Public Involvement Plan

To provide a unified approach to public involvement and context sensitive solutions, a Context Sensitive Public Involvement Plan (CSPIP) has been prepared for the US 84/285 (St. Francis/St. Michael’s) Interchange Study (Study) (PDF). The CSPIP combines the public involvement and context sensitive solutions planning conducted in accordance with the NMDOT’s Location Study Procedures (2015)– the policy document followed by the NMDOT to comply with federal transportation planning and environmental regulations. The goals of the CSPIP are:

  • To establish the Study context and identify major community values;
  • To identify the Study stakeholders, the methods to inform and involve them, and the approaches to resolve issues, concerns, and conflicts that may arise; and
  • To develop a decision-making process that is sensitive to the Study 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 Study area.

The Study has primarily used a virtual public involvement process to provide information and obtain input. To learn about the Study findings and supporting documentation, we ask that you review the Phase IA and Phase IB public meeting recordings and summaries, and explore the information on the website.

Phase IA Public Involvement

The previous Phase IA St. Francis/St. Michael’s Interchange Alternatives Report identified nine alternatives, including the No Build Alternative, and evaluated their comparative benefits and disadvantages. Based on this analysis, four alternatives were found to be less feasible, and the Study Team recommended that they be eliminated from further evaluation. The Study Team recommended that the remaining five alternatives be advanced for more detailed evaluation in Phase IB.

Eliminate from Further Evaluation

  • Re-stripe Existing St. Francis Dr.
  • Modern Roundabout
  • Single Point Urban Interchange
  • Diverging Diamond Interchange

Alternatives Evaluated in Detail

  • No-Build
  • Signalized Intersection
  • Diamond Interchange
  • Ramp Reconfiguration
  • Split Bridge Interchange

A virtual public meeting was held on May 18, 2021, to present the finding of the Phase IA Report and obtain public input. The meeting was held via Zoom and was widely advertised through newspaper announcements, agency social media, and mailed flyers. Fifty-four individuals registered for the meeting via Zoom and 37 non-Study Team members of the public attended the meeting. During the meeting, 18 substantive comments were received, and an additional 26 submittals were received during the comment period, on the website comment form, mail, email, and phone. The comments/questions are summarized below and are included in detail in the recoded meeting video and meeting summary.

Summary of Comments – Meeting #1

Recommend specific improvements (lane connections, pedestrian bridges, etc.) 6
Comments about specific safety issues (weaves, merges) and accident locations 5
Proposed improvements at Zia Road/concerns about Zia Station development 4
In favor of Study alternatives that improve ramp safety 4
Questions/comments about bicycle/pedestrian facilities 3
Questions/comments about construction impacts 3
In favor of the At-Grade/Signalized Alternative 3
Questions/comments on drainage issues/possible improvements 2
Questions about right-of-way impacts at specific properties 2
Improvements at Siringo/Pacheco intersection 2
Questions/comments about four lanes on St. Michael’s (“Re-Mike” project) 2
In favor of Roundabout Alternative 2
Opposed to Roundabout Alternative 2
In favor of Split Bridge Alternative 2
Suggestions for short-term improvements 2
In favor of Ramp Reconfiguration Alternative 1
In favor of Re-striping Alternative 1
Question on height of new bridge 1
Suggestion for landscaping 1
Suggestion for noise abatement 1
Question on project schedule 1
Question on corridor protection act 1

Phase IB Public Involvement

The Phase IB analysis evaluated the remaining alternatives in terms of physical deficiencies, traffic operations, safety, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, environmental considerations, constructability and management of traffic, and costs (link). In addition, it included an option whereby St. Michael’s Dr. would be constructed as a four-lane roadway within the interchange, in recognition of on-going City of Santa Fe plans for a road diet study on St. Michael’s Dr., and also includes several minor intersection alternatives. Based upon the detailed evaluation, the Phase IB recommended alternative is the Ramp Reconfiguration with the four-lane option on St. Michael’s Dr. and the Siringo Road/St. Francis Dr. intersection configured to include dual left-turn lanes from northbound St. Francis Dr. to westbound Siringo Road (link).

A second virtual public meeting was held on September 12, 2023, to present the finding and recommendations of the Phase IB Report and obtain public input. The meeting was held via Zoom and was advertised through a newspaper announcement in the Santa Fe New Mexican, agency social media, mailed flyers, and a banner sign in the study area. Forty individuals registered for the meeting via Zoom and 27 non-Study Team members of the public attended the meeting. During the meeting, 20 substantive comments were received, and two submittals were received via email during the comment period. In addition, 23 written comments were submitted on the website comment form. The comments/questions are summarized below and are included in detail in the recoded meeting video and meeting summary.

Summary of Comments – Meeting #2


In favor of fully separated bike lanes with barriers and/or wider buffers to driving lanes. 9
In favor of grade-separation for northbound multi-use facilities over St. Michael’s, possibly attached to the St. Francis bridge. 5
Safety concerns about the northbound merges onto St. Francis. 5
In favor generally of pedestrian/bicycle improvements-current situation is dangerous 4
In favor of wider and improved trails in the northbound direction. 3
In favor of measures to accommodate bicycle lanes on westbound San Mateo in the intersection design. 2
In favor of or questions regarding 4-lane option on St. Michael’s. 2
Questions/concerns about weaving movements between San Mateo and northbound on-ramp or St. Francis mainline. 2
Questions on availability of presentation and 3-D model. 2
Questions about operations of signal at northbound ramps and St. Michael’s 2
In favor of Alternative 1, the signalized intersection. 2
Support for improving/widening trail in southwest quadrant of interchange. 2
Safety concerns about southbound on-ramp from St. Michael’s to St. Francis. 2
Concern about the length of construction: if one alternative requires a shorter amount of disruption time, that could be an important factor in rating it. In favor of the split bridge or signalized alternatives because of shorter construction/disruption time. 2
Questions/concerns about how to drop bike lanes at signalized intersections (like Galisteo), which have right-turn lanes. 1
Question on need for right-of-way. 1
Question on impact to ponding area in northeast quadrant. 1
Question on width of bridge. 1
Question on improvements at Siringo. 1
Question on improvements at Zia. 1
Question on funding. 1
Would like to see bicycle crossing button at height and location accessible to bicyclists. 1
Question, why get bikes north across St. Michael’s when there are no bike facilities north on St. Francis? 1
In favor of more pedestrian facilities, north of Siringo between Botolph and Pacheco and on St. Michael’s west of St. Francis. 1
Concern that signal timing is not coordinated properly on St. Michael’s and St. Francis, causing excessive delays. 1
Concern about the impact of sedimentation from the existing interchange on the City’s storm drain system. In favor of green infrastructure and other improvements. 1
In favor of roundabout. 1
Suggestion to signalize the existing St. Francis/Northbound Ramps intersections. 1
Opposed to changing St. Michael’s from six to four lanes. 1
The study needs to extend to Zia Road and address problems there. 1
Consider soundproofing the “freeway”. 1