Transportation needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas Yuma County, Az : final report

              Final Report
Transportation
Needs for the
Foothills and
Mesa Del Sol
Areas
Yuma County, AZ
ADOT Planning Assistance for Rural Areas
ADOT Project MPD 14-11(D)
April, 2012
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | i
Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________________ 1-1
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW __________________________________________________________________ 1-1
1.2 STUDY FRAMEWORK ___________________________________________________________________ 1-1
1.3 STUDY AREA ________________________________________________________________________ 1-5
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT _________________________________________________________ 1-7
2.0 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND REPORTS __________________________________ 2-1
2.1 YMPO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, 2010-2033 ________________________________________ 2-1
2.1.1 Roadway Element of the YMPO RTP ________________________________________________ 2-1
2.1.2 Transit Development Plan of the YMPO RTP __________________________________________ 2-3
2.1.3 Pedestrian Element of the YMPO RTP _______________________________________________ 2-3
2.1.4 Bicycle Element of the YMPO RTP __________________________________________________ 2-4
2.2 YUMA COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ________________________________________________ 2-4
2.3 FOOTHILLS AREA BACKGROUND STUDY ____________________________________________________ 2-5
2.4 FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP REPORT __________________________________ 2-6
2.5 CITY OF YUMA 2012 GENERAL PLAN _______________________________________________________ 2-6
2.6 JOINT LAND USE PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT ______________________________________ 2-7
2.7 CITY OF YUMA BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN _____________________________________________ 2-8
2.8 YUMA REGIONAL TRANSIT STUDY _________________________________________________________ 2-8
2.9 DRAINAGE FACILITY INVENTORY MEMO, FOOTHILLS MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE _________________ 2-9
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS _______________________________________________________ 3-1
3.1 EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN ___________________________________________________________ 3-1
3.2 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE ______________________________________________________ 3-5
3.2.1 Population and Housing __________________________________________________________ 3-5
3.2.2 Employment ___________________________________________________________________ 3-6
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW _____________________________________________________________ 3-8
3.3.1 Physical Conditions overview ______________________________________________________ 3-9
3.3.2 Natural Resource Overview _______________________________________________________ 3-9
3.3.3 Cultural Resource Overview ______________________________________________________ 3-17
3.3.4 Sensitive Issues and/or Features __________________________________________________ 3-17
3.4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM _____________________________________________________ 3-24
3.4.1 Yuma County Transportation Elements _____________________________________________ 3-24
3.4.2 Study Area Roadway Network ____________________________________________________ 3-28
3.4.3 Physical Roadway Elements ______________________________________________________ 3-29
3.4.4 Roadway Network Operational Assessment __________________________________________ 3-39
3.5 SAFETY ASSESSMENT ________________________________________________________________ 3-56
3.6 CROSSINGS OF FORTUNA WASH DRAINAGE NETWORK ________________________________________ 3-64
3.7 ALTERNATIVE MODAL ELEMENTS ________________________________________________________ 3-67
3.7.1 Transit Service ________________________________________________________________ 3-67
3.7.2 Pedestrian Accommodations _____________________________________________________ 3-72
3.7.3 Bicycle Facilities _______________________________________________________________ 3-72
3.8 FREIGHT SERVICES ___________________________________________________________________ 3-73
3.8.1 Trucking _____________________________________________________________________ 3-73
3.8.2 Rail Freight ___________________________________________________________________ 3-73
4.0 COMMITTED AND PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ___________________ 4-1
4.1 CONTEXT ___________________________________________________________________________ 4-1
4.2 FUNDING PROGRAMS __________________________________________________________________ 4-1
4.2.1 ADOT State Transportation Improvement Program _____________________________________ 4-1
4.2.2 YMPO Transportation Improvement Program __________________________________________ 4-2
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | ii
Final Report
4.2.3 Yuma County Transportation Capital Improvement Projects ______________________________ 4-2
4.3 BASE FUTURE ROADWAY NETWORK _______________________________________________________ 4-3
5.0 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS ___________________________________________ 5-1
5.1 FUTURE LAND USE PATTERNS ___________________________________________________________ 5-1
5.2 AREA GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS ___________________________________________________________ 5-5
5.2.1 Travel Demand Modeling Methodolgy _______________________________________________ 5-6
5.2.2 Model Forecasting Inputs _________________________________________________________ 5-6
5.3 FUTURE ROADWAY FACILITIES __________________________________________________________ 5-12
5.3.1 Functional Classification of the Roadway Network _____________________________________ 5-12
5.3.2 Years 2020, 2030, and Buildout Existing-Plus-Committed Roadway Network ________________ 5-12
5.4 TRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION POTENTIAL __________________________________________________ 5-12
5.4.1 Forecast Demand ______________________________________________________________ 5-13
5.4.2 Proposed Service Improvements __________________________________________________ 5-13
5.5 PROPOSED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ____________________________________________ 5-15
5.5.1 Pedestrian Accommodations _____________________________________________________ 5-15
5.5.2 Bicycle Accommodations ________________________________________________________ 5-15
5.6 TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________ 5-16
5.6.1 Year 2020 Traffic Forecasts & Network Performance ___________________________________ 5-16
5.6.2 Year 2030 Traffic Forecasts & Network Performance ___________________________________ 5-21
5.6.3 Buildout Traffic Forecasts & Network Performance_____________________________________ 5-25
5.7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________________________ 5-35
6.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE _______________________________________________ 6-1
6.1 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES____________________________________________________________ 6-1
6.1.1 Alternative A: Buildout Conditions – Existing + Committed (E+C) Network with
Limited Additional Network Connectivity _____________________________________________ 6-5
6.1.2 Alternative B: Buildout Conditions Augmented with Proposed County Improvements __________ 6-11
6.1.3 Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 1 ___________________________________________ 6-17
6.1.4 Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 2 ___________________________________________ 6-23
6.1.5 Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 3 ___________________________________________ 6-29
6.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES _________________________________________________________ 6-35
6.2.1 Summary of Operational Statistics _________________________________________________ 6-35
6.2.2 Evaluation Framework___________________________________________________________ 6-36
6.2.3 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix _____________________________________________________ 6-36
7.0 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS_____________________________ 7-1
7.1 ROADWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS ______________________________________________________ 7-1
7.1.1 Year 2030 Roadway Network Improvements __________________________________________ 7-1
7.1.2 Buildout Network Improvements ____________________________________________________ 7-5
7.2 PERFORMANCE OF THE YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT ROADWAY NETWORKS ___________________________ 7-9
7.2.1 Year 2030 Recommended Improvements ____________________________________________ 7-9
7.2.2 Buildout Conditions: Alternative 1 Improvements _______________________________________ 7-9
7.2.3 South Foothills Boulevard traffic signal phasing at I-8 Eastbound Off-Ramp and I-8 South
Frontage Road _________________________________________________________________ 7-9
7.3 RECOMMENDED INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS __________________________________________________ 7-20
7.3.1 Near-Term Improvements (5-Year Timeframe) ________________________________________ 7-20
7.3.2 Mid-Term Improvements (10-Year Timeframe) ________________________________________ 7-20
7.4 RECOMMENDED PUBLIC TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ____________________________________________ 7-21
7.4.1 Fixed-Route Public Transit Service _________________________________________________ 7-21
7.4.2 YCAT Short-Range Transit Plan ___________________________________________________ 7-21
7.4.3 Long-Range Transit Plan ________________________________________________________ 7-21
7.4.4 Yuma Regional Transit Study _____________________________________________________ 7-23
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | iii
Final Report
7.4.5 Recommended Public Transit Service Network _______________________________________ 7-24
7.5 RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ________________________________________ 7-26
7.5.1 Improvements to Pedestrian Environment ___________________________________________ 7-26
7.5.2 Bicycle Facilities _______________________________________________________________ 7-27
7.5.3 Accommodations for Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel ____________________________________ 7-29
8.0 PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ____________________ 8-1
8.1 DERIVATION OF PLANNING-LEVEL COST COMPONENTS _________________________________________ 8-1
8.2 YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS ___________________________________________ 8-1
9.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT _______________________________________________________ 9-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST FOR
YUMA COUNTY
APPENDIX B – DETAILED CRASH DATA FOR KEY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
APPENDIX C – PROJECTED FUTURE GROWTH PATTERNS
APPENDIX D – YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH
RECOMMENDED IMPROVMENTS
APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX F – DETAILED PPLANNNING LEVEL COST CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX G – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | iv
Final Report
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................................................................... 1-3
FIGURE 1.2 STUDY AREA: FOOTHILLS AND MESA DEL SOL AREAS ................................................................................ 1-6
FIGURE 2.1 YMPO RTP RECOMMENDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE STUDY AREA ......................................... 2-2
FIGURE 2.2 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: YUMA COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................................... 2-5
FIGURE 3.1 GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN ............................................................................................. 3-3
FIGURE 3.2 STUDY AREA WILDLIFE LINKAGES ............................................................................................................ 3-12
FIGURE 3.3 FLOODPLAIN AREAS ............................................................................................................................... 3-15
FIGURE 3.4 TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE & RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ......................................................................... 3-19
FIGURE 3.5 LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................................... 3-22
FIGURE 3.6 STUDY AREA RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................ 3-25
FIGURE 3.7 STUDY AREA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................... 3-27
FIGURE 3.8 STUDY AREA MAJOR ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ................................................................. 3-31
FIGURE 3.9 EXISTING PRIMARY ROADWAY NETWORK TRAVEL LANES ......................................................................... 3-33
FIGURE 3.10 ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS ................................................................... 3-37
FIGURE 3.11 2009 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON SELECTED STUDY AREA ROADWAY SEGMENTS ........................................... 3-41
FIGURE 3.12 PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION COUNTS AT SELECTED KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011 ................. 3-43
FIGURE 3.13 LANE GEOMETRIES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011 ..................... 3-49
FIGURE 3.14 STUDY AREA CRASHES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2010 ................................................................................. 3-57
FIGURE 3.15 STUDY AREA CRASH LOCATIONS: AUGUST 2005 THROUGH AUGUST 2010 ............................................. 3-59
FIGURE 3.16 STUDY AREA CRASH CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN 2005 AND 2010 ........................................................ 3-61
FIGURE 3.17 ROADWAY CROSSINGS OF FORTUNA WASH DRAINAGE NETWORK .......................................................... 3-65
FIGURE 3.18 ORANGE AND GOLD ROUTES, YUMA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT (YCAT) ..................................................... 3-69
FIGURE 4.1 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: YEAR 2020 NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES ................... 4-5
FIGURE 4.2 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: YEAR 2030 NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES ................... 4-6
FIGURE 4.3 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: BUILDOUT NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES ..................... 4-7
FIGURE 5.1 PROPOSED STUDY AREA LAND USE PATTERN ........................................................................................... 5-3
FIGURE 5.2 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES AND PLANNED LAND USE ................................................................... 5-7
FIGURE 5.3 PLANNED FUTURE FOOTHILLS CIRCULATOR ROUTES ............................................................................... 5-14
FIGURE 5.4 PLANNED FUTURE MESA DEL SOL CIRCULATOR ROUTES ......................................................................... 5-14
FIGURE 5.5 STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: YEAR 2020 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................ 5-19
FIGURE 5.6 STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2020 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK .................................... 5-20
FIGURE 5.7 STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: YEAR 2030 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................ 5-23
FIGURE 5.8 STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2030 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK .................................... 5-24
FIGURE 5.9 STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK .............................................. 5-27
FIGURE 5.10 STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK .................................... 5-28
FIGURE 5.11 PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENTS: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK ......................... 5-30
FIGURE 6.1 ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL
CONNECTIVITY – NUMBER OF LANES ................................................................................................................... 6-7
FIGURE 6.2 ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL
CONNECTIVITY – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................ 6-8
FIGURE 6.3 ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL
CONNECTIVITY – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................ 6-9
FIGURE 6.4 ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – NUMBER
OF LANES ........................................................................................................................................................ 6-13
FIGURE 6.5 ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – FORECAST
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................ 6-14
FIGURE 6.6 ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – ROADWAY
SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................... 6-15
FIGURE 6.7 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – NUMBER OF LANES ................................................ 6-19
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | v
Final Report
FIGURE 6.8 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................... 6-20
FIGURE 6.9 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................ 6-21
FIGURE 6.10 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – NUMBER OF LANES .............................................. 6-25
FIGURE 6.11 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................... 6-26
FIGURE 6.12 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................ 6-27
FIGURE 6.13 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – NUMBER OF LANES .............................................. 6-31
FIGURE 6.14 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................... 6-32
FIGURE 6.15 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................ 6-33
FIGURE 7.1 YEAR 2030 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................. 7-3
FIGURE 7.2 RECOMMENDED BUILDOUT IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 7-7
FIGURE 7.3 LOCATION OF INTERSECTIONS SELECTED FOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT
ROADWAY NETWORKS ..................................................................................................................................... 7-10
FIGURE 7.4 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT ..... 7-11
FIGURE 7.5 RECOMMENDED SIGNAL PHASING OF I-8 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AT SOUTH
FOOTHILLS BOULEVARD .................................................................................................................................. 7-19
FIGURE 7.6 PLANNED YCAT FOOTHILLS CIRCULATOR ROUTES .................................................................................. 7-22
FIGURE 7.7 PLANNED YCAT MESA DEL SOL CIRCULATOR ROUTES ............................................................................ 7-22
FIGURE 7.8 FUTURE NEAR- TO MID-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATION ........................................................ 7-25
FIGURE 7.9 PLANNED STUDY AREA BICYCLE FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 7-28
FIGURE 7.10 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES YEAR 2030 ................................................................................... 7-31
FIGURE 7.11 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES FOR BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1 ................................ 7-32
FIGURE 7.12 ALTERNATIVE ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION 1 ........................................................................................... 7-33
FIGURE 7.13 ALTERNATIVE ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION 2 ........................................................................................... 7-33
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | vi
Final Report
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 FOOTHILLS POPULATION PROFILE ............................................................................................................... 3-5
TABLE 3.2 FOOTHILLS HOUSEHOLD PROFILE ................................................................................................................ 3-6
TABLE 3.3 MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................ 3-7
TABLE 3.4 MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................ 3-8
TABLE 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATION GROUPS BY CENSUS TRACT .......................................................... 3-26
TABLE 3.6 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CAPACITIES ................................................................................................. 3-47
TABLE 3.7 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS .......................................................................................... 3-47
TABLE 3.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ................................................................................. 3-48
TABLE 3.9 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ............................................................................. 3-48
TABLE 3.10 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................... 3-53
TABLE 3.11 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................... 3-55
TABLE 3.12 SUMMARY OF CRASH DATA FOR KEY ROADWAY SEGMENTS ..................................................................... 3-62
TABLE 3.13 CRASH RATES FOR KEY ROADWAY SEGMENTS ........................................................................................ 3-64
TABLE 4.1 COMMITTED AND PLANNED TRANSPORTATION-RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ......................... 4-2
TABLE 5.1 LAND USE ACREAGE IN THE FOOTHILLS SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING AREA: 2001 & DESIGNATED FUTURE
BUILDOUT ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-5
TABLE 5.2 DERIVATION OF THE ESTIMATE OF BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 5-10
TABLE 5.3 COMPARISON OF 2011, 2020, 2030, AND BUILDOUT ESTIMATES OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE
STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................... 5-11
TABLE 5.4 POPULATION GROWTH AND TRANSIT DEMAND FORECAST .......................................................................... 5-13
TABLE 5.5 NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2020 ..................................................................................................... 5-17
TABLE 5.6 NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2030 E+C ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................................ 5-22
TABLE 5.7 NETWORK PERFORMANCE: BUILDOUT E+C ROADWAY NETWORK .............................................................. 5-26
TABLE 5.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: BUILDOUT E+C ROADWAY NETWORK ....... 5-33
TABLE 5.9 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: BUILDOUT E+C ROADWAY NETWORK ... 5-34
TABLE 6.1 COMPARISON OF BUILDOUT IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES TO EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ...................... 6-3
TABLE 6.2 PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVES ........................................... 6-35
TABLE 6.3 EVALUATION OF BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 6-38
TABLE 7.1 ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ........................................................................................... 7-20
TABLE 8.1 DERIVATION OF PLANNING-LEVEL COST ...................................................................................................... 8-1
TABLE 8.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT COSTS................................................................................... 8-2
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Final Report
INTRODUCTION
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 1-1
Final Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the contents of this report and the framework
within which information and data are presented.
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Transportation Needs Study (Study) is a planning effort undertaken cooperatively
by Yuma County and the Multimodal Planning Division (MPD) of the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT). It has been funded and supported through the
Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program of ADOT. The Study addresses
the needs of multiple jurisdictions, as well as the needs of neighborhoods within these
jurisdictions. It encompasses a mix of uses within developed and undeveloped zoning
areas of the Mesa Del Sol and Foothills areas, which are located as shown in
Figure 1.1.
1.2 STUDY FRAMEWORK
Based on the most recent Census data available for 2010, the study area has a
year-round population of approximately 26,000 persons. Given the large stock of
vacant homes reported in the Census, the study area population increases to 47,000
persons with the influx of seasonal residents – winter visitors – during the months of
October through April. This increase in the study area population does not account for
other winter visitors that may come for just a few days or several weeks to escape the
colder climates. The Yuma Visitors Bureau web site reports the Yuma metropolitan
area has “more than 23,000 spots in RV parks and resorts and nearly 4,000 hotel
rooms.” Therefore, the potential exists for the study area to have a resident population
(permanent and temporary) between October and April approaching or exceeding
60,000 persons.
The seasonal addition to the resident population impacts the existing road network,
study area intersections, as well as Interstate 8 (I-8) interchanges at South Fortuna
Road and South Foothills Boulevard. This report identifies potential roadway and
multimodal improvement requirements to meet the growing population and changing
land uses, improve mobility and safety, and encourage sensible and sustainable
development that supports the current and projected land uses in the General Plan.
Attention also has been given to future crossings of major drainage features and
relevant flood control measures. The principal focus of this report is to address the
most critical transportation planning needs identified by Yuma County and by the ADOT
Yuma Engineering District Office
The feasibility of funding and implementing needed improvements has been assessed
over five-, ten-, and twenty-year periods, as well as potential Buildout of the study area.
“Buildout” refers to the condition of full utilization of developable land and is considered
to be likely post-2030. Buildout conditions are defined in terms of future population and
employment expected to be located within each transportation analysis zone (TAZ),
based on planned or zoned densities. Thus, it principally is an estimate of the potential
development far into the future, and decisions may be made that change the current
planning or zoning criteria.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 1-2
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 1-3
Final Report
FIGURE 1.1
VICINITY MAP
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 1-4
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 1-5
Final Report
This Final Report contains a refined Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan with
recommended projects to address the ultimate Buildout of the area as well as the five-,
ten-, and twenty-year planning horizons. The Plan encompasses local roads, as well as
opportunities for developing alternate modes of travel, such as transit services,
pedestrian paths, and bicycle routes.
An extensive public participation program was undertaken as part of this Study. Input
and feedback obtained through this program has allowed Yuma County and ADOT to
actively incorporate local priorities into the Plan and identify an appropriate program for
improvements. It is anticipated that extensive public participation in the planning
process will result in more support from the community for funding transportation
improvements.
1.3 STUDY AREA
The study area encompasses 20 square miles approximately 11 miles east of
downtown Yuma (Figure 1.2). It is bounded by East 28th Street/East County 10th Street
on the north (one mile north of I-8), South Avenue 15E on the east,
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street on the south (three miles south of I-8), and
South Avenue 10E on the west. South Avenue 10E is the eastern boundary of the City
of Yuma.
Between South Avenue 10E and South Foothills Boulevard, the vast majority of
development is located within one mile north and south of I-8, except for a small portion
that drops one mile below East 40th Street/East County 12th Street between
South Hunter Avenue and South Foothills Boulevard. This area includes, among
others: The Seasons RV Village, Los Amigos, Fortuna Heights, Mountain View,
Mountain Shadows, Mountain Vista Estates, Daybreak, Mesa Del Sol, Sienna at Mesa
Del Sol, Villa Chaparral, Yuma Meadows, Yuma East Estates, Oasis Del Este, The
Villas, Yuma East, Sierra Ridge Unit, and The Foothills.
The study area east of South Foothills Boulevard, extends south of I-8 three miles to
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street and one mile north of I-8 to Fortuna
Drive/East County 10th Street. This portion of the study area includes: Fortuna Hills,
Foothills North, Foothills Mountain Estates, Desert Foothills Estates, Foothills Country
Club Estates, Vista Montana, Arroyo De Fortuna, Las Barrancas, and Foothills Mobile
Estates. Fortuna Wash is an important physical feature in this portion of the study area,
running south to north, ultimately merging with the Gila River approximately four miles
north of the study area.
I-8, which is maintained by ADOT, is a high-capacity freeway facility supporting
east-west through and local travel within the study area. I-8 has been developed with
frontage roads, which facilitates access to commercial development and residential
communities abutting this segment of the National Highway System (NHS). The
freeway frontage roads, which are maintained by Yuma County, provide access to
fronting parcels and support local east and west travel within the study area. There are
two I-8 interchanges in the study area providing regional access. One is located at
South Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E); the other is located at South Foothills
Boulevard (South Avenue 13E). Although not in the study area, US 95, located two
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 1-6
Final Report
FIGURE 1.2
STUDY AREA: FOOTHILLS AND MESA DEL SOL AREAS
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 1-7
Final Report
miles north of I-8 and accessed via South Fortuna Road, provides a viable alternative
for east-west travel between the study area and the City of Yuma (refer to Figure 1.1).
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
This Final Report presents information regarding the general social, physical,
multi-modal transportation, and environmental conditions of the study area, including
information relating to special topics of interest to the County and ADOT. In addition, it
presents an evaluation of the highway network, identifying current mobility deficiencies
and establishing the basis for determining future transportation needs. It also presents
an evaluation of alternative improvement plans developed to resolve transportation
network deficiencies. These alternatives are defined by specific projects and strategies
associated with both roadway and non-motorized modes of travel to address
deficiencies and special transportation needs of the study area. Ultimately, this
foundational information and data provides the basis for a program of capital
improvement projects to be implemented during the next 20 years.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 1-8
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Final Report
RELATED STUDIES AND
REPORTS
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-1
Final Report
2.0 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND REPORTS
Previous transportation, community, and regional planning efforts have been directed at
developing a roadway network to efficiently, effectively, and safely accommodate future
travel demand in the study area. Summaries of recent and relevant studies and reports
reviewed and considered during conduct of this study are presented in this chapter.
2.1 YMPO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, 2010-2033
(April, 2010)
The Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) serves as a coordinating body
for local, state, and federal agencies on traffic, transportation, air quality conformity, and
related issues in Yuma County. The primary study area for the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) covers 5,522 square miles in the southwestern portion of Yuma County and
includes: the Cities of Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis; the Town of Wellton; the
Cocopah Indian Tribe; and several unincorporated communities. The Foothills and
Mesa Del Sol areas are part of the RTP study area.
The YMPO RTP, 2010-2033 is a multi-modal plan that prioritizes investments in public
transportation, bicycling, and walking to promote health, environmental quality, and
mobility for those who do not have access to cars. The 2010-2033 RTP builds upon the
findings and conclusions of the 2006-2029 RTP. An important goal of the RTP is to
satisfy “…the need to develop a regional plan that is environmentally sensitive, reduces
greenhouse gases, and incorporates the latest technology to maximize the investment
in the region.”
The 2010-2033 RTP documents the modeling process employed to assess
transportation system conditions, including identifying the existing and future conditions
forming the basis of the travel forecasting model and the RTP. Existing and future
conditions documented in the RTP includes: socio-economic data, travel
characteristics, functional classification, truck routes, traffic volumes, and
volume-to-capacity ratios for study area roadways. The RTP addresses four elements
of the regional transportation system: Roadways, Transit services, Pedestrians, and
Bicycles.
2.1.1 ROADWAY ELEMENT OF THE YMPO RTP
The Roadway Element notes: “Despite the current economic conditions, population and
employment growth will continue and it is important that improvements to the roadway
system accommodate that growth at an acceptable level of service.” The Roadway
Element includes maps showing proposed improvements for five implementation
periods between 2010 and 2033. Excerpts from these maps showing proposed
improvements in the study area are presented in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 reflects the
combination of projects included in the 2033 Base Roadway Network and additional
projects, addressing “…capacity needs, mobility, and grid continuity not met by the 2033
base network within the financial constraints of the RTP.” The Roadway Element
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-2
Final Report
FIGURE 2.1
YMPO RTP RECOMMENDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE STUDY AREA
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-3
Final Report
includes a variety of projects with associated estimated costs, including: widening
streets, new street construction, new interchanges, and reconstruction of existing
interchanges and intersections. The RTP notes: “Although the project list is presented
in five-year periods, from a revenue standpoint, only the first five-year period is typically
described as programmed and the anticipated revenues are more reliable. Beyond the
first five years, the revenue is less predictable and priorities can change.” Proposed
improvements specifically relevant to this study are cited below:
Four lanes on East 40th Street/East County 12th Street from South Fortuna
Road to South Avenue 15E; and
Four lane expressway on East 56th Street/East County 14th Street from SR 195
to South Foothills Blvd.
2.1.2 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE YMPO RTP
This document, adopted by the Executive Board in May 2003, is a resource outlining a
plan for future transit use throughout Yuma County. An updated version of the regional
Transit Element is incorporated in the 2010-2033 RTP. The Transit Element consists of
a Short-Range Plan, Vehicle Replacement Schedule, Long-Range Plan, and an
analysis of revenue requirements and sources. In addition to recommendations for
improving management and coordination, the Short-Range Plan calls for increased
service frequency on seven existing routes and nine new Local Circulator routes, four of
which would serve the Fortuna Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas. Additional detail
regarding this planned service expansion is presented in Section 6.4.
Service improvements will be dependent on the availability of funding. The Plan also
includes recommendations for the purchase of ten new buses, two vans for paratransit
service, and landscaping and amenity improvements at the Yuma Palms Shopping
Center Transit Center. The ultimate goal is to develop a multi-modal transit service
facility more centrally located.
The Long-Range Transit Plan recognizes the fixed-route bus service will remain the
backbone of the Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) system. This Plan proposes
expansion of the system to include a full range of express, local, cross-town, and
neighborhood circulator service. New routes and reconfiguration of the system to
improve connectivity is the long-term goal. Improvements to paratransit services and
adoption of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), such Automatic Vehicle Location
(AVL), signal priority systems, and “Smart Card” fare collection systems, are
contemplated improvements. Planned capital improvements include: acquisition of
rights-of-way for bus pullouts and stop amenities; and development of park-and-ride
(P&R) lots, intermodal transit hubs, queue jumper lanes, and new maintenance
facilities.
2.1.3 PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT OF THE YMPO RTP
The Pedestrian Element establishes guidance for development of a safe and effective
environment for pedestrians. This guidance includes recommendations to: upgrade
pedestrian facilities on major and minor arterials, coordinate pedestrian facilities with
transit services, establish Safe Routes to School (SRTS), and assure access in
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-4
Final Report
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Guide for the Planning,
Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, published by the American Association
of State Highway and Planning Officials (AASHTO), is cited as a key resource.
2.1.4 BICYCLE ELEMENT OF THE YMPO RTP
The Bicycle Element contemplates a system of linear facilities and nodes that will:
(1) improve accessibility for bicyclists to regional destination points within the YMPO
jurisdiction area; (2) increase bicycle use within the YMPO region through recognition
and awareness; and (3) improve non-motorized use and safety within the YMPO region.
The Bicycle Element recommends additional bicycle facilities that build on existing
YMPO plans, the City of Yuma Bicycle Facilities Plan, and the City of Somerton
Shared-Use Pathway and Trails Master Plan.
2.2 YUMA COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(December, 2001; Updated July, 2006)
This Plan has been developed in response to Arizona’s Growing Smarter Act and
Growing Smarter Plus. Under Growing Smarter Plus, each Arizona county must
prepare and adopt a ten-year comprehensive plan. The Plan is intended to "accomplish
a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the area of jurisdiction."
Specifically, such a Plan is formulated to provide guidelines for future land use
development. The Circulation Element of the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
states “…the capacity and level of service of the existing transportation network must be
enhanced.” It provides an overview of past actions to improve transportation in the
County. With respect to future investments in the transportation system, the Circulation
Element notes that “…existing transportation plans address and prioritize projects.”
Still, seven critical issues are highlighted for attention. Two of these issues apply
directly to this study: (1) improving access and traffic flow to/from the Foothills, and
(2) protection for visual corridors.
The first issue draws attention to the “…increased housing and commercial
development in the Foothills…’ that has resulted in “…more congestion and a general
reduction in the level of service of roads.” Extension of East 56th Street/ East
County 14th Street to the west is proposed to relieve congestion (Figure 2.2). This
extension would tie into SR 195, which also is referenced as Area Service Highway
(ASH). SR 195 consists of Juan Sanchez Boulevard/West County 23rd Street South
and Araby Road. The highway, constructed along the western edge of the Barry M.
Goldwater Range, currently provides a direct link between I-8 and four destinations in
southwest Yuma County: City of San Luis; City of San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora,
Mexico; San Luis I Land Port of Entry (LPOE) in the City of San Luis; and San Luis II
LPOE, five miles east of the city. Ultimately, the plan is to continue approximately
1.5 miles north of I-8 to connect with US 95. The second issue focuses on preserving
the rural character of sensitive areas and “resource lands.” Potential impacts on the
aesthetic qualities of Fortuna Wash and views of the Gila Mountains located directly
east of the study area are particularly relevant to this study. Visual corridors have been
designated and guidelines are being developed to aid in protecting sensitive resources.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-5
Final Report
FIGURE 2.2
PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: YUMA COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2.3 FOOTHILLS AREA BACKGROUND STUDY
(November, 2006)
This study was completed in 2006 to assist in the updating of the Yuma County 2010
Comprehensive Plan. It details current conditions of the planning area and how the
area has changed in the past five years. This document is a valuable source of
information regarding: topography; soils; community facilities; transportation;
demographics; housing; and land ownership. The study highlights two major
transportation improvement projects scheduled for the Foothills Planning Area:
widening the North and South Frontage Roads of I-8 between South Avenue 9E and
South Foothills Blvd; and extension of East 56th Street/East County 14th Street from
South Avenue 7E to South Foothills Blvd. The latter project is of particular significance,
as it will be an entirely new route linking the Foothills with the City of Yuma. As such, it
will be an alternate route to I-8 for travel between the two areas. (Refer to Section 2.2,
Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan above).
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-6
Final Report
2.4 FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP
REPORT
(September, 2007)
This report, like the Foothills Area Background Study, specifically was created to
support the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan update process. The activities of
the Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) followed publication of the Foothills Area Background
Study (November, 2006), summarized above. The CAG was formed to review the
Comprehensive Plan and provide information and comments regarding matters of
interest to the residents and businesses in the Foothills Planning Area. With respect to
the review of transportation issues, the CAG “…overwhelmingly identified…” extension
of East 40th Street/East County 12th Street westward to connect with South Avenue 8E
in the City of Yuma as the most important transportation need. This extension would
create better connectivity between the Foothills area and the City of Yuma, offering a
realistic alternative to I-8 as an east-west facility. The group also recommended
“…development of a network of multi-use paths separate from roadways in the
Foothills.”
The CAG recommended 20 changes to the Goals, Policies, and Objectives outlined in
the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. During this review, several areas were
discussed that are particularly pertinent to and have ramifications for traffic operations
and transportation needs in the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas:
Reduce traffic congestion;
Improve the timing of traffic signals;
Improve public transportation in the Foothills with handicapped accessible
facilities;
Expansion of commercial zoning beyond South Fortuna Road, South Foothills
Boulevard, and the I-8 Frontage Roads;
Lower density residential development; and
Limit development to small businesses.
The first three directly address the transportation system, its performance, and mobility
provided by it. The latter three can influence the effectiveness of a transportation
system by altering travel demand.
2.5 CITY OF YUMA 2012 GENERAL PLAN
(Draft, February 1, 2011)
This Plan was developed in response to Arizona’s Growing Smarter Act and Growing
Smarter Plus. Under Growing Smarter Plus, each Arizona municipal jurisdiction must
prepare and adopt a ten-year General Plan. The City of Yuma eastern city limit is South
Avenue 10E, which is the western limit of the study area adopted for this study of
transportation needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas. Therefore, the Plan’s
contents are relevant to this study, particularly the Transportation Element. The
Transportation Element establishes “…a coordinated multi-modal system designed to
work with the locations of homes, businesses, and other land uses.” The Transportation
Element:
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-7
Final Report
(1) provides information regarding the existing transportation system;
(2) presents an analysis and evaluation of proposed facility types and locations;
(3) sets forth goals, objectives, and policies to guide development of a
coordinated, safe, and interrelated transportation system; and
(4) establishes a phased action plan.
The Transportation Element addresses existing and desired future conditions relating
to: major roadways, public transit, bicycling, air travel, and railroad operations.
The Growth Areas Element identifies the Araby Road and Interstate 8 area as being
focused on I-8, the new SR 195, East 32nd Street, and East 24th Street. I-8, SR 195,
and East 32nd Street are designated as “Gateway Routes.” It is noted that as growth
and development continue in this area, additional capacity will be required on east-west
facilities. Activity in this growth area is particularly attractive to persons in the Foothills
area, and the Plan anticipates there will be a significant amount of regional through
traffic in the future. Specific to this matter, East 40th Street/East County 12th Street
between South Avenue 3½ E and South Fortuna Road is highlighted as a Principal
Arterial with the implication that this roadway will need to be improved in the future.
2.6 JOINT LAND USE PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
(September 1996; Revised February 2007)
This document represents the combined efforts of the City of Yuma and Yuma County.
The objective of the Joint Land Use Plan is to:
Create a common “blue print” of land uses and land use development policies for
future economic growth and development of lands within the incorporated area of
the City of Yuma and the unincorporated areas around the City; and
Establish a foundation for (1) achieving compatible land use activities in the
vicinity of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) – Yuma and Yuma International
Airport, and (2) protecting the primary economic assets of the area – agriculture,
the MCAS, and tourism.
The Plan, which is comprised of a land use map to guide planning commissioners and
elected officials in their deliberations on development opportunities and zoning actions,
amends the respective City and County General Plans. The map identifies various
types of land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) anticipated in the future and
establishes corresponding general development intensities and population densities. It
also includes policies to further goals and objectives and presents an Implementation
Plan.
The Plan recognizes that “recent urban development in the eastern part of the planning
area has occurred along the major transportation corridors, particularly Interstate 8.
This is also the location identified in public involvement activities and discussions with
City and County staff as a promising area for new development.” This Plan provides
information regarding land uses directly west of South Avenue 10 E, the western
boundary of the study area defined for this current study.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-8
Final Report
2.7 CITY OF YUMA BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
(April 1, 2009)
This Master Plan is an update of the 1995 Bicycle Element of the City’s General Plan.
The documents provides an overview of existing bicycle facilities in the City, outlines
facilities and programs for improvements, establishes phased goals to effect
implementation of the Master Plan, and establishes design standards for future bicycle
facilities. This Master Plan is one of the starting points for the YMPO Regional Bicycle
Element, as discussed above. The existing City system of bicycle facilities consists of
44 miles of routes, lanes, paths, and multi-use paths. Today, there are bike paths along
several local streets directly west of the study area between South Avenue 9E and
South Avenue 10E.
As defined by the Plan, a Bike Path is a facility physically separated from motorized
traffic for used by bicyclists. A Bike Path exists along South Avenue 10E (the western
boundary of the study area) between East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street. This Bike Path continues west on
East 48th Street to South Avenue 8E. A Bike Lane is defined by a portion of a roadway
designated for bicycle use by striping, signing, and pavement markings. There is an
existing Bike Lane along one-quarter of a mile of East 28th Street west of South
Avenue 10E. It provides access from the study area to Sunrise Elementary School and
Ron Watson Middle School. The City’s Master Plan proposes that a Bike Lane be
established along South Avenue 10 E between East 48th Street and East 24th Street.
Bike Lanes connecting South Avenue 10E with South Avenue 9E are proposed on
East 28th Street and East 40th Street.
2.8 YUMA REGIONAL TRANSIT STUDY
(Ongoing, August, 2011)
The Yuma Regional Transit Study was undertaken to identify transit needs in the
southwestern portion of Yuma County, which is the primary location of the County’s
population centers. This Study resulted in a recommended transit system and an
Implementation Plan. The planning horizon for the study is ten (10) years. It
established the principal administrative and operating framework for the Yuma County
Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (YCIPTA), which was formed by the
Yuma County Board of Supervisors under Resolution No. 10-52, adopted December 13,
2010. Prior to formation of the YCIPTA, the YMPO had assumed operation and
administration of the Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) system and the Dial-A-Ride
(DAR) service.
This Study provides a comprehensive assessment of current conditions associated with
the transit system operations in the Greater Yuma Area, which includes the study area.
The assessment of current conditions includes an on-board survey and community
survey to determine the use and demand for transit services. Based on an analysis of
projected future conditions, goals and objectives were identified and at least three
transit service development scenarios were formulated. Thorough analysis of potential
future operating and administrative scenarios were relied on to formulate an
Implementation Plan that permitted the YMPO to turn the transit system over to the
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-9
Final Report
YCIPTA in 2011. Once YCIPTA receives grantee status, it will become an autonomous
board; at the current time, the authority operates as a subsidiary organization of the
YMPO. Grantee status is expected to be gained in June/July 2012.
2.9 DRAINAGE FACILITY INVENTORY MEMO, FOOTHILLS MASTER
DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE
(August 2011)
An update of the Foothills Master Drainage Plan is underway. The Drainage Facility
Inventory Memo provides a detailed record of existing drainage facilities. This inventory
includes the name, location, dimension, capacity, and condition of each major drainage
facility. As the update proceeds, the flow conveyance and estimated hydraulic capacity
of inventoried facilities within the Foothills will be assessed. The results of this
assessment will be useful in evaluating the potential impacts of roadway improvements
on drainage and designing crossings that will minimize occurrences of flooding both
upstream and downstream. This information will be particularly valuable in the
development of future all-weather crossings of Fortuna Wash.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
2-10
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-1
Final Report
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and other available plans and studies
contain substantial information regarding the existing conditions and characteristics of
the Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area within which lies the whole of the Foothills
and Mesa Del Sol study area. This information has been reviewed by the officials and
citizens of the County and the sub-regional planning area. Therefore, the documents
provide a credible source for understanding the current make-up of social, economic,
physical, and environmental facets of the study area. This chapter presents a
discussion of existing conditions in the study area, as available from available sources,
augmented with additional detail specific to the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas
through field surveys and Internet research.
3.1 EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN
Figure 3.1 illustrates the generalized existing land use in the study area, based on an
assessment of aerial photography currently available on the Internet. The pattern
clearly shows a dominance of residential land uses throughout the study area. There
are more than 5,000 acres of developed residential land, representing approximately
40 percent of the study area’s 12,800 acres. Some open space areas are included in
this estimate, particularly the golf course at the Mesa Del Sol Golf Club and the Foothills
Golf Course and Foothills Par 3 Golf Course, which are integrated with area housing.
Commercial land uses are concentrated around the I-8/South Fortuna Road Traffic
Interchange, along South Fortuna Road south of this interchange to
East 40th Street/East 12th Street, and the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and South Foothills Boulevard, extending north
along South Foothills Boulevard to East 34th Street. There are a number of separated,
independent areas of commercial development along the I-8 South Frontage Road and
a couple of sites on the I-8 North Frontage Road. Some other commercial areas are
scattered around the study area, the largest and most notable of these being along
East 44th Street at South Foothills Boulevard and south along South Foothills
Boulevard.
The only notable industrial land use in the study area is the quarry located east of South
Avenue 14½E and south of East 29th Street at the base of the North Gila Mountains. A
few small industrial-type land uses (principally water supply sites) are scattered around
the study area.
The area north of East County 10½ Street/Masterson Avenue and east of South
Foothills Boulevard is open space associated with the Fortuna Wash floodplain.
Another large area of open space/undeveloped land is bounded by Fortuna Wash on
the west, I-8 on the North, South Avenue 15E on the east, and East 48th Street/East
County 13th Street on the south. The southwest portion of the study area – south of
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and west of South Foothills Boulevard –
remains largely undeveloped. There is other undeveloped land scattered around the
study area, some of which are one-quarter-mile square parcels.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-2
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-3
Final Report
FIGURE 3.1
GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-4
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-5
Final Report
3.2 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
The Comprehensive Plan provides population and
household profiles for the Foothills Sub-Regional
Planning Area. It is important to note that the data
provided in the Comprehensive Plan has been collected
and reported using US Census Bureau sources for the
Fortuna Foothills Census-Designated Place (CDP). The
CDP is a geographic unit that roughly corresponds to the
Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area; being slightly
larger, as depicted in the graphic at right. Although both
areas are larger than the study area adopted for this
transportation needs study, the study area accounts for
the bulk of all existing development. Because there is
very little development/occupancy of the sub-region
outside the study area, the sub-regional data are
indicative of population and housing characteristics of
the study area.
3.2.1 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Foothills sub-region historically has been a prime
destination for winter visitors, who temporarily occupy
specialized accommodations for travelers, especially recreational vehicles (RVs).
Historically, Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks represented 75% of the
housing in the Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area. However, during the 1990s and
continuing today, there has been a marked increase in the number of permanent
residents occupying site-built homes. For example, the Mesa Del Sol development on
the north side of I-8 between South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard
contains planned, mixed-use housing that includes traditional, site-built apartments,
duplexes, condominiums, and single-family homes. In addition, the area has
experienced an increase in commercial activities providing supportive goods and
services. This growth trend is expected to continue. A profile of the population is
shown in Table 3.1.
TABLE 3.1
FOOTHILLS POPULATION PROFILE
Information Category
Reported
Value
Permanent Residents in 1990: 7,737
Permanent Residents in 2000: 20,478
Permanent Residents in 2010: 26,265
Population Increase 1990 – 2000: 165%
Population Increase 2000 – 2010: 28%
Median Age of Residents in 2000: 62.9 years
Percentage of Fortuna Foothills Residents 65 to 74 Years of Age in 2000: 28.5%
Source: Information for Fortuna Foothills Census-Designated Place (FFCDP) provided in the Yuma County 2010
Comprehensive Plan supplemented with 2010 Census results, as available.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-6
Final Report
The Year 2010 population reported by the US Census Bureau reflects a growth of
28 percent during the period 2000 – 2010, which represents a significant decrease in
growth from the 165% change experienced in the preceding decade. Housing data
reveals a similar trend (see household profile below in Table 3.2). Significant growth in
the number of housing units (115%) and the number of households (164%) was
recorded for the period 1990 – 2000. Data for the Year 2000, as reported in the
Comprehensive Plan, indicates 93% of housing in the CDP was owner-occupied, but
26% of housing was classified as seasonal-use. This information verifies the
proposition that there are significant fluctuations in the number of residents in the
sub-region and study area during the year. Expansion of a similar magnitude in housing
was not experienced after the Year 2000; the increase in the number of housing units
was only 45% in the period 2000 – 2010.
TABLE 3.2
FOOTHILLS HOUSEHOLD PROFILE
Information Category
Reported
Value
Number of Housing Units in 1990: 6,957
Number of Housing Units in 2000: 14,961
Number of Housing Units in 2010: 21,642
Increase in Number of Housing Units 1990 – 2000: 115%
Increase in Number of Housing Units 2000 – 2010: 45%
Number of Occupied Housing Units 2010: 12,006
Number of Vacant Housing Units 2010: 9,636
Number of Households in 1990: 3,647
Number of Households in 2000: 9,652
Increase in Number of Households 1990 – 2000: 164%
Share of Owner-Occupied Housing 2000: 93% 93%
Source: Information provided in the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan supplemented with 2010 Census results,
as available.
3.2.2 EMPLOYMENT
The Foothills Planning Area Background Study provides the following information
regarding employment in the study area. The planning area and, therefore, the study
area…
…is primarily a retirement and bedroom community. This is reflected in
the types of business establishments that are predominate in the area.
Construction, retail trade, and accommodation and food service are the
most prominent industries in the area. Notable is the lack of business
establishments and jobs that are related to agriculture. This scarcity
makes the Foothills Planning Area unique in Yuma County where
agriculture plays a central economic role.
The number of people employed by business establishment[s] in the
Foothills Planning Area nearly doubled between 1998 and 2004…. During
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-7
Final Report
the same period of time, the total payroll of business establishments
divided by total payroll adjusted for inflation grew by 46%. These numbers
indicate that both the number of jobs and what people are getting paid are
growing at a fast pace in the Foothills Planning Area.1
The majority of employment is within the Private, Non-Agriculture sector (61%), with the
Government sector accounting for another 23%. The largest percentage of Foothills
Planning Area residents are employed in retail trades, followed closely by educational,
health and social services. Overall, 76% of Foothills Planning Area residents are
employed in what can broadly be termed service industries. Given that there is no
major industrial or agricultural activity in the Foothills Planning Area, the predominance
of people being employed in service industries is a logical finding. A profile of the
employment by sector is shown in Table 3.3.
TABLE 3.3
MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT
Employment Category Jobs
Agriculture 206
Private, Non-Agriculture 2,630
Government 971
Self-Employed 317
Not For Profit 180
Total Employment 4,304
Source: Foothills Planning Area Background Study, November, 2002
During work accomplished in support of the YMPO Travel Demand Model Update in
2009, 33 TAZs were defined for the Foothills/Mesa Del Sol study area. Population and
employment values were developed for each TAZ. Given that agricultural areas
included for the Foothills Planning area are located north of and outside the study area
and beyond these TAZs, it can reasonably be assumed that employment in the study
area in 2002 would reflect the total less agriculture jobs. Therefore, an estimate of
approximately 4,100 jobs in the study area was established for the Year 2002.
The Foothills Planning Area Background Study indicates that retail trades account for
the largest percentage of Foothills Planning Area residents’ employment, followed
closely by educational, health and social services. Employment in the Foothills
Planning Area has been spurred by expansion of the commercial sector. “Between
2000 and September 18, 2006, 84 commercial building permits on 62 parcels were
issued in the Foothills Planning Area.” The Foothills Planning Area Background Study
states that most new commercial structures were constructed along South Fortuna
Road, South Foothills Boulevard, and the I-8 Frontage Roads. The great majority of
new commercial structures were located within a mile of the South Fortuna Road and
South Foothills Boulevard interchanges with I-8.
1 Foothills Planning Area Background Study, November, 2002.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-8
Final Report
The YMPO Travel Demand Model Update accomplished in 2009 developed
employment estimates for different categories based on the 33 TAZs in the study area,
as shown in Table 3.4. The mix of employment is different, although the combined total
for Retail and Services – 2,749 – is similar to the total identified in 2002 for Private
Non-Agricuture – 2,630. The key difference is in the presence of Industry and
Manufacturing employment, which was not represented in the 2002 estimate prepared
for the Foothills Planning Area Background Study. The estimates prepared for the Year
2009 by YMPO indicate a similar number of employees – 4,187 – in the 33 TAZs
making up the study area, representing a slight increase over 2002. Overall, then,
employment in the study area has not changed significantly since the 2002 study, but it
has been redefined.
TABLE 3.4
MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT
Employment Category Jobs
Retail 1,683
Office 260
Services 1,066
Public 245
Industry 245
Manufacturing 688
Total Employment 4,187
Source: Socioeconomic Dataset, YMPO Travel Demand Model 2009 Update.
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
Expansive growth being experienced in Arizona presents significant natural
environmental and cultural resource issues and concerns relative to planning and
developing transportation infrastructure improvements. The State of Arizona, through
its various offices and agencies, including ADOT, has completed a number of studies
and efforts to help ensure there is an active awareness of environmental and cultural
resources during the planning of state facilities. As an example, the Arizona’s Wildlife
Linkages Assessment completed in 2002 examined key habitat linkages to help
agencies account for and conserve wildlife and natural ecosystems. This assessment
has been particularly critical in planning state highway facilities, as these facilities tend
to create lengthy, linear barriers to wildlife movements – movement that may be critical
to the viability of a habitat area. Additionally, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU) mandates greater
environmental consideration when developing regional transportation plans.
This section provides a brief overview of the physical, natural, and cultural resources
that should be accounted for as the transportation system in the Foothills & Mesa Del
Sol study area is planned and developed. This overview also will help ADOT by
providing the data necessary to complete any early coordination activities that may be
needed to successfully determine the level of, and ultimately complete, environmental
documentation required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-9
Final Report
3.3.1 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OVERVIEW
This section addresses the physical structural characteristics of the study area relative
to topography and soils.
TOPOGRAPHY
The topography of the study area is generally flat, sloping from approximately 450 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southeastern corner to approximately 230 feet
AMSL in the northwestern corner. The highest elevations of the study area – exceeding
500 feet AMSL – are located at the base of the Gila Mountains in the northeastern
corner of the study area. Fortuna Wash flows through the eastern portion of the study
area, generally following the overall slope from the southeastern corner and exiting the
study area on the eastern side of the Mesa Del Sol development. Almost all existing
development is located on the western side of Fortuna Wash, although the Fortuna del
Rey Golf Course, Las Barrancas Golf Course, and Foothills Golf Course constructed
east of the wash, are attracting residential development. The Foothills Planning Area
does not contain any significant portion of the Colorado or Gila River Valleys.
SOILS
A large portion of existing development north and south of I-8 has occurred on Rosistas
Sand and Rosistas-Ligurta Complex soils west of Fortuna Wash. Surface runoff
particularly associated with Rosistas Sand is very slow and the hazard of blowing soil is
high. Thus, the soil is severely limited for recreational development, due to its texture.
This soil also is severely limited for use in association with sewage lagoons because of
seepage. A large portion of development south of East 44th Street, east of South
Hunter Avenue, west of Fortuna Wash has occurred on soils classified as Dateland Fine
Sandy Loam. This soil type is well drained and well suited for urban development.
Development on land along the west side of Fortuna Wash and between Fortuna Wash
and the Gila Mountains has taken place on soils mostly classified as Ligurta-Cristobal
Complex. This soil type associated with old alluvial fans is well drained, but
development is moderately limited due to shrink-swell potential and moderately slow
permeability with respect to septic tank fields.
3.3.2 NATURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW
As an area develops, it is highly recommended to avoid natural resource impacts.
However, there are times when completing a transportation project where no other
alternatives exist, so minimizing or mitigating impacts can become necessary. This
natural resource overview identifies potential impacts that will be evaluated in greater
detail as projects move forward toward implementation and development.
VEGETATION
Transportation projects affect vegetation directly through construction impacts and
indirectly through changes in environmental settings and can hinder or stimulate the
recovery of affected plants. This section identifies general vegetative concerns relative
to transportation project development and sensitive species that can be harmed by such
projects.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-10
Final Report
GENERAL
The predominant vegetation type in the study area outside of urbanized developments
is the Sonoran Creosotebush-Bursage Scrub. This almost ubiquitous vegetative group
develops on level-to-gently sloping soils of generally silty or sandy texture. It is
comprised of very open, evenly-spaced, low-diversity stands of shrubs 11 to 35 inches
(0.3–0.9 meters) tall, containing a few scattered trees and a variety of cactus species.
According to the Foothills Planning Area Background Study, “perennial cover is usually
10–20%, but in wet years annual plants may provide 100% cover.” Fortuna Wash and
tributary desert washes and floodplains as well as existing residential and commercial
development interrupt large patches of Sonoran Creosotebush-Bursage Scrub.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Yuma County and the study area are located within the Sonoran Desert physiographic
province. The Sonoran Desert is home to a variety of unique Colorado River and
Arizona Uplands plant communities. Continuing development is diminishing the native
Sonoran desert plants, and water use practices are threatening some wetland species.
The number of invasive weed species is increasing in some areas. There are no
vegetative species in the study area listed in the County as “Threatened” or
“Endangered.” However, there are "Species of Concern." These include: Dune
Spurge, Gander's Cryptantha, Dune Sunflower and Sand Food. Additional research
and field reconnaissance will be necessary to evaluate potential impacts on these
species by transportation improvement projects, as they are implemented.
WILDLIFE
The presence of sensitive wildlife species and the general movement of wildlife
resources of the State can be impacted by transportation improvements projects. This
section presents information regarding potential wildlife impacts in the study area.
ARIZONA WILDLIFE LINKAGES
During the middle of the past decade, ADOT engaged in a partnership with other state
and federal agencies and organizations to develop a preliminary statewide linkage
assessment. The result, Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment, identifies important
wildlife habitat connectivity areas, or linkage zones, as well as the associated threats.
The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup that completed the Assessment represented
the first serious effort to establish wildlife connectivity “on the map” and create a
comprehensive inventory of connectivity needs throughout the state. The important
realization of the Workgroup was that to protect the safe movement of people and plan
for a future transportation network that includes wildlife, a blueprint was needed for
accounting for Arizona’s remaining wildlife habitats and wildlife movements. The
Workgroup’s Assessment is designed to promote the conservation or restoration of
linkages in areas important for wildlife movement. The Assessment is viewed as a
valuable tool to support all types and levels of planning, including development,
transportation, wildlife management, and conservation.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-11
Final Report
Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment identifies the study area as being mostly
contained within what is termed a “Fracture Zone”, as shown in Figure 3.2. Fracture
zones are defined as areas of reduced permeability between habitat blocks, i.e., wildlife
movements are impeded. Habitat blocks are important wildlife areas that can
reasonably be expected to remain wild for at least 50 years. The fracture zones are
largely State Land, urbanized areas and other private holdings, and transportation
corridors (e.g., roads, canals, railroads) that limit or prevent animal movement, or
threaten to do so in the foreseeable future. Most fracture zones, due to the extent and
manner of development actions, need significant restoration to function as reliable
linkages, which are considered critical to wildlife movement. The Assessment seeks to
provide guidance to State departments responsible for public projects, resource
agencies, and conservation groups for protecting and enhancing washes, streams, and
rivers, which are seen as major corridors in all areas of fracture zones. The
Assessment also focuses on implementing, where feasible, improvements to culverts
and bridges to promote wildlife permeability.
Directly east of the study area, and illustrated in Figure 3.2, is Potential Linkage Zone
No. 71. A Linkage Zone is “a portion or subset of the Fracture Zone or Habitat Block
identified as an area critical to wildlife movement. Threats must be managed, if
connectivity is to be maintained or restored.” This Zone, identified as the North-South
Gila Mountains, is characterized by Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desertshrub. The
US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns 92 percent of the land area in the Zone.
State Trust Lands, under the control of the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD),
account for another six percent, and the remainder is under private ownership.
Identified species in this zone include:
Sensitive Species Associated with Wildlife Linkage No. 71
Arizona Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater
Banded Gila Monster Heloderma suspectum cinctum
Big Free-tailed Bat Nyctinomops macrotus
Bighorn Sheep Ovis Canadensis
California Leaf-Nosed Bat Macrotus californicus
Cave Myotis Myotis velifer acia
Desert Rosy Boa Charina trivirgata gr
Greater Western Mastiff Bat Eumops perotis californicus
Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans
Mountain Lion Felis concolor
Pale Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens
Pocketed Free-Tailed Bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Pronghorn Antilocapra americana ulatum
Spotted Bat Euderma mac
Yuma Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis
Yuman Desert Fringe-Toed Lizard Uma notata rufopunctata
Source: Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment, Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup, 2006.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-12
Final Report
FIGURE 3.2
STUDY AREA WILDLIFE LINKAGES
The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup identified border security issues, highway
development (specifically I-8), railroad facilities and operations, and urbanization as the
principal threats to wildlife in this zone. It also developed a means to assist in
identifying proposed potential linkage zones for immediate action. Linkages with the
highest ecological value coupled with the most pressing threats were given the highest
priority for consideration. Linkage Zone No. 71 was identified as a priority linkage
among 28 cited for the highest priority consideration out of 152 Linkage Zones identified
around the State.
SPECIES OF CONCERN, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED
Yuma County is home to diverse wildlife ranging from big game to reptiles and
amphibians. The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists threatened and
endangered species found in the County. Included on the list are: Big Horn Sheep,
Pronghorn Sonoran Antelope, American Peregrine Falcon, Yuma Clapper Rail,
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-13
Final Report
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Brown Pelican, Razor Back Sucker, and Desert
Tortoise. The Yuma County Comprehensive Plan notes that the Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AzGFD) Species of Concern List documents species that are of
"concern" but do not have official status as an Endangered Species. This list has been
reproduced in the Technical Appendices.
In addition, AzGFD has designated special habitat management areas for the Flat-tailed
Horned Lizard, Big Horn Sheep, Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope, and Sonoran Desert
Tortoise within the Barry M. Goldwater Range immediately south of and contiguous with
the study area. As development proposals and roadway improvements proceed, care
should be taken to understand and preserve wildlife habitat and habitat linkages.
Additional research and field reconnaissance will be necessary as transportation
improvement projects are moved toward implementation. An AzGFD listing Special
Status Species in Yuma County is provided in the Technical Appendices.
WATER RESOURCES
There are two primary water resources of interest relative to development of
transportation projects: floodplains and wetlands. This section provides a brief
summary of these two resources as they pertain to the study area.
FLOODPLAINS
Floodplains and wetlands are environmentally sensitive resources that must be
considered in the evaluation of transportation improvements. The majority of the study
area is located within the Dome Valley/Wellton watershed, which is the lower portion of
the larger Gila River watershed. The southwestern corner of the study area is located
within the City of Yuma, Foothills area, and South County, which forms the Yuma
Desert watershed. Fortuna Wash is ephemeral and flows only in response to major
precipitation events, flowing into the Gila River approximately two miles north of US 95.
The City of Yuma 2006 Parks and Recreation Facility Plan cites Fortuna Wash as an
example of open space that can “…serve a variety of park and recreational purposes
that wouldn’t be possible in proximity to development....”
Figure 3.3 is a composite showing the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Fortuna Wash. The majority of the upper
reaches are designated as Zone A and D, meaning flooding is likely but determinations
have yet to be formalized. Immediately proximate to the center of the wash, flood
elevations have been determined, and these areas must be kept free of encroachment.
Wash C, which flows parallel to and south of I-8, is designated Zone AO, meaning flood
depths of one to three feet have been determined. North of I-8 flood zones mostly have
been identified and flood depths determined (Zone AO). In addition, the specific range
of flooding has been determined in Zone AE, where no encroachment is permitted.
WETLANDS
A search using the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database did not identify any
known wetlands or areas of interest within the study area. As projects are defined,
particularly affecting Fortuna Wash and tributary washes, early coordination with the US
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-14
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-15
Final Report
FIGURE 3.3
FLOODPLAIN AREAS
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-16
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-17
Final Report
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is encouraged to maximize communication to the
permitting agency and minimize review time.
3.3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW
Cultural resources is a broad term that encompasses archaeological resources and
historic sites. Each highway project involves a cultural resource assessment which
includes a records search and on-site surveys to identify possible sites. As project
development proceeds, coordination will be accomplished with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine if a cultural resources investigation is
necessary. Consultation is made with the SHPO, Native American tribes and agencies,
and land resource agencies to make sure that findings and conclusions satisfy local and
federal laws, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). If
sites are found, mitigation involves avoidance or data recovery.
The only known cultural resource of relevance in the study area is the Juan Bautista de
Anza Trail. The BLM is actively developing a continuous multi-use path for the Anza
Trail across Arizona. The potential routes under evaluation are north of I-8 near the
Gila River, approximately three miles north of and outside the study area. Although not
a formal constituent part of the trail, I-8 is designated by the National Park Service as a
segment of the “Auto Tour Route,” providing access to historic sites, interpretive sites,
and a visitor center in Yuma. Two other trails have been identified by Yuma County for
recognition as part of the County’s Open Space and Recreational Resources Planning
(see Open Space and Recreation below).
Beyond the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail, other cultural resources may be present in the
study area that are yet unknown. SHPO consultations associated with projects that are
implemented in the future may result in the identification of additional resources.
Depending on the potential impact, appropriate actions will be identified at that time to
avoid or mitigate those impacts.
3.3.4 SENSITIVE ISSUES AND/OR FEATURES
Within the study area, there are certain other issues and/or features that are particularly
sensitive with respect to socioeconomic and environmental conditions and concerns.
This section highlights these issues and/or features to ensure project planning and
definition of improvements with respect to their special status and sensitivity.
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Chapter 5, Open Space and Recreational Resources, of the Yuma County 2010
Comprehensive Plan identifies several locations within the study area that exist today
for open space or recreational purposes. There are also proposals for additional sites
to be developed in the future. These areas and their proposed use must be considered
in defining improvements to the transportation system in the study area (Figure 3.4).
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-18
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-19
Final Report
FIGURE 3.4
TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE & RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-20
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-21
Final Report
Open Space Overlay – Gila Mountains: Identifies 62,000+ acres of the Gila
Mountains directly east of the study area as open space.
Foothills Wash Park: This is a 4.5-acre parcel on the south side of
East 52nd Street directly west of South Avenue 14½E situated on the north edge
of Foothills Wash and the Foothills Golf Course.
Foothills Multi-Purpose Transportation Complex: The southeast quadrant of
the I-8/South Foothills Boulevard interchange is owned by ADOT. This 20-acre
parcel situated between I-8 main lanes and South Frontage Road is designated
as the future site for a multipurpose transportation complex.
Foothills Optimist Community Park: This 3.8-acre park is located on the west
side of South Camino Del Sol directly north of the Mesa Del Sol Golf Club.
Yuma County Desert Preserve: This 549-acre site, owned by the BLM is
proposed as an area for preferred trails with limited access. It is located directly
north of the study area, being contiguous with East
24th Street/East County 10th Street and bounded by extensions of the
alignments of South Camino Del Sol on the west and South Foothills Boulevard
on the east.
Multi-Use (Equestrian and Non-Motorized) Trail System: A portion of this
regional trail system is planned to run along the southern edge of the study area
in the vicinity of East 56th Street/East County 14th Street.
El Camino Del Diablo Historic Trail: El Camino Del Diablo (The Devil’s
Highway) is an historic trail, originally connecting Caborca, Sonora, to the
Spanish colonies of California. Jesuit Padre Eusebio Francisco Kino pioneered
the trail from 1699-1701. The most difficult stretch of the trail was the 130-mile
stretch from Sonoyta, Sonora, to what is now Yuma, Arizona.2
Telegraph Pass Historic Trail: Telegraph Pass is the principal route through
the Gila Mountains directly east of the study area. The eastbound lanes of I-8
were constructed following the existing route of US 80 built in 1948. The
westbound lanes generally follow an earlier alignment of US 80 constructed in
1928. They criss-cross in the midst of the Gila Mountains. The actual Telegraph
Pass Trail starts at the base of the Gila Mountains (approximate elevation:
480 feet) near the I-8 North Frontage Road and ends at an elevation of over
1,600 feet overlooking I-8 and Fortuna Wash.
STATE TRUST LANDS
Arizona has approximately 9.28 million surface acres of State Trust Lands, which are
administered by the ASLD. State Trust lands are not public lands. These lands are
held in a public Trust to support education in the State. The Trust Lands were
established through the State Enabling Act, passed June 20, 1910, which allowed the
Territory of Arizona to prepare for statehood. The Enabling Act assigned Section 2 and
32 of each township to be held in Trust for the common schools. The Trust operated by
2 From informational page submitted by Bill Kirchner, March 22, 2010, at http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=28968.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-22
Final Report
FIGURE 3.5
LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE STUDY AREA
ASLD accomplishes its mission through the sale and lease of Trust lands for grazing,
agriculture, municipal, school site, residential, commercial and open space purposes.
The sale or lease of State Trust Lands also results in local economic stimulation. In
addition, the ASLD has programs to support environmental protection, forest health and
fire suppression, and range land management.
Figure 3.5 shows that all land within the study area not in private hands is held by the
ASLD under its mandate for State Trust Lands.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ)
“Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and subsequent related statutes have been
passed to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex,
and disability in association with any program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance”. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice In Minority Populations And Low-Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994,
directs Federal agencies (and programs and activities receiving federal financial
assistance) to “…make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations
and low-income populations.” “Disproportionately high and adverse” effects means the
effect(s) of the proposed action:
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-23
Final Report
(1) is (are) predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income
population, or
(2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and
is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect
that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income
population.
There are three fundamental environmental justice principles:
Ensure full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process.
Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health
and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority
populations and low-income populations.
Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits to
minority and low-income populations.
U.S. DOT Order (5610.2), addressing “Environmental Justice in Minority and
Low-Income Populations,” defines Minority and Low-Income Populations as …”any
readily identifiable groups … who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances
warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native
Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy or
activity.” The Order identifies four minority groups:
(1) Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa);
(2) Hispanic (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South
American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race);
(3) Asian American (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the
Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); and
(4) American Indian and Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the
original people of North America and who maintains cultural identification
through tribal affiliation or community recognition).
Additionally, the U.S. DOT Order specifies “Low Income” as a person whose median
household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty
guidelines.
An assessment of the socioeconomic composition of the study area was based on data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Population information is available from the
recent 2010 Census; however, income information is only available for the period
2005-2009 within the framework of the American Community Survey (ACS).
Information regarding the former is reported for nine Census Tracts identified for the
2010 Census. Information regarding the latter is available for three Census Tracts used
to collect and record information for the 2000-2009 period that formed the Fortuna Hills
Census-Designated Place (CDP).
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-24
Final Report
The standard of disproportionate effects relative to race/ethnicity has been examined by
comparing the representation of race/ethnicity within relevant Census Tracts to that of a
larger socioeconomic region, in this case the Yuma Census County Division (CCD).
The CCD is an appropriate unit for this purpose, as it encompasses most of the
urbanized portion of Yuma County. Figure 3.6 depicts the distribution of race/ethnicity
in nine Census Tracts entirely within or coincident with the study area. The figure
reveals there is no notable representation of minority people groups in any of the
Census Tracts, although minority people groups represent approximately 27.5 percent
of the population of the CCD. Table 3.5 reveals there are two Census Tracts where
minority population groups are present in slightly greater proportions than in the CCD;
however, representation is not disproportional. Therefore, it can be concluded that
Minority Populations would not be disproportionately affected by projects undertaken to
improve transportation systems and services within the study area.
Figure 3.7 displays the Median Household Income in each of three Census Tracts used
for reporting prior to the 2010 Census. In this case, the Median Household Income of
Yuma County for the period 2005-2009 was adopted for comparison. Average Median
Household Income for the County was slightly less than $39,000. The Median
Household Income reported for each of the three Census Tracts coincident with the
study area was greater than that reported for the County. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the study area does not have a concentration of Low-Income
Populations that potentially would be disproportionately affected by projects undertaken
to improve transportation systems and services.
3.4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The Yuma County multi-modal transportation system is comprised of state and local
roadways to effectively move goods and people. The backbone of the roadway network
in the study area is I-8, a four-lane, high-capacity freeway, which is supplemented on
both sides with frontage roads providing access to adjacent parcels. I-8 transects the
northern half of the study area and plays an important regional and sub-regional role in
the transportation system.
The region is served by all transportation modes and is actively developing plans to
embrace and foster these modes. At a statewide level, communities in the study area
are actively engaged in evaluating opportunities for transit service. This section of the
report describes the existing transportation system within the study area and the several
communities comprising it. For purposes of this study, the term “Existing” refers to the
conditions on the system in April 2010, when this study commenced.
3.4.1 YUMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS
The Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan currently in effect, and the City of Yuma
2012 General Plan, provide frameworks for community and transportation system
development.3 They stipulate goals for the community, specify objectives to accomplish
the goals, and establish technical and policy guidance for land use, transportation, and
3 Yuma County is in the process of preparing a 2020 Comprehensive Plan and it remains in Draft status at this time.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-25
Final Report
FIGURE 3.6
STUDY AREA RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-26
Final Report
TABLE 3.5
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATION GROUPS BY CENSUS TRACT
Population
Group
Yuma Census
County
Division
(CCD)
Share of
CCD
Population
Tract
10\9.05
Share of
Tract
Population
Tract
109.07
Share of
Tract
Population
Tract
109.10
Share of
Tract
Population
Tract
111.08
Share of
Tract
Population
Tract
111.10
Share of
Tract
Population
Tract
111.11
Share of
Tract
Population
Tract
111.12
Share of
Tract
Population
Tract
111.14
Share of
Tract
Population
Tract
111.15
Share of
Tract
Population
White 100,783 72.51% 2,327 82.66% 4,331 85.69% 1,656 94.20% 2,517 79.45% 2,615 89.99% 2,676 85.11% 2,373 92.88% 1,846 90.40% 2,725 93.90%
African
American
3,162 2.27% 34 1.21% 99 1.96% 5 0.28% 75 2.37% 38 1.31% 18 0.57% 7 0.27% 16 0.78% 20 0.69%
Asian 2,142 1.54% 16 0.57% 81 1.60% 7 0.40% 67 2.11% 28 0.96% 18 0.57% 12 0.47% 15 0.73% 17 0.59%
AIAN 2,120 1.53% 27 0.96% 55 1.09% 6 0.34% 32 1.01% 23 0.79% 43 1.37% 32 1.25% 18 0.88% 11 0.38%
NHPI 256 0.18% 2 0.07% 11 0.22% 0 0.00% 2 0.06% 5 0.17% 3 0.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.07%
Some Other
Race
24,717 17.78% 315 11.19% 298 5.90% 51 2.90% 323 10.20% 138 4.75% 310 9.86% 108 4.23% 101 4.95% 106 3.65%
Two or More
Races
5,817 4.18% 94 3.34% 179 3.54% 33 1.88% 152 4.80% 59 2.03% 76 2.42% 23 0.90% 46 2.25% 21 0.72%
Total
Population
138,997 100% 2,815 100% 5,054 100% 1,758 100% 3,168 100% 2,906 100% 3,144 100% 2,555 100% 2,042 100% 2,902 100%
White 10.16% 13.19% 21.69% 6.94% 17.48% 12.61% 20.37% 17.89% 21.39%
African American -1.07% -0.32% -1.99% 0.09% -0.97% -1.70% -2.00% -1.49% -1.59%
Asian -0.97% 0.06% -1.14% 0.57% -0.58% -0.97% -1.07% -0.81% -0.96%
AIAN -0.57% -0.44% -1.18% -0.52% -0.73% -0.16% -0.27% -0.64% -1.15%
NHPI -0.11% 0.03% -0.18% -0.12% -0.01% -0.09% -0.18% -0.18% -0.12%
Some Other Race -6.59% -11.89% -14.88% -7.59% -13.03% -7.92% -13.56% -12.84% -14.13%
Two or More Races -0.85% -0.64% -2.31% 0.61% -2.15% -1.77% -3.28% -1.93% -3.46%
Prepared by Wilson & Company , November 2011.
NOTES:
AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaskan Nativ e.
NHPI refers to Nativ e Hawaiian & other Pacific Islander.
Shading indicates representation of the Population Group within the Census Tract is greater that the proportionate share within the CCD.
Source: American Community Surv ey , U.S. Census Bureau at: http://2010.census.gov /2010census/popmap/.
Differential Share Relative to the Yuma Census County Division (CCD)
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-27
Final Report
FIGURE 3.7
STUDY AREA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-28
Final Report
other community development decisions. These plans are required by the State of
Arizona to provide a framework for rational community growth and must be updated
every ten years.
Recently, the State of Arizona mandated additional Comprehensive Plan elements as
part of Growing Smarter Plus. Historically, Land Use and Circulation were the only two
elements required by the State in developing Comprehensive Plans. The new
mandates require five additional elements, including:
Environmental Planning;
Open Space;
Water Resources;
Cost of Development; and
Growth Areas.
These elements are foundational in developing a plan for a balanced transportation
system, which is why the information in the preceding sections has been reviewed and
included herein.
The YMPO 2010-2033 RTP incorporates relevant elements of the two plans cited above
into a unified plan for the Yuma Metropolitan Area, including points east along I-8. This
Transportation Needs Study is intended to supplement the community planning process
by providing a perspective on the uses and needs of the regional transportation facilities
serving the study area. Too often, local access takes precedence over mobility,
particularly when a community is trying to vie for economic development opportunities
or sustain or establish economic and social practices.
When adequate alternative facilities, i.e., route options, are not in place, the result often
is undue congestion on the primary street network. This imbalance between desired
mobility, property access, and facility function is very common, particularly in smaller
communities. A related side effect of excessive access or lack of route options is a
reduction in safety and capacity not only for motorists but also for pedestrians and
cyclists. A particular concern in this regard is the action of turning vehicles involved in
ingress/egress to fronting properties. The focus of the RTP, therefore, is a balanced
transportation system that will support and sustain efficient and effective mobility and
access within the study area. At the same time, it addresses the critical nature of I-8 as
a facility serving regional, state, and interstate mobility needs.
3.4.2 STUDY AREA ROADWAY NETWORK
The roadway network in the study area consists of key roadways connecting major
activity centers, commercial centers, and residential communities. Today, I-8 and its
frontage roads form the primary connecting travel facility within the study area.
However, there are several lesser facilities, such as South Fortuna Road, South
Foothills Boulevard, and East 40th Street/East County 12th Street, that provide
connectivity within and between community areas. Most connections are
accommodated with two-lane paved roadways with shoulders and ditches for drainage.
Within some portions of the study area, roadways are improved to include curb and
gutter, turn lanes, or additional through-lane capacity. Most local access roads in
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-29
Final Report
residential areas are paved and have a curb and gutter cross-section. This section
highlights conditions of the existing roadway network and how well the network operates
under current traffic demands.
3.4.3 PHYSICAL ROADWAY ELEMENTS
The physical roadway elements are characterized by roadway type, size, and purpose.
Bridges are required to ensure connectivity, and traffic control elements (e.g., traffic
signals and signs) are intended to control vehicular flow and ensure operational
efficiency. Additionally, there are overarching responsibilities for maintenance and
operations of roadway facilities. These responsibilities in the study area are divided
between ADOT and Yuma County, which coordinate system maintenance and
improvements with the YMPO.
JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ADOT)
ADOT has primary responsibility for maintaining connectivity within the State Highway
System. State Routes are the primary means to travel between urbanized areas and
provide vital access to urbanized areas for rural sections of Yuma County. At the state
program level, there is also a hierarchy of roadways, including the National Highway
System (NHS), which includes the Interstate Highway System (IHS) as well as other
roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. The NHS was
developed by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) in cooperation with the
states, local officials, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).
Although the IHS is the premier component of the NHS, the NHS consists mostly of
two-lane roads. Approximately 98 percent of all roads designated within the NHS
already have been built. The 160,000 miles (256,000 kilometers) that comprise the
NHS account for only four percent of the nation’s roads, yet these roads are vital to
industry, commerce, and social interaction. They carry more than 40 percent of all
highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic, and 90 percent of tourist traffic.
The advantage of NHS is that it encourages states to focus on a limited number of
high-priority routes and concentrate on improving them with Federal-Aid Highway
Program (FAHP) funds. At the same time, states can incorporate design and
construction improvements that address their traffic needs safely and efficiently. States
also can make operational changes, such as instituting a program to locate and remove
stalled vehicles that are impeding smooth traffic flow. States can employ available
technological improvements, such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), as well
as access management to help reduce congestion and keep traffic moving without
major roadway expansion.
The YMPO RTP identifies I-8 as being in the U.S. Strategic Highway Network
(STRAHNET). The STRAHNET system includes highways providing access, continuity,
and emergency transportation for the movement of personnel and equipment in support
of U.S. military operations in both times of peace and war. The STRAHNET system has
been designated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in partnership with the
Department of Defense (DOD). STRAHNET is a key component of the country’s
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-30
Final Report
strategic defense policy. South Avenue 3E, which connects I-8 with the MCAS also is
included in the STRAHNET system.
At the local level, I-8 is the primary transportation facility of the NHS within the study
area and moves the greatest proportion of traffic. In fact, this route practically serves as
the primary or “Main Street” within the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol communities. As
such, I-8 plays a very significant role in regional and sub-regional mobility within the
study area. This is the only roadway in the study area included in the State Highway
System.
YUMA COUNTY
Yuma County maintains region-serving non-NHS roadways that traverse the study area,
particularly South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard, and most of the local
roadways. South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard, which provide
interchange access to I-8, play a major role in connecting key portions of the study area
and assuring access to community resources. Other roadways are primary routes of
travel, facilitating the collection and distribution of vehicular traffic relative to the many
activity centers in the study area. The location and capacity of these facilities are
influenced by the local land use decisions and, therefore, they are the most critical
components of the transportation system relative to local mobility.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The transportation system is made up of varying roadway types having different
functions within the framework of mobility and access. The different roadway types
support both urban and rural travel. Therefore, functional classification of roadways is a
critical component of effective transportation planning. Functional classification
designations were developed to help manage mobility and access. Providing facilities
that are meant to move traffic and commerce must be in balance with other facilities
where key connectivity and local access are needed.
Eight functional classifications have been adopted to identify the role of major streets
and highways in the study area. The classifications depend on the character of traffic
and mobility associated with each facility and surrounding land uses as well as the
necessary level of access. The Arizona Functional Classification Guidelines published
by ADOT provide the basis for the following definitions of roadway functional
classifications relevant to this study. These have been applied by the YMPO in its
current RTP. Figure 3.8 identifies the functional classification of major highways and
streets in the study area. A description of the principal characteristics of each class
follows.
1. Urban Interstate: The Urban Interstate facility falls within the Urban Principal
Arterial classification. These facilities typically are multi-lane, high-speed divided
roadways with the primary function of providing the greatest mobility for through
movement. These facilities support large volumes of traffic efficiently by assuring
minimal interference to through movements. Access to Urban Interstate and other
freeways is controlled; utilizing traffic interchanges at crossing roadways,
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-31
Final Report
FIGURE 3.8
STUDY AREA MAJOR ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
usually other Principal Arterials. The spacing for access to this class of facility is
typically one mile, but may be more frequent in highly developed areas. Urban
Principal Arterials serve major activity centers with direct access to adjacent land
being purely incidental. Limiting access aids in maintaining the integrity of the
roadway by reducing interference, allowing a major portion of traffic to pass through
the area. I-8, between South Avenue 10E and South Avenue 14½E (Fortuna Wash)
is the only Urban Interstate facility in the study area.
2. Urban Minor Arterial: These facilities connect with Rural Minor Arterials and
Collectors to support trips of moderate length at the county level, but they can
accommodate longer trips within the community. Posted speed limits usually are
lower than those established for Principal Arterials; therefore, Urban Minor Arterials
generally have four lanes with a center left-turn lane, but support lower travel
mobility. The spacing of Urban Minor Arterials can be developed at intervals of less
than one-half mile in highly developed areas. South Fortuna Road and South
Foothills Boulevard (north of East 40th Street/East County 12th Street) are prime
examples of Urban Minor Arterials in the study area.
3. Urban Collector: Urban Collectors in highly developed areas are generally
four-lane facilities with a center left-turn lane. These facilities have the purpose of
providing local street network access to the arterial system of roadways. They may
penetrate residential neighborhoods; therefore, the level of access is greater than
Source: Figure II-3, Federal Functional Classification, Final Report, 2033 Regional Transportation Plan,
Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization.
0 1 2
Miles
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-32
Final Report
facilities with a higher classification. Urban Collectors provide direct access for
commercial and multi-family residential traffic to the transportation system. South
Foothills Boulevard, south of East 40th Street/East County 12th Street, is a prime
example of an Urban Collector.
4. Rural Interstate: Like the Urban Interstate, these facilities serve as the principal
corridors for interstate and statewide travel supporting long-distance trips and the
very highest volumes. They provide minimal interference to through movement. I-8,
east of South Avenue 14½E (Fortuna Wash) is the only Rural Interstate facility in the
study area.
5. Rural Principal Arterial: This functional classification of roadways includes all
interstates (as noted earlier) and serves urban areas with a population of 50,000 or
more and a large majority of urban areas with a population of 25,000 or more. The
Rural Principal Arterial system provides an integrated network without stub
connections, except where unusual geographic or traffic flow conditions dictate (e.g.,
international borders and coastal cities).
6. Rural Minor Arterial: These facilities serve most larger communities not served by
the Principal Arterial system as well as major traffic generators attracting travel over
long distances (though shorter than associated with the Principal Arterial system).
Rural Minor Arterials support interstate and intercounty travel of regional importance
at relatively high speeds with minimum interference to through movement. All
roadways not on the Principal or Minor Arterial system are on the Collector system.
7. Rural Major Collector: The Rural Major Collector generally is two lanes with the
purpose of supporting travel of intracounty and regional importance, as opposed to
statewide movements. These facilities provide connectivity between Minor
Collectors and the local street network to the Minor Arterial network. They
accommodate shorter distance trips and posted speed limits tend to be more
moderate than those of the arterial system. Rural Major Collectors generally provide
direct access to commercial and larger residential developments. A prime example
of this type facility in the study area is South Avenue 15E.
8. Local Streets: Local streets, which are not a prime focus of this study, provide
direct access to abutting or adjacent properties and have the greatest amount of
access allowed. Through traffic is discouraged on local roadways and posted
speeds are lowest. Local roadways have not been evaluated as part of this
Transportation Plan.
Figure 3.9 illustrates the number of lanes for each major facility included in the study
area’s roadway network.
REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ROUTES
A Regionally Significant Route (RSR) may be an interstate, principal arterial, or a
collector street. Within the study area, the YMPO RTP identifies South Fortuna Road
(Avenue 11E) and I-8 as Regionally Significant Routes. This type of route or roadway
facility serves regional transportation and mobility needs.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-33
Final Report
FIGURE 3.9
EXISTING PRIMARY ROADWAY NETWORK TRAVEL LANES
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
CONCEPT AND PURPOSE
According to the FHWA’s Access Management
Website “access management (AM) is the
proactive management of vehicular access points
to land parcels adjacent to all manner of
roadways. Good access management promotes
safe and efficient use of the transportation
network.�� This philosophy of roadway design and
development (shown pictorially at right) provides
an important means of maintaining the operational
viability of the various classes of facilities and,
therefore, community mobility. FHWA identifies
five key techniques that state and local
governments can use to control access to
highways, major arterials, and other roadways:
Access Spacing: increasing the distance between traffic signals improves the
flow of traffic on major arterials, reduces congestion, and improves air quality for
heavily traveled corridors.
Driveway Spacing: Fewer driveways spaced further apart allows for more
orderly merging of traffic and presents fewer challenges to drivers.
Source: Figure II-4, Existing Number of Lanes, Final Report, 2033 Regional Transportation Plan, Yuma
Metropolitan Planning Organization.
0 1 2
Miles
Source: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgmt/index.htm
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-34
Final Report
Safe Turning Lanes: dedicated left- and right-turn, indirect left-turns and U-turns,
and roundabouts keep through-traffic flowing. Roundabouts represent an
opportunity to reduce an intersection with many conflict points or a severe crash
history (T-bone crashes) to one that operates with fewer conflict points and less
severe crashes (sideswipes) if they occur.
Median Treatments: two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL) and nontraversible, raised
medians are examples of some of the most effective means to regulate access
and reduce crashes.
Right-of-Way Management: as it pertains to R/W reservation for future
widenings, good sight distance, access location, and other access-related issues.
The result of combining all these techniques essentially is defined in the TRB 2003,
Access Management Manual, as the “systematic control of the location, spacing,
design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street
connections to a roadway.” Application of the best practices of access management
has benefits for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, business people,
government agencies, and communities. The desired outcomes of access
management relative to highway operations are:
Creation of a safer operating environment for vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
Provisions allowing motorists to operate vehicles with fewer delays, less fuel
consumption, and fewer emissions;
Provisions for reasonable access to abutting (i.e., fronting) properties;
Maintenance of the functional integrity and efficiency of the roadway, helping to
protect the investment of taxpayer dollars;
Assured coordination between land use and transportation decisions; and
Assurance that highways are used for the purposes (functions) for which they are
designed.
STATE ROADS
The necessity of access management to preserve the function, efficiency, and safety of
federal and state highways increasingly has been recognized throughout the United
States and in Arizona. Without access management, highways intended as through
routes gradually degrade to local service routes, due to areas becoming developed or
urbanized. ADOT has initiated development of a Statewide Access Management Plan
for the State Highway System in accordance with the policies of the Arizona State
Transportation Board. The focus of this effort is to develop an access management
classification system for State Highways and publish a comprehensive access
management manual to provide uniform guidance for access management decisions
throughout the state. Currently, this ADOT transportation planning process is in
abeyance, due to Executive Order of the Governor and legislative action prohibiting the
making of new administrative rules.
In the meantime, access permitting for State highways currently is carried out pursuant
to ARS 28-7053, which prohibits unauthorized encroachments on State highways. For
an encroachment to be lawful, it must be authorized by the Director of ADOT. The
Director has adopted administrative rules (regulations) governing encroachments.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-35
Final Report
These rules are published as Arizona Administrative Code, R17-3-501, Highway
Encroachments and Permits, which includes access connections to state highways.
The rule states that each encroachment requires a permit. Permits for driveway access
to a state highway (referred to as encroachments) may be granted by ADOT's
Engineering Districts through delegation from the Director. Upon initiation of the formal
rulemaking process relating to the Statewide Access Management Plan, ADOT will
solicit public comment on the Program. The Traffic Engineering Group of ADOT’s
Intermodal Transportation Division oversees the Arizona Access Management Program
in its present form.
LOCAL ROADS
Yuma County Subdivision Regulations provide guidance for the design and
development of all subdivision of land. While these regulations are not specifically
focused on access management, sections address the need to ensure adequate traffic
circulation and minimizing cut-through traffic. Section 4.5, Access to Subdivision,
states: “Access to subdivisions from arterial roads and major collectors shall be limited
to maintain traffic capacity, encourage smooth traffic flow and limit the use of local
streets to local traffic.” This section also states: “Subdivision access roads shall be
spaced according to Public Works Standards or the standards of the jurisdiction that is
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the arterial road or major collector.”
TRAFFIC CONTROL INVENTORY
Intersection traffic control is the primary method for maintaining orderly traffic flow within
a roadway network, particularly along facilities with higher traffic volumes. The most
significant of these facilities in the study area are: I-8; South Fortuna Road; segments
of the I-8 Frontage Road system; and South Foothills Boulevard between I-8 and
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street. Current intersection traffic control within the
study area includes traffic signals and STOP or YIELD signs at intersections.
Transportation officials in Arizona and throughout the nation are examining other traffic
control options, such as the modern roundabout, to obtain potentially greater capacity
and proven safety benefits.
An inventory was completed to identify the signalized intersection locations within the
study area. The majority of signalized intersections were identified for the purpose of
conducting turning-movement counts. Other key unsignalized intersections were
identified for the same purpose. In addition, a number of locations along roadways
were identified for the purpose of conducting tube counts, i.e., counting vehicles passing
a specific point. All signalized intersections in the study area are listed below;
Figure 3.10 shows the locations of these intersections as well as other locations where
traffic counts were conducted. Counts were conducted in April 2011.
I-8 South Frontage Road at Payson Drive (west of South Fortuna Road)
I-8 at South Fortuna Road (South Ave 11E) at:
o North Frontage Road
o North On/Off Ramp
o South On/Off Ramp
o South Frontage Road
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-36
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-37
Final Report
FIGURE 3.10
ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-38
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-39
Final Report
South Fortuna Road (South Ave 11E) at:
o East 35th Place
o East 40th Street/East County 12th Street
I-8 South Frontage Road at Fry’s Entrance Drive (Fortuna Commons SC)
I-8 at South Foothills Boulevard at:
o North Frontage Road
o North On/Off Ramp
o South On/Off Ramp
o South Frontage Road
South Foothills Boulevard at:
o East 38th Street
o East 40th Street/East County 12th Street
o East 44th Street
o East 48th Street/East County 13th Street (Proposed).
3.4.4 ROADWAY NETWORK OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT
Traffic operations for this Transportation Needs Study have been evaluated relative to
the primary roadway segments to ensure there is adequate high-level capacity to
handle regional and sub-regional travel demands. Roadway segments have been
examined at a planning level to compare existing facilities capacity with forecasted
daily traffic demand.
As shown in Figure 3.11, the highest volumes clearly are associated with I-8, where
the average traffic load is 23,000 to almost 27,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Based on
annual average daily volumes, the study area’s busiest streets generally are about
one-half or less of the traffic volumes occurring on I-8. For example, South Fortuna
Road, South Foothills Boulevard, and the I-8 South Frontage Road (west of Fortuna
Road) average 12-14,000 vpd. East 40th Street/ East County 12th Street, east of South
Fortuna Road, averages approximately 7,000 vpd.
Nevertheless, seasonal highs associated with roadways in the study area result in
traffic volumes varying considerably from the annual averages. The highest volumes
reported on South Foothills Boulevard (south of East 40th Street/East County
12th Street) and the I-8 South Frontage Road (west of South Fortuna Road) in
February and November, respectively, exceeded 20,000 vpd. The recorded traffic
volume on South Fortuna Road, south of I-8, reached 17,969 vpd in November,
compared to the annual average of 12,570. The extreme changes in traffic volumes
amount to an average increase of 54 percent on study area roadways, based on
recorded traffic in November and February. The greatest increase (109%) was
recorded on East 40th Street/East County 12th Street, east of South Foothills Boulevard
(although the actual volumes on this roadway segment were relatively small). The
lowest increase (36%) in the core portion of the study area occurred on the I-8 North
Frontage Road, east of South Avenue 10E.
A summary of peak-hour intersection turn movements at selected key intersections in
the study area are provided in Figure 3.12. The collected data provided the foundation
for analyzing traffic operations and identifying current capacity needs in the study area.
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-40
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-41
Final Report
FIGURE 3.11
2009 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON SELECTED STUDY AREA ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-42
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-43
Final Report
FIGURE 3.12
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION COUNTS AT SELECTED KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-44
Final Report
FIGURE 3.12 (CONT.)
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION COUNTS AT SELECTED KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-45
Final Report
FIGURE 3.12 (CONT.)
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION COUNTS AT SELECTED KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011
Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Page | 3-46
Final Report
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Transportation engineers and planners commonly use a rating system to measure the
operational status of roadway segments and interchanges/intersections comprising a
local roadway network. This rating system is referred
to as level of service (LOS), which yields a
measurement of the performance of network
comp