Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports
if they are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).
Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and
attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Silva
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
1/20/2006
1/26/2006 HB 4/aHTC
SHORT TITLE Department of Transportation Appropriation Act
SB
ANALYST Moser
APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)
Appropriation
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY06
FY07
$806,443.0
Recurring
State Road Fund, Local
Gvt. RF, Aviation, Trans-
portation, and Federal
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Duplicates appropriation in the General Appropriation Act, Section 4 for the NMDOT
Relates to Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act
REVENUE (dollars in thousands)
Estimated Revenue
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY06
FY07
FY08
$806,443.0
Recurring
State Road
Fund, Local
Gvt. RF, Avia-
tion, Transporta-
tion, and Fed-
eral
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
All GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACTS: HB 7 & HB 2
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
-
Report of the Legislative Finance Committee to the Forty-seventh Legislature, First Session,
January 2006 for Fiscal Year 2006 – 2007, Volume II, pp. 328 - 330.
- Consensus Revenue Estimate, NMDOT, January 2006.
Responses Received From
NM Department of Transportation (NMDOT)
pg_0002
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
2
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HTC Amendment
The House Transportation Committee amendment makes the following major changes to the bill:
•
Restores $13.85 million of budget initially deleted by both LFC and DFA as IT expan-
sion.
•
Reduces effective vacancy rate to 2.5 percent to allow for proposed compensation pack-
age. This budgets this increase rather than having the department having to adjust opera-
tional budget during the fiscal year.
•
Includes $15.2 million for 100 percent state construction program and language specify-
ing this purpose.
Synopsis of original Bill
House Bill 4 represents the Legislative Finance Committee recommendation for funding FY06
recurring operations of NMDOT.
The bill appropriates $791,378.2 to NMDOT for FY07 and funds the department’s three (3) op-
erating programs among (4) budget categories. The bill reflects an amount of $7,894.0 State
Road fund transfers to the Department of Public Safety, Motor Transportation Division.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Revenue Estimates:
The department revises revenue estimates in August of each year for purposes of budget prepara-
tion, and again in December or January of each year for purposes of legislative deliberations.
Table 1 shows the actual state revenues for FY04 and FY05, the January 2006 forecast of state
revenues for Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007. The fiscal year “Budget Growth” amounts
reflect year-over-year changes in the Department budget levels, which differs from actual reve-
nue growth. The column marked "Estimate Revision" for the current fiscal year (FY06) refers to
the changes between the “Budget Estimate” used during the 2005 Legislative Session and the
latest revised estimate.
The “preliminary” revenue numbers for Fiscal Year 2005 should be regarded as only approxi-
mate, and could be subject to significant accrual adjustments.
In addition to the (State) Road Fund, the department projects state-sourced revenues for the
Highway Infrastructure Fund, the Local Governments Road Fund, the Aviation Fund, and the
Transportation Program Fund.
pg_0003
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
3
Table 1
FY06 and FY07 Revenue Estimates
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY05 FY06 FY06 FY06 FY06 FY07 FY07
FY04 FY05 Revenue Budget Jan-06 Estimate Budget Jan-06 Budget
Actual Prelimi-
nary
Growth Estimate Estimate Revision Growth Estimate Growth
Road Fund -- Unrestricted Revenues
Ordinary Income:
Gasoline Tax
112,107 109,456
-2,651
116,802 107,400
-9,402 5,279
110,900
-5,902
Special Fuel Tax
74,546 87,902
13,356
93,500 92,335
-1,165 5,457
96,000
2,500
Weight/Distance
51,574 73,781
22,207
77,720 74,750
-2,970 2,924
75,700
-2,020
Trip Tax
4,050
5,724
1,674
4,000 8,000
4,000 0
8,000
4,000
Vehicle Registration
52,996 67,768
14,772
67,315 70,150
2,835 -968
70,270
2,955
Vehicle Transaction
1,132 1,130
-2
1,155 1,100
-55 25
1,100
-55
Driver's License
4,238 4,072
-166
4,300 4,150
-150 544
4,200
-100
Oversize/Overweight
1,157
3,232
2,075
4,000 4,000
0 0
4,000
0
Public Regulatory Commission Fees
3,298 3,526
228
3,300 3,400
100 -100
3,400
100
Penalty Assessments (Reinstatement Fees)
1,085 1,273
188
1,100 0
-1,100 -50
0
-1,100
MVD Miscellaneous
923 1,200
277
1,000 1,900
900 0
1,900
900
Subtotal Ordinary Income 307,107 359,064 51,957 374,192 367,185 -7,007 13,111 375,470 1,278
Road Fund -- Extraordinary Income:
Asset Sales
1,000 1,283
283
1,000 800
-200 0
1,100
100
Equipment Buy-back Program
259 257
-2
539 539
0 539
1,390
851
“Logo” Signage Revenue
n/a 1,076
1,076
700 1,000
300 700
1,000
300
Other Revenue
2,500 2,150
-350
1,000 2,401
1,401 -1,500
1,000
0
Road Fund Interest
395 1,239
844
1,322 1,870
548 670
1,700
378
Subtotal Extraordinary Income 4,154 6,005 1,851 4,561 6,610 2,049 409 6,190 1,629
Total Road Fund (Unrestricted Revenues) 311,261 365,069 53,808 378,753 373,795 -4,958 13,520 381,660 2,907
Other Funds:
Highway Infrastructure Fund:
Leased Vehicle Gross Receipts
4,536 4,524
-12
4,960 4,780
-180 110
4,740
-220
Tire Recycling Fees
1,421 1,950
529
1,900 1,750
-150 40
1,750
-150
Interest
64 124
60
213 234
21 102
268
55
Total Highway Infrastructure Fund 6,021 6,598 577 7,073 6,764 -309 252 6,758 -315
State Infrastructure Bank:
Loan Repayments n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a 4,278
4,278 0
1,740
1,740
Interest Earnings
181 313
132
214 150
-64 -53
200
-14
Total State Infrastructure Bank 181 313 132 214 4,428 4,214 -53 1,940 1,726
Local Government Road Fund:
From Interest
179 383
204
598 725
127 387
830
232
From Special Fuel
9,268 9,199
-69
9,804 9,680
-124 574
10,067
263
From PPL Fee
6,615 6,772
157
7,076 6,643
-433 509
6,926
-150
From DWI reinstatement fees & ID cards
1,123 1,152
29
1,100 1,150
50 0
1,150
50
From Gasoline Tax (MAP)
2,133 2,151
18
2,290 2,110
-180 184
2,180
-110
Leased Vehicle Gross Receipts
1,512 1,508
-4
1,653 1,595
-58 36
1,580
-73
Total Local Government Road Fund Income 20,829 21,165 336 22,521 21,903 -618 1,690 22,733 212
Aviation Fund:
Gas Taxes (Aviation)
385 388
3
413 380
-33 33
395
-18
Aviation Jet Fuel
1,425 919
-506
1,095 1,040
-55 520
985
-110
Aircraft License Fees
76 73
-3
80 75
-5 10
78
-2
0.046% of General Fund GRT (Aviation)
641 714
73
706 748
42 30
781
75
Total Aviation Fund Income 2,527 2,094 -433 2,294 2,243 -51 593 2,239 -55
pg_0004
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
4
FY05 FY06 FY06 FY06 FY06 FY07 FY07
FY04 FY05 Revenue Budget Jan-06 Estimate Budget Jan-06 Budget
Actual Prelimi-
nary
Growth Estimate Estimate Revision Growth Estimate Growth
Transportation Fund:
Motorcycle Registration (Fund 8)
72 75
3
73 73
0 8
74
1
Motorcycle Training Fund Interest (Fund 8)
2
3
1
56
1 2
7
2
Driver Improvement Fees (Fund 9)
190 196
6
160 190
30 -23
190
30
DWI Prevention (Fund 10)
130 162
32
130 160
30 82
160
30
Traffic Safety Fees (Fund 5)
848 878
30
900 900
0 -21
900
0
Traffic Safety Fees Interest (Fund 5)
18 37
19
60 70
10 40
80
20
Community DWI Prevention Fee (Fund 5)
736 742
6
750 750
0 0
750
0
Total Transportation Fund Income 1,995 2,093 98 2,078 2,149 71 88 2,161 83
TOTAL STATE REVENUES 342,814 397,559 54,518 412,933 411,282 -1,651 16,090 417,491 4,558
Road Fund
Included in the Road Fund are unrestricted and restricted revenues. Restricted revenues are for a
special purpose; they are typically earmarked funds for special purposes (like the Aviation
Fund), or bond proceeds and the interest accruing from the proceeds. Unrestricted revenues sup-
port the bulk of the activities associated with the state highway system and, therefore, receive the
most scrutiny during the budget and appropriation process.
Prior year revenues (FY05) to the State Road Fund were very close to the budget estimate, and
the tax increases associated with HB-15 of the 2003 Special Legislative Session appear to have
materialized as expected. Revenue from non-tax sources to the Road Fund came in stronger than
forecast, offsetting a weakness in gasoline tax revenue.
This latest estimate has revised expected FY06 revenues down by $5 million, primarily based on
the expectation of continued high motor fuel prices through the next 6 months. While higher
fuel prices had previously been forecast for FY05, with prices moderating in FY06, the outlook
now is for prices to remain near current levels throughout FY06 and moderate only slightly in
FY07. While the revenue trend is forecast to maintain a generally normal rate of growth (about
$7.9 million or 2.1% in FY07), the growth in the budget is forecast at only $2.9 million or 0.8%
for FY07.
Gasoline Taxes – The estimate for Gasoline Tax revenue for FY06 has been revised downward
by $9.4 million relative to the FY06 budget estimate as a result of high fuel prices. A 2.9% de-
cline in gasoline consumption in FY05 (driven by retail price increases) was more than offset by
a decline in Native American tax-exempt activity, resulting in a net increase in taxable gallons of
about 0.9%. Actual revenue to the State Road Fund declined slightly in FY05 since tax sharing
payments to two tribal entities and a new distribution to the State General Fund reduced the State
Road Fund share of collected revenues.
For FY06, the continuing high price environment is expected to result in a decrease of an addi-
tional -1.4% in gasoline consumption. Over the two years (FY05 and FY06) the combined im-
pact of high gasoline prices is expected to be about a 4.3% decline in gasoline consumption.
For FY07, a forecast of more stable, slightly declining gasoline prices, along with a stabilized
pattern of Native American gasoline sales, should result in a normal rate of growth in gasoline
tax revenue. Gasoline prices probably represent the most significant risk factor in the revenue
forecast.
pg_0005
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
5
Motor Carrier Taxes – Special Fuels Tax continues to exhibit growth in taxable volume despite
the retail price increases. The forecast for FY06 is for continued slow growth (but about $1 mil-
lion less than the budget forecast), and stronger growth beginning in FY07.
Weight-Distance Tax appears to be slightly below the budget estimate for FY06, but continues to
show some growth. The current forecast incorporates a slightly more moderate rate of growth
than did the FY06 budget forecast. It is still too early to evaluate, but there is a good chance fu-
ture Weight-Distance Tax revenue may be strengthened by the recent implementation of the ve-
hicle-specific Weight-Distance Tax Id Permit. The new Tax Id Permit was first made available
in July 2004, was issued for all renewals in January 2005, and became required documentation at
the ports-of-entry beginning in March 2005.
The immediate impact of the vehicle-specific Weight-Distance Tax Id Permit has been a reversal
of the four years of decline in the Trip Tax. The forecast of Trip Tax for FY06 has been dou-
bled, increasing from $4 million to $8 million. This fortuitous development has helped consid-
erably to mitigate the impact of weak gasoline tax revenue.
Motor Vehicle Division Fees – After appearing for awhile as though they might be running a bit
lower than expected, Motor Vehicle Registration Fees made a come-back and now appear to be
in-line with the forecasts associated with HB-15 from the 2003 Special Legislative Session.
Driver License Fees were expected to decline dramatically in FY04 and FY05 as we entered the
fifth year and subsequent years of the program allowing an 8-year driver license option. Over the
prior four years, Driver License Fee revenue had been approximately 25% to 30% higher than it
had been historically, as a result of the doubled fee associated with 8-year licensing periods. The
declines that did occur were less severe than expected, and Driver License revenue now appears
to be back on-track with where it probably would have been in the absence of the 8-year License
option.
Interest Earnings – The estimates for interest earnings on fund balances have been raised signifi-
cantly to reflect a forecast of gradually increasing interest rates during FY06 and FY07.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Federal Funding Outlook. The “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) was signed by President Bush on August 10, 2005
ending a two year effort by Congress to reach agreement on funding for highway, highway
safety, motor carrier safety and mass transit. This bill authorizes funding for federal fiscal years
(FYs) 2004-2009. The funding for FY04 was not affected and a limited impact is seen in FY05.
Over this five year period (2004-2009), New Mexico will receive $1.77 billion in highway fund-
ing representing a total increase of 30.3 percent over the SAFETEA-21 levels. The approxi-
mately $82.2 million additional dollars each year will largely fund projects chosen by the state
and listed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in addition to being used to
offset shortfalls in both GRIP and STIP due to increased costs. Additionally, $100 million has
been designated for transit programs in New Mexico which is a 100 percent increase over TEA-
21 levels.
New Mexico’s rate of return should reflect approximately 12 percent more in highway funding
pg_0006
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
6
than our drivers will pay in federal excise taxes as compared with states such as Texas, Califor-
nia and Arizona which will receive 8 percent less than what they pay in.
The bill contains a number of earmarks for special projects within the state. These earmarks rep-
resent 9 percent of the total appropriated ($188.75 million). Congress is currently considering
legislation which could eliminate or curtail the implementation of these earmarks.
Santa Teresa Rail Relocation. $14 million has been designated for the initial planning of the
relocation of the rail yards in downtown El Paso to the Santa Teresa port. The costs associated
with this project will exceed $300 million. A memorandum of understanding is being negotiated
between the states of Texas and the New Mexico to coordinate the planning process.
Governor Richardson’s Investment Partnership (Grip) Implementation And Project Plan-
ning. During the 2003 special session, the Legislature increased transportation-related taxes and
fees to support the state road fund and authorized $1.585 billion of bonds issuance, over an eight-
year period, to fund 37 transportation projects, including commuter rail in the Interstate 25 corri-
dor between Belen and Santa Fe. Debt service for these bonds comes from the state’s existing
dedicated federal and state transportation revenue streams.
The implementation and coordination of the $1.586 billion GRIP program and the statewide
transportation improvement program (STIP) continues to be the most significant and challenging
management issue confronting NMDOT. In order to meet its commitment the department must
leverage all available funds from GRIP bond proceeds, federal funds, and external partnerships
to deliver all projects. All GRIP projects are required to be programmed within STIP.
There is concern that inflationary pressures associated with oil supply combined with national
shortages of both steel and concrete will increase project costs, delay construction and require
the use of other STIP funds to supplement GRIP projects. Initial estimates show that due to these
factors GRIP may be under funded by $165 million. If correct, the NMDOT will be forced to use
the additional monies received under SAFETEA-LU to absorb these increased costs on both
GRIP and STIP projects.
The department is already utilizing STIP monies for GRIP projects in an apparent effort to free
money for phase two of the commuter rail project between Bernalillo and Santa Fe. The total
cost for commuter rail, phases one and two, is now projected to be $393 million. $318 million
from GRIP and another $75 million from STIP.
Through November 2005 NMDOT had designed and let for construction 26 GRIP Projects val-
ued at $323 million. This represents approximately 24 percent of the total GRIP program.
Eighty-four projects are under contract for design with an additional seventy projects being de-
signed in-house. The department is scheduled to have spent $677 million by the end of FY07.
This latest projection is $30 million less than originally projected. This slippage in project
scheduling is a concern especially with more than 50 percent of the remaining projects scheduled
to be let in the next few months. In FY05 only 32 percent of projects let were within the year
they had been scheduled to be let. Not all problems in scheduling are the result of poor planning.
New Mexico highway 491, valued at over $100 million, is a prime example. This project is cur-
rently behind schedule and may be moved back as much as two years in construction. The delays
are due to difficulties in securing agreement from the Navajo Nation regarding right of way is-
sues. Concern exists that additional slippage may occur especially if shortages in steel and con-
crete continue.
pg_0007
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
7
The department had projected in June of 2005 that it would have paid out of the bond proceeds
$$331.6 million through the end of December 2005. The department’s most recent reports indi-
cate that it has encumbered $182.9 million through this same period. This would imply that the
GRIP project schedules may be slipping and is an area of concern.
A second bond sale is scheduled to be held by the department in the fall of 2006 for the remain-
der of GRIP funding.
GRIP II. Throughout the state there are a myriad of mainly local road projects that do not qual-
ify for federal monies or inclusion on the STIP. These roads are largely not part of the state road
system the NMDOT is responsible for maintaining. As a result, these projects do not get atten-
tion due to the lack of any identifiable funding source. The department in early summer 2005
requested counties, tribal and municipal governments to report and prioritize projects within their
jurisdictions. These totaled in excess of $3 billion dollars. The department has taken each entity’s
top priority with an associated cost of $637 million and is developing an approach that will: pri-
oritize the scheduling and financing of these projects in phases and will further require local en-
tity cost sharing. The governor has requested state capital outlay monies of $50 million per year
for the next five years to fund this program. Concern exists that GRIP II, while a noble effort to
address statewide transportation needs, may enlarge the scope of responsibility of the department
and dilute resources required to fulfill the department’s mission.
The department is hard pressed to maintain existing roads as is evidenced by the decline in the
number of improved pavement surface lane miles for FY05. Based upon NMDOT data projects
being let are behind schedule. In FY05 only 32 percent of projects were let on time as compared
to 62 percent in FY04. As maintenance costs continue to escalate and gas tax revenues decline
due to decreased consumption, the department can ill afford to expand its scope of responsibility.
Bond Program and Debt Management. The department has a total outstanding debt of $1.6
billion with an FY07 debt service obligation of $154.5 million for all NMDOT bonds. The
Transportation Commission established an internal policy limiting annual debt service for all
bonds to no more than $160 million. The GRIP bonds account for $1.14 billion in outstanding
principal with a final maturity date in 2024. Total GRIP interest and bond expenses will total
$720 million through maturity of the bonds.
Road Maintenance. Maintenance costs for FY05 accelerated due to heavy snows and rain which
resulted in approximately $1.9 million in emergency repairs, cleanup patching and snow and ice
removal. New Mexico roads are costly to maintain at an average cost of $25.5 thousand per cen-
terline mile. Some major factors contributing to these high costs are the remote areas and the cost
of mobilization of materials and equipment.
Bridge Maintenance. The state has 277 bridges that are considered structurally deficient. This is
a decrease from a high of 281 deficient bridges reported in FY04. Funding levels for bridge
maintenance are at an all time high with many bridges scheduled for replacement within various
STIP and GRIP projects. Bridge replacement costs have risen from an FY04/05cost of $75 per
square foot to FY06 estimates of $85 per square foot. These increases are a direct result of rising
steel, concrete and energy pricing.
Public Transportation Initiatives. The department’s strategic plan includes as a key element
the development of transportation alternatives such as commuter rail or bus service.
pg_0008
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
8
Commuter Rail. GRIP legislation provided for reconstruction and improvement of the Interstate
25 (I-25) corridor from Belen to Santa Fe to accommodate public transportation elements includ-
ing commuter rail. The original estimates provided for the department indicated the projected
costs to be $122.5 million. Today the department projects this to be $318 million for GRIP and
another $75 million from STIP. In a joint partnership between the department and the Mid-
Region Council of Governments (MRCOG), NMDOT is approaching commuter rail in two
phases: Belen to Bernalillo, estimated completion March 2006; Bernalillo to Santa Fe, estimated
completion date in December 2008. $75 million was identified in GRIP projections for phase one
activities and the initial planning of phase two. Another $75 million appears to have been se-
cured through SAFETEA-LU for phase two operations.
In phase one the department purchased 10 bi-level passenger rail cars ($22.9 million) and four
locomotives ($9.6 million). Another locomotive was purchased for $2.25 million using monies
from Sandoval County. Station costs are estimated at $16 million for seven stations with some of
the costs of the Bernalillo station to be paid by Sandoval County. It is expected that the Berna-
lillo to Albuquerque route will open in January 2006 with the Belen to Albuquerque segment
opening as late as March 2006 due to issues with construction of the train stations.
Track access was negotiated with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad with the state agreeing
to purchase the track between Belen and Trinidad, Colorado for $75 million. It is questionable if
GRIP monies can be used for the Lamy to Trinidad, CO segment ($5 million) because the track
is outside of the outside of the boundaries defined for this project.
In 2004 the department was directed to find sufficient savings in GRIP to fund the expected $250
to $300 million dollars that the second phase would cost. This appears to have been done through
the utilization of STIP monies to augment GRIP financing of projects.
Additional capital funding has tentatively obtained $75 million through the Federal Transit Ad-
ministration (FTA) “New Starts” program for major capital transit investments. The estimated
cost of phase two is $250 to $300 million. This is a three-part process subject to FTA evaluation
and approval at each step. The three steps are: the completion and approval of a detailed “alter-
natives analysis,” which was completed and submitted in September 2005; a “preliminary engi-
neering” analysis, expected to take one to two years; and “final design”, expected to take an ad-
ditional one to two years.
The alternatives analysis submitted in September 2005 was written favoring commuter rail. The
analysis reviewed all alternative travel modes between Albuquerque and Santa Fe. These options
included expansion of the interstate (additional lanes), increased utilization of buses and high
occupancy vehicle lanes and commuter rail. Not surprisingly, the study unquestionably showed
commuter rail as being the preferred option. The report indicated due to demographic changes
expected in the next 20 years that the commute between Albuquerque and Santa Fe would take
more than 2 hours (32 miles per hour). However, if commuter rail was chosen, expenditures on
interstate improvements between Albuquerque and Santa Fe would be minimized over the next
twenty years. It is incomprehensible that the public would not tolerate and demand improvement
with or without the existence of a commuter rail system.
The analysis also projected that by 2025 high occupancy vehicles/regional buses (HOV/BRT)
could attract over 21.5 percent of the commuter activity between Santa Fe and Albuquerque as
compared to a forecasted 10.1 percent for commuter rail. Yet, the HOV/BRT viability was
pg_0009
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
9
downplayed and was not the selected alternative. A review of the alternative analysis would
seem to indicate that commuter rail is a complimentary service to HOV/BRT services and that
interstate maintenance and required improvements will not be abated with commuter rail.
Phase one operational costs are planned to be subsidized in the first three years of operation with
congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) federal funding. It is estimated these costs will be
about $14 million per year, the detail has not been provided regarding these costs. Offsets from
revenue have not been factored into these costs because fares have yet to be established by
MRCOG.
MRCOG hopes to have subsequent year subsidization from potential regional transportation dis-
trict (RTD) revenue. RTDs are permitted under state law to impose a one-half percent gross re-
ceipts tax on participating municipalities. An RTD for the Albuquerque metropolitan area has
been approved by all governmental entities within the region and was approved by the NMDOT
commission. The RTD tax may only be imposed after voter approval. Passage of this tax in-
crease is uncertain.
Ridership levels are of some concern. The department has not been able to provide any informa-
tion regarding projected ridership levels. It is expected that with the limited number of available
trains during rush hour these trains should be at or near capacity. A major concern exists that
needed improvements to the Albuquerque metropolitan area bus system and the establishment of
a shuttle service between stations and work sites may not be in place by March 2006 when the
commuter rail is initiated. The inability of commuters to not get to work sites within a reasonable
period of time will result in many losing confidence in the system and reverting to more reliable
forms of transportation.
The City of Albuquerque is also projecting that it will request state assistance for funding a light
rail system within the near future.
Self-Sustainability of Park and Ride Programs. The development of consumer demand for
public transportation is not simply an issue of generating sufficient volume, but rather an issue of
changing behavior. The recent surge in retail gasoline prices has served as an impetus for dra-
matically changing that behavior. Park and Ride ridership levels are at an all time high. A public
transportation system also has to prove itself reliable and convenient to pull commuters from
their private vehicles to public vehicles. NMDOT is engaged in a strategy that would get the
general public to use park and ride first, then “move up” to commuter rail. These two programs
should not be viewed as competitors but rather as complementary services with each serving a
distinct need.
NMDOT began park and ride as a mechanism to meet a federal mandate to reduce the number of
vehicles traveling through the US84/285 construction zone corridor between Santa Fe, Espanola,
and Los Alamos. Service began in May 2003 and was expanded in December 2003 to include an
I-25 route between Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Both ventures were fully funded by federal funds
less passenger revenue. This funding has been reduced to 40 percent of net costs for both routes
as of December 2004.
Park and Ride’s ridership has more than doubled on the Albuquerque to Santa Fe route this fiscal
year. This is due to the sharp rise of gasoline prices. The Espanola routes continue to experience
ridership issues. This has resulted in reviews of schedules and passenger levels. Buses have been
pg_0010
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
10
canceled on certain routes and added to other routes as consumers increase. The cost per passen-
ger to NMDOT has declined 7 percent over the past two years largely due to this increase in rid-
ers. In FY04 the cost to the state per rider was $14.98. In FY05 this was reduced to $13.93. The
department should continue to consider maximizing its expenditures at routes where participa-
tion merits the investment and seek alternative measures for other routes. Analysis should in-
clude a discussion of costs versus benefits, including the impact of reduced traffic congestion.
Additionally, all alternatives must be considered. Van pools for certain markets might be more
practical and affordable to address commuters’ needs than park and ride buses.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The NMDOT points out that a technical change needs to be made on 1d. Number of traffic fatali-
ties to reflect appropriate data has demonstrated by decimal points, not percentages in previous
years and this estimate is listed in the recommended agency target column.
1 Infrastructure and Programs
HB 4
A Quality: Ride quality index for new construction
4.3
B Quality: Percent of final cost over bid amount
4.0
C Outcome: Percent of front occupant seat belt use by the public
92%
D Outcome: Number of traffic fatalities per one hundred million
miles traveled
55% 2.45
E Output: Annual rural public transportation ridership
700.0
F Output: Revenue dollars per passenger on Park and Ride
1.60
G Explanatory: Annual number of riders on park and ride
200.0
H Explanatory: Percent of programmed projects let according to
schedule
85%
I Outcome: Percent capacity-filled on commuter rail service between
Belen and Bernalillo
85%
2 Operations
HB 4
A Outcome: Number of combined system wide miles in deficient
condition
2500
B Outcome: Number of State wide improved pavement surface
miles
5000
C Efficiency: Maintenance expenditures per lane mile of combined
system-wide miles
5250
D Outcome: Number of non-interstate miles rated good
*
E
F
Outcome: Number of interstate miles rated good
Quality: Customer satisfaction levels at rest areas
*
*
3 Business Support
HB 4
A Outcome: Percent of vacancy rate in all programs
7.5%
B Outcome: Percent of vacancy rate in all programs
*
*TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENT- Under Number of traffic fatalities per one hundred mil-
lion miles traveled. It is listed incorrectly as 55% and should read 2.45.
pg_0011
House Bill 4aHTC –Page
11
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
HB4 includes an average 5% vacancy factor applied to the agency’s Salaries and Benefits cate-
gory. The NMDOT expresses concern tha tsince it is not a General Fund agency, any proposed
salary increases will increase operational costs. Any increased operational costs, must be main-
tained within existing Road Fund Revenue. These costs will be managed through higher vacancy
rates or through an adjustment to the highway construction program.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The NMDOT points out that:
•
The revenue for the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) budget expenditures was mistakenly
identified as Fund Balance in the department’s original request, when in fact this is reve-
nue as projected in the department’s “Road Fund Outlook”. This should have been iden-
tified as Other Program Revenues and not Fund Balance.
•
The state budget requested for Debt Service within the Other Costs category of the Pro-
grams and Infrastructure Program was incorrectly requested by the department and an ad-
justment of the budget is requested. Please see the revisions below:
Revenue: Original Adjustment New
State Road Fund $37,966.8 $0 $37,966.8
HIF $ 4,214.8 <$.2> $ 4,214.6
FHWA $94,924.5 <$4,828.1> $90,096.4
WIPP-DOE $15,688.8 <$.4> $15,688.4
TOTAL $152,794.9 <$4,828.7> $147,966.2
Expenditures: Programs and Infrastructure Program (P562)
Federal State
Other Costs Category (400) <$4,828.5> <$.2>
(Debt Service Expenditures)
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
•
The updated January state revenue estimates will include some revised amounts and ad-
justments to the department’s budget will be necessary.
•
The funding of a proposed FY07 compensation package needs to be considered, being
that the department normally does not get a General Fund appropriation for this.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL
The Department of Transportation will not receive any appropriation and will be unable to meet
its obligations.
GM/mt:yr