2 706:30 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 1 6 0 3 0 3 1106:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 5 0 5 0 4 0 4 12Total 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 7 0 14 2 16 0 9 0 9 32
07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 5 1 6 0 7 1307:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 1007:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 2 10 0 3 0 3 1407:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 13Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 22 3 25 1 20 0 21 50
08:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 2 8 1 3 0 4 1308:15 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 6 2 8 0 13 0 13 2608:30 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 22 4 26 2 8 0 10 4008:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 10 2 12 0 6 0 6 21Total 0 0 0 0 9 0 4 13 0 44 10 54 3 30 0 33 100
09:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 1509:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 1109:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 1009:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 1 8 0 9 16Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 27 0 27 1 23 0 24 52
10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 6 0 5 0 5 1210:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 6 0 6 0 3 0 3 1110:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 7 0 7 1 5 0 6 1510:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11 0 11 3 7 0 10 22Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 0 29 1 30 4 20 0 24 60
11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 1 7 1 2 0 3 1111:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 8 0 8 0 4 0 4 1411:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 0 9 0 8 0 8 1811:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 5 1 6 0 5 0 5 13Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 0 28 2 30 1 19 0 20 56
12:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 9 2 11 0 5 0 5 1712:15 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 8 1 9 0 11 0 11 2312:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 8 0 8 0 8 1612:45 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 1 6 0 8 0 8 16Total 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 29 5 34 0 32 0 32 72
13:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 2 9 1 13 0 14 2413:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 2 9 0 9 0 9 1913:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11 0 11 0 6 0 6 1813:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 0 7 0 7 12Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 29 5 34 1 35 0 36 73
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 0 5 0 5 1114:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 5 0 3 0 3 1014:30 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 2114:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 0 10 0 9 0 9 20Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 0 27 3 30 0 26 0 26 62
15:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 16 1 17 1 12 0 13 3115:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 6 0 11 0 11 1815:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3 19 1 3 0 4 2315:45 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 9 3 12 0 12 0 12 28Total 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 6 0 47 7 54 2 38 0 40 100
Mike Henderson Consulting, LLC5301 Camino Sandia NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111
(505) 275-5706
File Name : Jarales & TrujilloSite Code : Start Date : 1/14/2020Page No : 2
Collected by: MH16
Groups Printed- Car - Truck
EastboundTrujillo Rd
WestboundJarales Rd (NM 109)
NorthboundJarales Rd (NM 109)
SouthboundStart Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 9 1 4 0 5 1416:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 1 8 0 13 0 13 2216:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 8 1 13 0 14 2216:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 11 0 8 0 8 19Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 29 7 36 2 38 0 40 77
17:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 13 1 14 0 10 0 10 2817:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 13 1 14 0 7 0 7 2217:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 7 1 8 1 3 0 4 1417:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 7 1 8 1 5 0 6 16Total 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 9 0 40 4 44 2 25 0 27 80
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1Grand Total 0 0 0 0 38 0 30 68 0 365 49 414 17 316 0 333 815
Apprch % 0 0 0 55.9 0 44.1 0 88.2 11.8 5.1 94.9 0 Total % 0 0 0 0 4.7 0 3.7 8.3 0 44.8 6 50.8 2.1 38.8 0 40.9
Car 0 0 0 0 31 0 30 61 0 336 43 379 17 289 0 306 746% Car 0 0 0 0 81.6 0 100 89.7 0 92.1 87.8 91.5 100 91.5 0 91.9 91.5Truck 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 29 6 35 0 27 0 27 69
% Truck 0 0 0 0 18.4 0 0 10.3 0 7.9 12.2 8.5 0 8.5 0 8.1 8.5
Mike Henderson Consulting, LLC5301 Camino Sandia NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111
(505) 275-5706
File Name : Jarales & TrujilloSite Code : Start Date : 1/14/2020Page No : 3
Collected by: MH16
EastboundTrujillo Rd
WestboundJarales Rd (NM 109)
NorthboundJarales Rd (NM 109)
SouthboundStart Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 to 11:15 - Peak 1 of 1Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:15
08:15 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 6 2 8 0 13 0 13 2608:30 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 22 4 26 2 8 0 10 4008:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 10 2 12 0 6 0 6 2109:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 15
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 12 0 48 8 56 2 32 0 34 102% App. Total 0 0 0 75 0 25 0 85.7 14.3 5.9 94.1 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .563 .000 .375 .600 .000 .545 .500 .538 .250 .615 .000 .654 .638Car 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 8 0 42 5 47 2 29 0 31 86
% Car 0 0 0 0 55.6 0 100 66.7 0 87.5 62.5 83.9 100 90.6 0 91.2 84.3Truck 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 6 3 9 0 3 0 3 16
% Truck 0 0 0 0 44.4 0 0 33.3 0 12.5 37.5 16.1 0 9.4 0 8.8 15.7
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:30 to 15:15 - Peak 1 of 1Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 14:30
14:30 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 2114:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 0 10 0 9 0 9 2015:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 16 1 17 1 12 0 13 3115:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 6 0 11 0 11 18
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 6 0 41 1 42 1 41 0 42 90% App. Total 0 0 0 66.7 0 33.3 0 97.6 2.4 2.4 97.6 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .500 .000 .641 .250 .618 .250 .854 .000 .808 .726Car 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 5 0 38 0 38 1 38 0 39 82
% Car 0 0 0 0 75.0 0 100 83.3 0 92.7 0 90.5 100 92.7 0 92.9 91.1Truck 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 0 3 0 3 8
% Truck 0 0 0 0 25.0 0 0 16.7 0 7.3 100 9.5 0 7.3 0 7.1 8.9
Peak Hour Analysis From 15:30 to 18:00 - Peak 1 of 1Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:15
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 1 8 0 13 0 13 2216:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 8 1 13 0 14 2216:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 11 0 8 0 8 1917:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 13 1 14 0 10 0 10 28
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 0 35 6 41 1 44 0 45 91% App. Total 0 0 0 40 0 60 0 85.4 14.6 2.2 97.8 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .375 .313 .000 .673 .750 .732 .250 .846 .000 .804 .813Car 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 0 35 6 41 1 40 0 41 87
% Car 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 90.9 0 91.1 95.6Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4
% Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 0 8.9 4.4
Mike Henderson Consulting, LLC5301 Camino Sandia NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111
(505) 275-5706
5
APPENDIX E
Item Description Unit Quantity Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Total
Cost
MOBILIZATION (10%) LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,748,000.00 $ 1,748,000.00
$ 1,748,000
Civil
CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000
MISCELLANEOUS REMOVALS LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
UTILITY RELOCATION LS 1 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM LS 1 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000
TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
SIGNING AND STRIPING LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000
STAGING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
LIGHTING SYSTEM LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
FIELD OFFICE LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 12,500 $ 10.00 $ 125,000
BORROW CY 140,000 $ 14.00 $ 1,960,000
SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL CY 17,040 $ 65.00 $ 1,107,600
OBLITERATING OLD ROAD MILE 0 $ 50,000.00 $ 20,000
BASE COURSE (6" AGG BASE) TON 2,830 $ 25.00 $ 70,750
HMA SP-III COMPLETE (6" BIT) TON 6,090 $ 60.00 $ 365,400
CONCRETE PAVEMENT-8" SY 7,366 $ 95.00 $ 699,770
REMOVAL OF SURFACING SY 4,000 $ 10.00 $ 40,000
SINGLE FACE W-BEAM GUARDRAIL LF 200 $ 30.00 $ 6,000
END TREATMENT TL-3 END TERMINAL EACH 4 $ 3,000.00 $ 12,000
TRANSTION METAL BARRIER TO RIGID BARRIER EACH 4 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,000
$ 5,416,000
Bridge
BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE PAY ITEMS
PRESTR CONC BRIDGE MEM. TYPE 72 LF 1,650 $ 320.00 $ 528,000
HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE (HPD) CY 290 $ 800.00 $ 232,000
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (DECK) LB 96,900 $ 1.25 $ 121,125
CONCRETE BARRIER RAILINGS 42" LF 660 $ 130.00 $ 85,800
PEDESTRIAN SCREENING FENCE, TYPE 1 LF 660 $ 80.00 $ 52,800
BRIDGE JOINT STRIP SEAL LF 80 $ 200.00 $ 16,000
BRIDGE APPROACH PANEL EACH 2 $ 8,000.00 $ 16,000
BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURE PAY ITEMS
DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATION 60"D LF 300 $ 800.00 $ 240,000
PERMANENT CASING 60"D LF 200 $ 900.00 $ 180,000
PIER SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 314 $ 900.00 $ 282,600
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (PIER & CRASH WALL) LB 62,800 $ 1.25 $ 78,500
ABUTMENT STEM SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 580 $ 1,000.00 $ 580,000
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (ABUTMENT STEM) LB 58,000 $ 1.25 $ 72,500
ABUTMENT FOOTING SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 240 $ 400.00 $ 96,000
REINFORCING BARS GRADE 60 (ABUTMENT FTG) LB 13,200 $ 1.15 $ 15,180
DRIVEN PILES (20" PIPE) LF 3,800 $ 60.00 $ 228,000
EXCAVATION FOR MAJOR STRUCTURES CY 350 $ 55.00 $ 19,250
STRUCTURAL BACKFILL FOR MAJOR STRUCTURES CY 2,250 $ 40.00 $ 90,000
APPROACH RETAINING WALL PAY ITEMS
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, CL A CY 5,171 $ 650.00 $ 3,361,150
REINFORCING BARS GRADE 60 (RETAINING WALLS) LB 633,694 $ 1.15 $ 728,748
DRIVEN PILES (20" PIPE) LF 58,500 $ 60.00 $ 3,510,000
CONCRETE WALL BARRIER 42" LF 1,940 $ 135.00 $ 261,900
PEDESTRIAN SCREENING FENCE, TYPE 1 LF 1,940 $ 80.00 $ 155,200
ABUTMENT RETAINING WALLS LS 1 $ 1,120,000.00 $ 1,120,000
$ 12,071,000
Right-Of-Way
RESIDENCES EA 13 $ 200,000.00 $ 2,600,000
PROPERTY ACRE 13 $ 50,000.00 $ 650,000
$ 3,250,000
Sub-Total 22,485,000$
Contingency & Tax (20%) 4,500,000$
Total 27,000,000$
BNSF Railway
NM 109 Overhead Bridge
Over BNSF Corridor
Belen, New Mexico
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
PHASE I A/B REPORT - ALTERNATE C
Quantities
Item Description Unit Quantity Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Total
Cost
MOBILIZATION (10%) LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,806,000.00 $ 1,806,000.00
$ 1,806,000
Civil
CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000
MISCELLANEOUS REMOVALS LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
UTILITY RELOCATION LS 1 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM LS 1 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000
TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
SIGNING AND STRIPING LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000
STAGING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
LIGHTING SYSTEM LS 1 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000
FIELD OFFICE LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 10,120 $ 10.00 $ 101,200
BORROW CY 418,120 $ 14.00 $ 5,853,680
SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL CY 6,970 $ 65.00 $ 453,050
OBLITERATING OLD ROAD MILE 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 25,000
BASE COURSE (6" AGG BASE) TON 3,460 $ 25.00 $ 86,500
HMA SP-III COMPLETE (6" BIT) TON 7,960 $ 60.00 $ 477,600
CONCRETE PAVEMENT-8" SY 1,510 $ 95.00 $ 143,450
REMOVAL OF SURFACING SY 5,442 $ 10.00 $ 54,420
SINGLE FACE W-BEAM GUARDRAIL LF 400 $ 30.00 $ 12,000
END TREATMENT TL-3 END TERMINAL EACH 8 $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000
TRANSTION METAL BARRIER TO RIGID BARRIER EACH 8 $ 3,500.00 $ 28,000
RELOCATE OH RAILROAD SIGNAL LS 1 $ 750,000.00 $ 750,000
$ 9,244,000
Bridge
BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE PAY ITEMS
PRESTR CONC BRIDGE MEM. TYPE 72 LF 2,920 $ 320.00 $ 934,400
HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE (HPD) CY 692 $ 800.00 $ 553,600
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (DECK) LB 175,200 $ 1.25 $ 219,000
CONCRETE BARRIER RAILINGS 42" LF 1,170 $ 130.00 $ 152,100
PEDESTRIAN SCREENING FENCE, TYPE 1 LF 1,170 $ 80.00 $ 93,600
BRIDGE JOINT STRIP SEAL LF 74 $ 200.00 $ 14,800
BRIDGE APPROACH PANEL EACH 2 $ 8,000.00 $ 16,000
BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURE PAY ITEMS
DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATION 60"D LF 750 $ 800.00 $ 600,000
PERMANENT CASING 60"D LF 500 $ 900.00 $ 450,000
PIER SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 625 $ 900.00 $ 562,500
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (PIER & CRASH WALL) LB 125,000 $ 1.25 $ 156,250
ABUTMENT STEM SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 420 $ 1,000.00 $ 420,000
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (ABUTMENT STEM) LB 42,000 $ 1.25 $ 52,500
ABUTMENT FOOTING SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 240 $ 400.00 $ 96,000
REINFORCING BARS GRADE 60 (ABUTMENT FTG) LB 13,200 $ 1.15 $ 15,180
DRIVEN PILES (20" PIPE) LF 3,800 $ 60.00 $ 228,000
EXCAVATION FOR MAJOR STRUCTURES CY 200 $ 55.00 $ 11,000
STRUCTURAL BACKFILL FOR MAJOR STRUCTURES CY 1,740 $ 40.00 $ 69,600
APPROACH RETAINING WALL PAY ITEMS
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, CL A CY 1,838 $ 650.00 $ 1,194,700
REINFORCING BARS GRADE 60 (RETAINING WALLS) LB 192,128 $ 1.15 $ 220,947
DRIVEN PILES (20" PIPE) LF 20,670 $ 60.00 $ 1,240,200
CONCRETE WALL BARRIER 42" LF 1,839 $ 135.00 $ 248,265
PEDESTRIAN SCREENING FENCE, TYPE 1 LF 1,839 $ 80.00 $ 147,120
ABUTMENT 1 RETAINING WALL LS 1 $ 1,120,000.00 $ 1,120,000
$ 8,816,000
Right-Of-Way
RESIDENCES EA 4 $ 200,000.00 $ 800,000
PROPERTY ACRE 30 $ 50,000.00 $ 1,500,000
$ 2,300,000
Sub-Total 22,166,000$
Contingency & Tax (20%) 4,430,000$
Total 26,600,000$
BNSF Railway
NM 109 Overhead Bridge
Over BNSF Corridor
Belen, New Mexico
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
PHASE I A/B REPORT - ALTERNATE D
Quantities
Item Description Unit Quantity Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Total
Cost
MOBILIZATION (10%) LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,049,000.00 $ 2,049,000.00
$ 2,049,000
Civil
CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000
MISCELLANEOUS REMOVALS LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
UTILITY RELOCATION LS 1 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM LS 1 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000
TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
SIGNING AND STRIPING LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000
STAGING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
LIGHTING SYSTEM LS 1 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000
FIELD OFFICE LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 177,000 $ 10.00 $ 1,770,000
BORROW CY 152,400 $ 14.00 $ 2,133,600
SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL CY 8,620 $ 65.00 $ 560,300
OBLITERATING OLD ROAD MILE 0.5 $ 50,000.00 $ 25,000
BASE COURSE (6" AGG BASE) TON 3,782 $ 25.00 $ 94,550
HMA SP-III COMPLETE (6" BIT) TON 8,820 $ 60.00 $ 529,200
CONCRETE PAVEMENT-8" SY 2,706 $ 95.00 $ 257,070
REMOVAL OF SURFACING SY 7,024 $ 10.00 $ 70,240
SINGLE FACE W-BEAM GUARDRAIL LF 200 $ 30.00 $ 6,000
END TREATMENT TL-3 END TERMINAL EACH 4 $ 3,000.00 $ 12,000
TRANSTION METAL BARRIER TO RIGID BARRIER EACH 4 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,000
$ 6,707,000
Bridge
BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE PAY ITEMS
PRESTR CONC BRIDGE MEM. TYPE 72 LF 1,420 $ 320.00 $ 454,400
HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE (HPD) CY 330 $ 800.00 $ 264,000
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (DECK) LB 84,000 $ 1.25 $ 105,000
CONCRETE BARRIER RAILINGS 42" LF 570 $ 130.00 $ 74,100
PEDESTRIAN SCREENING FENCE, TYPE 1 LF 570 $ 80.00 $ 45,600
BRIDGE JOINT STRIP SEAL LF 74 $ 200.00 $ 14,800
BRIDGE APPROACH PANEL EACH 2 $ 8,000.00 $ 16,000
BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURE PAY ITEMS
DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATION 60"D LF 300 $ 800.00 $ 240,000
PERMANENT CASING 60"D LF 200 $ 900.00 $ 180,000
PIER SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 296 $ 900.00 $ 266,400
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (PIER & CRASH WALL) LB 60,000 $ 1.25 $ 75,000
ABUTMENT STEM SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 580 $ 1,000.00 $ 580,000
EPOXY COATED REIN BARS GR 60 (ABUTMENT STEM) LB 60,000 $ 1.25 $ 75,000
ABUTMENT FOOTING SUBSTRUCTURE CONCRETE CY 240 $ 400.00 $ 96,000
REINFORCING BARS GRADE 60 (ABUTMENT FTG) LB 13,200 $ 1.15 $ 15,180
DRIVEN PILES (20" PIPE) LF 3,800 $ 60.00 $ 228,000
EXCAVATION FOR MAJOR STRUCTURES CY 350 $ 55.00 $ 19,250
STRUCTURAL BACKFILL FOR MAJOR STRUCTURES CY 2,250 $ 40.00 $ 90,000
APPROACH RETAINING WALL PAY ITEMS
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, CL A CY 7,168 $ 650.00 $ 4,659,200
REINFORCING BARS GRADE 60 (RETAINING WALLS) LB 962,562 $ 1.15 $ 1,106,946
DRIVEN PILES (20" PIPE) LF 82,420 $ 60.00 $ 4,945,200
CONCRETE WALL BARRIER 42" LF 1,404 $ 90.00 $ 126,360
PEDESTRIAN SCREENING FENCE, TYPE 1 LF 1,404 $ 80.00 $ 112,320
$ 13,789,000
Right-Of-Way
RESIDENCES EA 8 $ 200,000.00 $ 1,600,000
PROPERTY ACRE 20 $ 50,000.00 $ 1,000,000
$ 2,600,000
Total 25,145,000$
Contingency & Tax (20%) 5,030,000$
Total 30,200,000$
BNSF Railway
NM 109 Overhead Bridge
Over BNSF Corridor
Belen, New Mexico
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
PHASE I A/B REPORT - ALTERNATE E
Quantities
6
APPENDIX F
Public Meeting for the Proposed
Highway – Rail Grade Separation of
Jarales Road (NM 109)
The BNSF Railway (BNSF), in cooperation with the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT), will
hold a public meeting to discuss a proposed highway – rail grade separation of Jarales Road (NM109)
between Trujillo Rd and Camino De Crystal. The project would include realignment of Jarales Road, a Jarales
Road overhead structure, and frontage road access all capable of handling future traffic volumes and multi-
modal transportation demands.
The purpose of the meeting is to present the project purpose and need, alternatives considered, funding, and
the project schedule. A presentation will be given with a public comment period to follow. Project displays,
information, and project representatives will be available to address questions. Public input for the proposed
project will be accepted at any time; however, the NMDOT asks that comments and/or questions specific to
this meeting be sent no later than Friday, June 21, 2019 to:
Hans Erickson c/o TKDA
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101
Hans.Erickson@tkda.com
Attn: Jarales Rd Grade Sep.
If you have questions and/or unable to attend the public
meeting, please contact:
Hans Erickson,
TKDA Project Manager
(651) 292-4512, hans.erickson@tkda.com
John Taschek,
Environmental Specialist
(505) 980-0993, jtaschek@ecosphere-services.com
To request Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) related accommodations for this meeting, please contact
John Taschek at least two days before the meeting at 505-980-0993.
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday, June 11th - 6:00PM – 8:00PM
Meeting Location:
Gil Sanchez Elementary School
376 Jarales Road / NM 109
Jarales, NM 87023
Proposed Jarales
Road (NM 109)
Highway – Rail
Grade Separation
Gil Sanchez Elementary School
JARALES, NEW MEXICO
JUNE 11TH, 2019
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• Introduction
• Purpose and Need
• Project Overview
• Project Issues
• Development Process
• Preliminary Alternatives
• Decision Matrix
• Next Steps
Outline
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• Belen Yard:
– Located on BNSF Southern Transcon
– 90+ trains per day; 10,000’+ in length
– Fueling, Maintenance, and Inspection
– Considering expansion to support demands and improve efficiency
• Jarales Road:
– Primary North-South corridor between Belen and Jarales
– 2,200 vehicles per day
– Existing undivided at-grade signalized crossing for three tracks
Introduction
Figure 1. Jarales Road (NM 109) Location Map
Crossing Location
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• Project Purpose:– Provide a safe uninterrupted route for pedestrian and vehicular traffic
across the railroad corridor that accommodates current and future rail operations.
• Project Need:– The need for improvement is based on safety, economic, and
environmental concerns.• At-grade crossing vehicular / train collisions
– Five in the past ten years.
• Rail yard operations block the intersection for extended periods.– Emergency response.
– Shipping and transit delays.
– Excessive idling.
Purpose and Need
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• Development Team:
– Public-private partnership:
• BNSF Railway:
– Primary funding
– Project design & construction
• NMDOT:
– Contributing state funds for construction
– Review and oversight
– Ownership and post-construction maintenance
Project Overview
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• Project Stakeholders:
– Directly Impacted:
• Property owners, commuters, local residents, public
transportation, emergency services, BNSF, & utilities.
– Indirectly Impacted:
• Chamber of Commerce, & elected officials.
– Government Agencies:
• City of Belen, Valencia County, & NMDOT.
Project Overview
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• Vehicular Transportation:
– At-grade crossing safety
– Access to local roadway system
– Maintenance of traffic during construction
• Railroad:
– Right-Of-Way requirements
– Yard Operations
– Cost
Project Issues
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• Cultural resources:
– Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
– Acequias
• Other issues:
– Impacts to residences or structures
– Utilities
– Multimodal transportation
– Visual landscape
Project Issues
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• New Mexico Department of Transportation: Location Study Procedures
Development Process
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• NEPA:
– Funding from NMDOT
requires project review
under the National
Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
– NEPA requires federal
agencies or those
receiving federal funding
to evaluate the
environmental effects of
their proposed action
Development Process
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• Identify optimal configuration by evaluation of several
alternate solutions.
• Optimal configuration satisfies most evaluation criteria.
– Structure Impacts, Cost, schedule, ROW, Utilities, etc.
– Optimal is not necessarily the best solution for any one
criteria.
– Public Input is an important component of the evaluation.
• Five preliminary alternatives have been developed for
Jarales Road + No build option.
Preliminary Alternatives
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
• A – New Alignment ~70’ west of existing.
• B – Maintain existing alignment.
• C – New Alignment ~70’ east of existing.
• D – New Alignment ~700’ west of existing.
• E – New Alignment ~500’ east of existing.
• F – No Build.
• Preliminary Evaluation Criteria:– Safety
– Construction Cost
– Structure Impacts
– Right-Of-Way Requirements
– Jarales Road Closure Requirements
– Impacts to Local Roads
– Environmental Impacts
– Railroad Impacts
– Structure Maintenance and Inspection
– Utility Impacts
– Construction Schedule
– Public Support
Preliminary Alternatives
BEGIN PROJECT
END PROJECT
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
Alternative A
PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY
Alternative B
PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY
Alternative C
PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY
Alternative D
PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY
Alternative E
PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY
• Five Preliminary Alternatives developed that satisfy Purpose
and Need.
• Each has strengths and weaknesses.
• Use a Decision Matrix to Evaluate.
• No-build option does not satisfy Purpose and Need.
Alternatives Summary
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
Decision Matrix
PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY
• Public Input:
– Provide comments by June 25, 2019
• Comment cards
• Email: hans.erickson@tkda.com; jtaschek@ecosphere-services.com
• Address:
– Hans Erickson c/o TKDA
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
St. Paul, MN 55126
– John Taschek
Ecosphere Environmental Services
320 Osuna Road NE, Building C, Suite C-1
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
Next Steps
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
21
1 | P a g e
Public Meeting Minutes Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road (NM 109)
Gil Sanchez Elementary School, 376 Jarales Road/NM 109, Jarales, NM Tuesday, June 11th - 6:00PM – 8:00PM
The Public Meeting for the proposed Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road (NM 109) (Project) was held Tuesday, June 11, 2019, from 6:00-8:00 PM, at Gil Sanchez Elementary School, 376 Jarales Road/NM 109, in Jarales, New Mexico. The meeting was advertised in the Albuquerque Journal on May 26, 2019 and the Valencia County News-Bulletin on May 30, 2019. Flyers announcing the meeting were posted at the Jarales and Bosque post offices and at the Jarales Community Center. In addition, approximately 130 notices were mailed to property owners, institutions, businesses, elected officials, agency representatives, and other stakeholders in the Project area. Approximately 100 members of the public attended the meeting (see attached sign-in list). The hearing began at approximately 6:00 p.m., June 11, 2019. From 6:00 to 6:15 p.m., meeting attendees reviewed display boards and discussed the Project informally with study team members. At 6:15, the formal presentation began with PowerPoint slides. Hans Erickson, consulting engineer and project manager with TKDA, opened the meeting, introduced the project team, and described the organization and agenda for the meeting. Mr. Erickson presented information on the overall Project concept, purpose and need, Project roles by BNSF Railway and New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT), anticipated Project stakeholders, and issues that have been identified to date (see attached PowerPoint presentation). John Taschek, environmental consultant with Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc., summarized the NMDOT’s location study procedures and the environmental compliance process. Because the Project is a public-private partnership with BNSF and NMDOT funding, it must follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related state and federal regulations. John said part of the NEPA process is public involvement, and that we are here to receive and will consider your comments. Hans Erickson provided an overview of the alternatives that have been identified thus far, including the no-build alternative. There are five “build” alternatives that are currently being considered in terms of preliminary evaluation criteria. The criteria include safety, cost, structure impacts, right-of-way requirements, Jarales Road closure requirements, local road impacts, environmental impacts, railroad impacts, effects on maintenance and operations, utility impacts, schedule, and public support. Shane Ortlepp, consulting transportation engineer with TKDA, described each of the five build alternatives. He addressed the relationship of the alternative alignments to existing Jarales Road, the bridge structure requirements, the number of structures that would likely be impacted, the realignment of local roads to maintain access for adjoining properties, approximate right-of-way requirements, and other engineering features of each design alternative.
Public Meeting Minutes: Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road: June 11, 2019
2 | P a g e
Hans Erickson summarized the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative utilizing a decision matrix with values assigned to the alternatives in each of the evaluation criteria categories. The no-build alternative is not included in the matrix because it does not satisfy the Project purpose and need. At approximately 7:00 p.m., Mr. Erickson opened the meeting to public comment and requested that attendees wishing to speak fill out a speaker request card and limit their remarks to about two minutes. The following oral public comments were received during the meeting: Comment 1-Albert Carrillo: Please define in layman’s terms “rail-grade separation”. With seven tracks going east, how will the rail line cross the river? Alternative D is a good one, Some of the land is vacant and owned by the railroad. The team should consider a location further north, as this property is empty. Response: A rail-grade separation for this Project involves a bridge carrying Jarales Road over the railroad tracks. The proposed seven or more tracks going east would merge before they cross the river. The new tracks primarily would accommodate fueling and other operations. Comment 2-Wilfred Baca: The property to the north is all owned by the railroad. How many structures are impacted by Alternative D? Consider another alternative to the north of Alternative D. Response: Three structures would be impacted by Alternative D. These are near the intersection of Trujillo Road, which would have to be re-aligned slightly to accommodate a 40 miles per hour design speed. Comment 3-Steve Ferguson: What is the time frame to start construction? How long will construction last? Response: We are hoping to start construction in 2020. The length of construction varies with the different options. We anticipate 10 to 12 months. Comment 4-Jose Lovato: I understand that trains are currently 2-miles long and some may be 3-miles long in the future. I’ve had to wait for very long trains to pass. Has the existing fueling facility become obsolete? Past fuel spills have contaminated the environment and the water tastes bad. The option to the north seems better. Although it’s longer, there are fewer impacts. Safety is an important concern for this Project, for ambulances, etc. It’s a hassle to go all the way around and takes 45 minutes. Response: The fueling facility has become obsolete and will not accommodate the longer trains. Thank you and we will consider your comments. Comment 5-Miguel Hidalgo: I live here in Jarales. We have had meetings for the past 2½ or 3 years in support of this Project and it is moving forward because of a collaborative process between elected officials, community members, and the railroad. The BNSF provides 500 jobs to the community and is our friend. This is a needed Project. We have a petition with 3,000 signatures supporting the Project. Response: Thank you for your comments.
Public Meeting Minutes: Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road: June 11, 2019
3 | P a g e
Comment 6-Frank Ortega: I’m a city councilor in Belen. This is a needed project to accommodate safety, emergency vehicles, and school buses. Look at the Aragon Road project. Someone may be impacted by the Project, but safety and progress need to go forward. Let’s get going with the Project. Response: Thank you for your comments. Comment 7-Ignacio Gallegos: I have a lot of family here. I’m concerned that the land inside the tear-shaped track will become a new rail yard, which will impact our adobe culture. I’m not against progress but it has to be sensitive to the community. I’m concerned about noise and diesel fuel spills. Response: These are valid comments and will be addressed in the Project study. Comment 8-Anne Simms: I have one question-Do the railroad’s needs or community’s needs come first? My mother had a heart attack and the emergency vehicles were delay by trains stopped on the track. We live in an area that is surrounded by pipelines and the tracks. We are trapped if there is a fire. We should not lose any lives. What are you going to do for our safety? Response: We will try to construct the bridge and new tracks in conjunction, but the tracks may go in first. The BNSF does not own the pipelines so has no control. When trains block the crossing, there is an 800-number to call for emergencies. We recognize that blocking the Jarales Road crossing is an issue and that is why we are advancing this Project. Comment 9-Eugene Pickett: Community concerns made this Project happen and we appreciate the progress. Trust is an issue. This Project became the County’s number one priority, but money is an issue. Even with all the work, the money may not show up. This meeting is a positive step. I would like to have access to the meeting presentation. Response: Thank you for your comments. The presentation is still a draft of the findings but will be made available as soon as it is finalized. Comment 10-Ken Wright: It’s important to follow the money. Once the Project is done, the NMDOT is responsible for paying maintenance costs forever. This Project benefits the railroad. This is a low-income, minority area. We will pay the maintenance costs through our taxes. Response: In most communities, the road authority (NMDOT) is responsible for crossing structures and the railroad does not pay for improvements. This Project is an exception because of the BNSF’s plans to expand the number of tracks. Comment 11-Margaret Wright: Why wasn’t the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) included in the list of agency stakeholders? Response: The list of agency stakeholders shown in the presentation was just an example. The MRGCD was invited to the meeting and will continue to be involved in the Project to the extent that it desires. Comment 12-Norbert Sanchez: Historically, there have been fuel spills from accidents in the area. Impacts that affect me include piles of dirt on my property and dust from the fueling yard. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there are contamination plumes in the area’s soil and/or
Public Meeting Minutes: Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road: June 11, 2019
4 | P a g e
groundwater. The north alignment seems to be best, with the least impacts. Trains on the tracks have blocked my access to irrigation gates in the past. The Project would be a good thing to eliminate these kinds of delays. Do you intend to do anything about the dust as part of this Project, for example put down asphalt on the unpaved areas causing the dust? Response: As part of the environmental process, we will evaluate Project-related issues including groundwater or soil contamination and air quality. We will look into state air quality and groundwater permits in the area. Comment 13-Tom Brunton: I’m glad we had a good turn-out at the meeting tonight. The existing signs on Jarales Road are in locations that are difficult to see. The trains that block the tracks are often not responsive to the needs of crossing motorists. Response: Thank you for your comments. When trains stop across the road, each car must be checked before they can be moved forward. There being no more comments, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m., June 11, 2019. The following written public comments have been received within the comment period (6/25/19): Written Comment 1-Karen Springstead: The no-build option is not an option. The option to use existing Jarales Road with a detour is not a good option. Option D as amended by persons at the meeting to use BNSF property looks good. Written Comment 2-Bronson Springstead: The no-build option is not an option. Written Comment 3-Ryan Sims: The existing rail line crossing has negatively impacted my family several times as it is. The no-build option is not an option. My wife’s mother may have died because the ambulance was not able to get to her in time to get her to the hospital and save her life. A bridge of some sort must be built. Written Comment 4-Danny Monette (Valencia County Manager): Is this information available on a website? If not, when do you think it will be? Written Comment 5-Rose Abeyta: Please send Project maps. Written Comment 6-janders2562@gmail.com: Would like copies of projected maps. Written Comment 7-Lee Orosco: Please send pdf of presentation. Written Comment 8 (text)-Mary Benavidez Anderson: Thank you for a professional/informative meeting on 6/11/19 about the Jarales RR bridge. May I make a suggestion that you schedule a meeting with only the home/land owners directly affected, without professional lobbyists and politicians. Local voices, with the red x through their homes, need to be heard. Maybe a certified letter would be appropriate. How will home/land value be determined? Here are questions from my son, George. Does BNSF have eminent domain pertaining to Jarales RR Bridge? Do home/land owners have leverage in bridge option and concessions on land? Thank you.
Public Meeting Minutes: Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road: June 11, 2019
5 | P a g e
Written Comment 9 – Alan Tow: We are concerned about viable access for oversized agricultural equipment for farming our property. Please provide a map, or source of the map, concerning the upcoming project that illustrates the irrigation facilities within the proposed work area. Written Comment 10 – Steven Ferguson: What can be done to expedite this process and accelerate the construction process? It seems that Valencia County, Belen City, and NM State are eager to move forward with this project, what are the current obstacles that need to be addressed in order to move this forward expeditiously? Written Comment 11 – Alan Tow: I understand BNSF have plans to expand their tracks. The information provided does not cover the expansion of the tracks nor the location. I was told the expansion will be 4 additional tracks north of the main line? North from what point? The River or Jarales Road? The bend to Jarales Road? There could be several locations along the tracks between the Rio Grande River Bridge and the Jarales Road crossover. Can you tell me the location of this expansion? Written Comment 12 – Ignacio Gallegos: I am writing today in regards to the rail separation plan between NMDOT and BNSF. Of the five plans discussed at the recent meeting, my family prefers Alternative A or B. On behalf of my family members, WE STRONGLY OPPOSE Alternative E. Alternative E would take the road directly through the property that has been the home lands of my family for no less than six generations. The map does not even recognize it as a taking, as indicated by no "x" on the map just to the north of the bridge and where the yellow and blue roadway indicators indicate the road will be repositioned pursuant to that Alternative. Also, we are concerned that the first notice we received was through the newspaper, rather than by mail. Please send all correspondence to me at my home address. Also, since we have not been informed of any specific plans for the rail line expansion or the rail yard expansion, we are proceeding with our land management as though those plans do not affect us. If the BNSF plans to expand into our lands or nearer our lands I would hope you would include interested landowners in the planning process. The bridge is long overdue for community safety and noise reduction. Written Comment 13 – Joseph Mascarena: This is in reference to the Jarales road bridge project. I currently live on the east side of Jarales road. My neighbors and I have been speaking, and we are in consensus that a bridge through the east side of Jarales Road would be a good thing. We are all willing to sell for a fair replacement costs for our homes. I'm talking about the homes on the south side of the tracks all the way to 529 Jarales road. We have all lived in this valley for generations, and we enjoy living here but I feel like I can speak for me and my neighbors, that change would be good. We want this process to be as seamless and hope for the best. I am only telling you this because we feel you should have all the facts. Of course I cannot speak for my neighbors on the west side of Jarales road. But from previous conversations with some of them, they do
Public Meeting Minutes: Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road: June 11, 2019
6 | P a g e
not wish to leave the land that has been in their families for over a hundred years. They are proud farmers and good people. I trust you will take into account all information and make the best decision for the people of Jarales. Public Meeting Summary Submitted by: 6/27/19 John Taschek/Hans Erickson Date
Public Meeting Minutes: Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road: June 11, 2019
6 | P a g e
not wish to leave the land that has been in their families for over a hundred years. They are proud farmers and good people. I trust you will take into account all information and make the best decision for the people of Jarales. Written Comment 14 – Eugene Pickett: Communication for post meeting follow up has been very positive. Mr Tom Brunton requested providing additional comment and I am providing him with your contact information for that purpose. I did explain that on an informal basis while you are in the process of completing your reports that you encourage those comments. Tom also requested that if at all possible could a copy of the enlarged planned options displayed at the meeting be made available for posting at our local Community Center in Jarales. If that is available please let us know and we will make arrangements to pick them up. I think that to be an extremely positive manner of maintaining community based engagement. Written Comment 15 – Adrianna Jimenez: Plan C is the best plan for the Jarales Bridge. Written Comment 16 – Rick Gabaldon: I was reviewing the different plans for the Jarales Bridge and I would like to suggest that Plan “C” would benefit the people of Jarales. It’s the only one that would help with all emergency situations and help the families of Jarales! Written Comment 17 – Yvette Garcia: Hello .....plan C is the better plan for the Jarales Bridge. Written Comment 18 – Roman Chavez: Please consider in your design for the project, the least loss of agricultural property and safety concerns during the project as to emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire rescue departments. The other concern during construction and completed project is to consider that farmers have to travel through to farm and harvest crops. Most equipment today is going to need at least 18 feet width to do so during the project and once it’s complete. Perhaps a road on the side of the project can be provided once the easements have been identified to allow farm equipment and emergency vehicles to pass. Because of increased length in the trains over the years, the wait for trains crossing right now is extremely long as it is, and this project will only make those waits even longer also delaying farm and emergency traffic. Years ago the railroad used to provide a person to cut / break the train to allow passage. I suggest that this is a solution if the trains are going to block the path for any longer than a standard wait which I believe is 15 minutes. The wait is not realistic now and a break is maybe more practical. The break of trains would help during the project and even now in the other crossing at Castiillo Road. The project will take many months to complete. A little consideration in the issues above would gain much support from the community and may also avoid any emergency issues and legal consequences later. Written Comment 19 – Allan Tow and Sallie Budagher: We are writing to request a map, concerning the upcoming project (Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Rd.) that illustrates the irrigation facilities within the proposed work area.
Public Meeting Minutes: Highway – Rail Grade Separation of Jarales Road: June 11, 2019
7 | P a g e
We are specifically concerned where Lazy Lane exits Jarales Road since this is our only viable access for oversized agricultural equipment. For your information, it is also the only egress for school buses for this area. Public Meeting Summary Submitted by: 4/16/2020 John Taschek/Hans Erickson Date
1
John Taschek
From: Ignacio Gallegos <ivgallegos@gmail.com>Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 10:04 AMTo: John Taschek; hans.erickson@tkda.com; Jose Gallegos; Anthony M. Gallegos; Estella HorsburghSubject: Jarales Road grade separation
Categories: Red Category
Good morning Mr Taschek and Mr Erickson, I am writing today in regards to the rail separation plan between NMDOT and BNSF. Of the five plans discussed at the recent meeting, my family prefers Alternative A or B. On behalf of my family members, WE STRONGLY OPPOSE Alternative E. Alternative E would take the road directly through the property that has been the home lands of my family for no less than six generations. The map does not even recognize it as a taking, as indicated by no "x" on the map just to the north of the bridge and where the yellow and blue roadway indicators indicate the road will be repositioned pursuant to that Alternative. Also, we are concerned that the first notice we received was through the newspaper, rather than by mail. Please send all correspondence to me at: Ignacio V. Gallegos, Co‐Trustee A. Moises and Aurelia Gallegos Family Trust 1313 Lafayette Dr NE, Albuquerque NM 87106 Also, since we have not been informed of any specific plans for the rail line expansion or the rail yard expansion, we are proceeding with our land management as though those plans do no effect us. If the BNSF plans to expand into our lands or nearer our lands I would hope you would include interested landowners in the planning process. The bridge is long overdue for community safety and noise reduction. Sincerely, Ignacio V Gallegos Co‐Trustee A. Moises and Aurelia Gallegos Family Trust
1
John Taschek
From: Joseph Mascarena <jomosca@yahoo.com>Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 10:48 AMTo: hans.erickson@tkda.comCc: eaortega3@yahoo.comSubject: Jaraes road grade sep
Mr. Erickson, This is in reference to the Jarales road bridge project. I currently live on the east side of Jarales road. My neighbors and I have been speaking, and we are in consensus that a bridge through the east side of Jarales Road would be a good thing. We are all willing to sell for a fair replacement costs for our homes. I'm talking bout the homes on the south side of the tracks all the way to 529 Jarales road. We have all lived in this valley for generations, and we enjoy living here but i feel like I can speak for me and my neighbors , that change would be good. We want this process to be as seamless and hope for the best. I am only telling you this because we feel you should have all the facts. Of course I cannot speak for my neighbors on the west side of Jarales road. But from previous conversations with some of them, they do not wish to leave the land that has been in their familes for over a hundred years. They are proud farmers and good people. I trust you will take into account all information and make the best decision for the people of Jarales. Thank you for your time, I know I am a day late getting this too you, but E mail has been down in the area for a few days Joseph Mascarena 529 Jarales Road 505 814-8869
1
John Taschek
From: Eugene Pickett <eugenepickett2015@gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 7:38 AMTo: John TaschekCc: mulekr@juno.com; ortega.ft10@gmail.com; jaime@ruralco.orgSubject: Communication Follow up Jarales Mtg
Categories: Red Category
Good morning John, Our impromptu meeting was great and we look forward to working with you. Communication for post meeting follow up has been very positive. Mr Tom Brunton requested providing additional comment and I am providing him with your contact information for that purpose. I did explain that on an informal basis while you are in the process of completing your reports that you encourage those comments. Tom also requested that if at all possible could a copy of the enlarged planned options displayed at the meeting be made available for posting at our local Community Center in Jarales. If that is available please let us know and we will make arrangements to pick them up. I think that to be an extremely positive manner of maintaining community based engagement. Ecosphere Environmental Services John Taschek Sr Project Manager jtaschek@ecosphere‐services.com 1660 Old Pecos Trail,Suite H Santa Fe, NM 87505 O 505 954 1570 C 505 980 0993 Thank you for your interaction, and have a great Holiday weekend. Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
John Taschek
From: Adrianna Jimenez <adrianna.jimenez07@gmail.com>Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 5:32 PMTo: John TaschekSubject: Jarales Bridge
Hello. Plan C is the best plan for the Jarales Bridge. ‐Adrianna Jimenez
1
John Taschek
From: infielder2@gmail.comSent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 2:22 PMTo: John TaschekSubject: Jarales Bridge Plan
I was reviewing the different plans for the Jarales Bridge and I would like to suggest that Plan “C” would benefit the people of Jarales. It’s the only one that would help with all emergency situations and help the families of Jarales! Thank you for your consideration, Rick Gabaldon
1
John Taschek
From: Yvette Garcia <yvettegarcia1@icloud.com>Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 12:44 PMTo: John TaschekSubject: Jarales Bridge
Hello .....plan C is the better plan for the Jarales Bridge. Sent from my iPhone
1
Hans L. Erickson
From: Steve Ferguson <stevenferguson522@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 9:58 AM
To: Hans L. Erickson
Subject: Attn.Jarales Rd Grade Sep.
Good Morning, I attended the public hearing on 6/11/19 in Jarales and was wondering what could be done to
expedite this process and accelerate the construction process. It seems that Valencia County, Belen City and
NM State are eager to move forward with this project, what are the current obstacles that need to be addressed
in order to move this forward expeditiously.
Respeakfully, Steven Ferguson
stevenferguson522@gmail.com
10 Duke Rd. Belen, NM. 87002
(530) 217-9413
1
Hans L. Erickson
From: BON JOVI BRAT white <kjarawhite@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 2:37 AM
To: Hans L. Erickson
Subject: Jarales Rd overpass
Hi my name is Kimberly white my family home is 12 Trujillo Rd ,is there anyway you can send me or explain
if my family home might be considered one of the potential structures that may be needed for the bridge I got
downloaded potential routes but I can not tell how to read them 505-489-7680 .only wondering cause everyone
one on Trujillo Rd are all family members.which everyone I spoke to seems to be willing to sell there
property.thank you
top related