New Mexico

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

Prepared by: NM
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section [HSIP], shall not be 

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 

for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or 

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, 

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State 

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 25

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 25

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 28

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 29

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 29

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 43

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................46

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 48

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 53

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 58

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 66
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

In February 2014 the New Mexico Department of Transportation, Traffic Technical Support bureau, HSIP 

unit issued a statewide call for proposed safety project or non-construction safety program applications 

with documented evidence of safety hazards to justify funding the requested project of program with 

safety funds. During February 2014 through June 2014 this unit reviewed new proposed safety project 

applications submitted by the following: Metropolitan Planning Organizations for metropolitan area 

local governments; regional transportation Planning Organizations for all other local government cities, 

counties and tribes from non-metropolitan regions; from NMDOT regional design offices; from six 

NMDOT District Offices, NMDOT Rail and Transit Bureau, from NMDOT ITS Bureau, and from the 

NMDOT Traffic Records Section. On May 2, 2014 the NM Safety Project Selection Committee met and 

studied reviews and recommendations concerning the safety project applications. This meeting was the 

first of a new series of reviews and actions taken regarding proposed safety projects that will be 

conducted every ninety days. The next such meeting was scheduled for August 1, 2014. The committee 

selected which applications to approve or reject including direct applications to perform a road safety 

audit. Projects, programs, or road safety audits that were recommended for approval were forwarded 

to the FHWA NM Division Office requesting concurrence for federal HSIP funding. For all the projects 

that received concurrence, they were then programmed in appropriate metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Programs and the New Mexico State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to begin 

the HSIP safety project or safety program development and implementation phase.
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

with the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Answer:

Local city streets, county roads, and tribal roads are addressed in the same fashion as 

state highways.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-NM DOT, Traffic Technical Support Bureau

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

In February 2014 the New Mexico Department of Transportation, Traffic Technical Support bureau, HSIP 

unit issued a statewide call for proposed safety project or non-construction safety program applications 

with documented evidence of safety hazards to justify funding the requested project of program with 

safety funds. During February 2014 through June 2014 this unit reviewed new proposed safety project 

applications submitted by the following: Metropolitan Planning Organizations for metropolitan area 

local governments; regional transportation Planning Organizations for all other local government cities, 

counties and tribes from non-metropolitan regions; from NMDOT regional design offices; from six 

NMDOT District Offices, NMDOT Rail and Transit Bureau, from NMDOT ITS Bureau, and from the 

NMDOT Traffic Records Section. On May 2, 2014 the NM Safety Project Selection Committee met and 

studied reviews and recommendations concerning the safety project applications. This meeting was the 

first of a new series of reviews and actions taken regarding proposed safety projects that will be 

conducted every ninety days. The next such meeting was scheduled for August 1, 2014. The committee 

selected which applications to approve or reject including direct applications to perform a road safety 

audit. Projects, programs, or road safety audits that were recommended for approval were forwarded to 

the FHWA NM Division Office requesting concurrence for federal HSIP funding. For all the projects that 

received concurrence, they were then programmed in appropriate metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Programs and the New Mexico State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to begin 

the HSIP safety project or safety program development and implementation phase.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-NMDOT Traffic Safety Division; Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO); Regional 

Planning Organizations (RPO); Tribal Governments; Municipalities; and Counties. 

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-NMDOT General Office began a new procedure to solicit statewdie for proposed 

conceptual safety projects or programs that would be reviewed and acted on by the NM Safety Project 

selection Committee every 90 days instead of just once per year.

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate.

No further information.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 8/31/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Other-Systemic Improvements based on national research that median barriers can reduce cross 

median crashes by nearly 100%.

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-NMDOT State Traffic Engineer approves automatically all reasonable freeway narrow median 

barrier system proposed safety projects immediately and forwards to FHWA NM Divsion for 

concurrence.

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 8/31/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Pedestian Volume and 

Bicyclist Volume 

Other 
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/31/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

crashes only

Other-Bicyclist involved 

crashes

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Bicyclist volume Other-Current roadway lane 

width and bicycle lanes and 

designated bicycle routes

Other-Observed Bicyclist 

traffic from safety studies

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 8/31/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-High Risk Rural Road 

Network

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Other 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 8/31/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 8/31/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/31/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/31/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Pedestrian involved 

crashes

Lane miles Roadside features
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Other-Pedestrian traffic Other-Observed Pedestrian 

behavior from safety studies

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

30

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder 

Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement 

Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-Rumble stripes, 

pavement markings on top of 

existing shoulder rumble strips

Other Other-Install improved signs and striping on freeway exit 

ramps to reduce wrong way travel crashes on freeways

Other Other-Install ITS Type 

improvements on select 

regional work trip commuter 

corridors to reduce secondary 

crashes

Other Other-Upgrade regular Yellow warning signs, chevrons, and 

Large Arrow signs on horizontal curves with flourescent yellow signs.

Other Other-30% of 

programmed HSIP funds in this 

reporting period address 

systemic improvements.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: Other-Various analyses of the New Mexico surface transportation network are employed, 

where observations of current transportation operations, including current physical attributes, 

combined with various types of data including person trips, traffic volume

Other: Other-Resultant analyses may determine such statistics as crash frequency, crash rate or 

observed hazardous traffic conditions as a result of performance of an engineering safety study or road 
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

safety audit.

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

No additional information.
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

Enter the programmed and obligated funding for each applicable funding category.

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 19015223 71 % 13501533 66 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 0 0 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

5873407 22 % 5404738 26 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds 1977335 7 % 1502053 7 %
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Totals 26865965 100% 20408324 100%

How much funding is programmed to local (non-state owned and maintained) safety projects? 

$5,020,614.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$3,155,614.00

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects? 

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?

$0.00

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 

period?

$0.00
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting 

period? 

$0.00

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future.

The primary impediment to implementing potential safety countermeasure strategies is always 

the associated cost and available funds. Although they cannot be determined until strategies are 

proposed, the NMDOT anticipates the following general impediments or difficulties (in addition 

to cost/ funding impediments) to successfully implementing potential safety strategies:

• Lack of favor or desirability with certain stakeholder groups such as the public or with 

particular road users’ interest groups that could limit or result in non-approval of the 

implementation of a strategy 

• Need for multi-agency coordination and cooperation

• Law enforcement prioritization processes and personnel shortages

• Inability to implement a safety strategy due to environmental impacts

• Incomplete and inaccurate crash reports and traffic volume counts for the off system 

county roads and tribal roads 

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

No further information is available about which New Mexico would like to elaborate.
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

Dummy 

Project

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation 

safety planning

1 1 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban Local 

Road or Street

100 25 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Data
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

Present data showing the general highway safety trends in the state for the past five years. 

Performance Measures* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of fatalities 413 366 361 349 351

Number of serious injuries 1739 1820 1763 1806 1624

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.62 1.48 1.47 1.44 1.36

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.03 7.35 7.2 7.48 6.27

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2012

Function 

Classification

Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 0
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

ALL FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSES COMBINED

371 0 1.46 0
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS 371 0 1.46 0
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate.

No further information.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.24 0.286 0.254 0.222 0.182

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.992 1.25 1.098 1.114 0.89

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

1.238 1.542 1.354 1.338 1.072

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

Older Driver Perf. Measures Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality Rate Per Capita 0.422764 0.30469 0.20455 0.2803 0.2331 0.2574 0.1418

Class A Inj. Rate Per Capita 1.772358 0.98438 1.12121 1.0909 1.2857 1.0074 1.0638

Fatal + Inj. Rate Per Capita 2.195122 1.28906 1.32576 1.3712 1.5188 1.2647 1.2057

Class K, Fatalities Age 65+ 52 39 27 37 31 35 20

Class A, Injuries Age 65+ 166 87 121 107 140 102 130

Sum K + A 218 126 148 144 171 137 150

Age 65+ Pop./1000 Pop.=Capita 123 128 132 132 133 136 141

Age 65+ (K+A)/ Capita 0.017847 0.01007 0.01004 0.0104 0.0114 0.0093 0.0086

5-Year Rolling Average 0.012 0.0099
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Five-year trend in statewide reduction of number of fataliites and serious injuries.

In New Mexico, as in other states, it is estimated that roadway environment issues that can be 

mitigated through engineering type countermeasures are the primary contributing factor in only 

a small percentage (5% to 20%) of typical motor vehicle crashes. Issues of driver, pedestrian, 

and bicyclist behavior are the primarily contributing factor to 80 - 95 % of all crashes.

Consequently, education and enforcement related safety projects and programs have the 

greatest potential to reduce serious crashes and fatalities in NM, but engineering type safety 

projects still play a vital role. It is estimated that the combination of engineering type standalone safety projects, pavement condition restoration projects, and capacity enhancement 

projects have contributed 5 -10 % of New Mexico’s recent reduction in fatalities.

In terms of site specific effects caused by the implementation of HSIP safety countermeasure 

projects in New Mexico the evidence is limited. However, two of the HSIP related strategies, 

reduced crashes by fatigued and distracted drivers and reduced lane departure crashes, appear 

to be making progress in performance, based on documentation of the growing coverage of 

New Mexico’s rural highway paved shoulders with shoulder rumble strips.

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

The planning safety project/ program review phase of the New Mexico Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (NM HSIP) is now a continuous year-round program with no set 

deadlines for submitting applications. Every 90 days (or in case of an urgent need for quicker 

reviews even more frequently) the NM HSIP Safety Project Selection Committee will review and 

take action on each application that have been received during that time period by the New 

Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) General Office, Traffic Technical Support 

Bureau. 

Also, the NM HSIP will now accept direct applications for road safety audits under established 

guidelines using Federal HSIP funds to further study specific roadway locations for significant 

evidence of traffic hazard exposure that could justify a follow-up application for an appropriate 

safety countermeasure project or program.

Also, there are new members added to the NM HSIP Safety Project Selection 

Committee. Rotating every 90 days by a method that each of three groups can choose 

amongst themselves are the 6-member NMDOT District Traffic Engineers group, the 5-

member Metropolitan Plannign Organizations (MPOs) group, and the 9-member 

Regional Non-metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) group.

Each group can name one voting representative member to serve on the Committee for 

the next 90 day period.
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

SHSP Emphasis Areas

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2009

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure 20 200 0.4 4 0 0 0
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

No additional information.
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

Dummy 

Location

Urban Local 

Road or 

Street

Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2014 New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location 

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data 

are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance dated 

February 13, 2013. 

Performance measure means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor 

changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives.

Programmed funds mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.

Roadway Functional Classification means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into 

classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety 

data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systemic safety improvement means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk 

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal 

year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.