La Paz Transportation Planning Study

              La Paz Transportation
Planning Study
Final Report
June 2010
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The La Paz Transportation Planning Study was funded by the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas
Program sponsored by the Arizona Department of Transportation Multimodal Planning Division
and was jointly conducted by ADOT, La Paz County, Town of Quartzsite, Town of Parker, and
the Colorado River Indian Tribes. Lima & Associates wishes to thank the following for their
assistance in the conduct of this Study:
The Honorable Walt Akin, Former Mayor, Town of Quartzsite
Brian Babiars, Acting Director, Western AZ Council of Governments
Donna Baker, NPG Cable
Michele E. Beggs, Public Information Officer, Kingman District, ADOT
Scott Bernhart, Community Development Manager, La Paz County
Emmett Brinkerhoff, Public Works Director, Town of Quartzsite
Ellen Carr, Logan Simpson Design
Tanya L. Cecil, General Manager, Arizona & California Railroad
Aaron Curtis, Yuma Field Office, US Bureau of Land Management
James D. Downing, P.E., President, Harcuvar Company
Rich Ench, Tribal Planner, Colorado River Indian Tribes
Lee Eseman, Western Regional Manager, Arizona State Parks
Justin Feek, Project Manager, ADOT
Charlene FitzGerald, Former Project Manager, ADOT
Robert Flanders, Quartzsite Maintenance, ADOT
Gregory Fisher, Planner I - Interim TERO Director, CRIT
Guy Gorman, Community Economic Director, Town of Parker
Melanie Headstream, Planner III, Arizona State Land Department
Sergeant Chad Hinderliter, Arizona Department of Public Safety
Mark Hoffman, Transit Planner, ADOT
Robert K. Holt, P.E., The Holt Group
Tish Hunter, Environmental Planning Specialist, ADOT
The Honorable Wes Huntley, Mayor, Town of Quartzsite
Michael Jones, Assistant Yuma District Engineer, ADOT
Joan-Marie King, Planner, La Paz County
Bill Knowles, Arizona Game & Fish Department
Barbara Martin, The Holt Group
Paul Patane, Yuma District Engineer, ADOT
Deanna Pfleger, Arizona Game & Fish Department
Jerry Rather, Park Manager, Buckskin Mountain State Park
Dennis Shrewsbury, Administrative Sergeant, Town of Parker Police Department
Tom Simmons, Public Works Director, La Paz County
Ted Swendra, Avi Suquilla Airport Manager, CRIT
Ms. Alex Taft, Manager, Town of Quartzsite
Gina Trafton, Lake Havasu Field Office, US Bureau of Land Management
James Zumpf, Sr. Transportation Planner, ADOT
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
PURPOSE................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND........................................................................................ 1
STUDY PROCESS ..................................................................................... 3
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................. 4
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT..................................................................... 6
2. PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS .............................................................. 7
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS.............................................. 7
STATEWIDE, REGIONAL, LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS ................ 14
3. CURRENT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 19
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT............................................................ 19
POPULATION ......................................................................................... 22
EMPLOYMENT....................................................................................... 24
LAND USE ............................................................................................. 25
PHYSICAL, NATURAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................. 29
CURRENT ROAD CONDITIONS ................................................................. 35
CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS............................................... 42
CURRENT TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONDITIONS ......................................... 48
CURRENT MULTIMODAL CONDITIONS..................................................... 63
TRANSIT AND INTERCITY BUS SERVICES ................................................. 64
AVIATION ............................................................................................. 66
TRUCK FREIGHT .................................................................................... 66
BICYCLE FACILITIES .............................................................................. 66
4. FUTURE CONDITIONS............................................................................ 72
FUTURE SOCIOEONOMIC CONDIITIONS.................................................... 72
FUTURE ROAD AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS............................................... 86
HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS .................................................................... 97
SUMMARY OF ROAD DEFICIENCIES AND POTENTIAL NEEDS ..................... 99
FUTURE MULTIMODAL CONDITIONS ..................................................... 104
FUTURE FREIGHT CONDITIONS ............................................................. 112
5. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN .............................................. 115
TRANSPORTATION VISION .................................................................... 115
ALTERNATIVE ROAD NETWORK ANALYSIS ............................................ 115
RECOMMENDED ROAD PLAN ................................................................ 133
ROAD DESIGN AND ACCESS CRITERIA ................................................... 139
RECOMMENDED MULTIMODAL ELEMENT ............................................. 146
RECOMMENDED FREIGHT ELEMENT ..................................................... 161
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
6. IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................. 166
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 166
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ............................................................ 166
FUNDING SOURCES .............................................................................. 172
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS ........................................ 179
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.................................................................. 179
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 181
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1. COORDINATION, COOPERATION & COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES ............ 4
1-2. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE...................................................... 5
1-3. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWEES ............................................................. 5
2-1. SUMMARY OF STUDIES AND PLANS....................................................... 7
2-2. LA PAZ COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY ................ 15
2-3. ADOT FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM, LA PAZ COUNTY FY 2010 – FY 2014....................................... 16
2-4. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
PRIORITIZED LIST OF PROJECTS, LA PAZ COUNTY ................................. 16
2-5. WESTERN ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM, LA PAZ COUNTY ................................................................ 16
2-6. ADOT YUMA DISTRICT PROJECTS AND STUDIES .................................... 17
2-7. ADOT AVI SUQUILLA AIRPORT PROGRAMMED PROJECTS ....................... 18
3-1. YEAR 2000 POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS .................................... 22
3-2. CHANGES IN POPULATION ................................................................... 23
3-3. DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY................................................................... 23
3-4. 2008 EMPLOYEES BY AREA, LA PAZ COUNTY......................................... 24
3-5. STUDY AREA ACREAGE OF WILDLIFE REFUGES
AND WILDERNESS AREAS .................................................................... 32
3-6. BLM MANAGED CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES
IN AND AROUND QUARTZSITE ............................................................. 36
3-7. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES........................................... 37
3-8. SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ON STATE HIGHWAYS,
LA PAZ COUNTY ................................................................................. 45
3-9. PAVEMENT REMAINING SERVICE LIFE, LA PAZ COUNTY ROADS............. 45
3-10. FUNCTIONALLY AND STRUCTURALLY OBSOLETE BRIDGES,
LA PAZ COUNTY ................................................................................. 47
iv
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
3-11. 2009-2018 NEEDED EXPENDITURES FOR LA PAZ COUNTY........................ 47
3-12. COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2008 TRAFFIC VOLUMES............................... 50
3-13. TRAFFIC VOLUME AT CALIFORNIA AVE
AND RIVERSIDE BLVD INTERSECTION................................................... 52
3-14. VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION AVERAGE PERCENT OF DAILY TRAFFIC
(JANUARY 2008 – DECEMBER 2008) ........................................................ 53
3-15. ROAD SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS
AND DESCRIPTIONS............................................................................. 55
3-16. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA................. 56
3-17. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE C OR LOWER ............ 56
3-18. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ..................... 57
3-19. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................... 57
3-20. QUARTZSITE TRANSIT VAN SCHEDULE AND SUGGESTED
DONATIONS FOR SERVICE (ROUND TRIP)............................................... 64
3-21. LA PAZ COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE ...................................................... 65
4-1. LA PAZ COUNTY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS........................................ 75
4-2. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, LA PAZ COUNTY
POPULATION PROJECTIONS.................................................................. 78
4-3. POTENTIAL GROWTH SCENARIO, LA PAZ COUNTY................................. 79
4-4. LA PAZ COUNTY LAND USE CATEGORIES.............................................. 80
4-5. CURRENT LOCATIONS OF PASSING LANES............................................. 90
4-6. SUGGESTED MINIMUM AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) FOR
RURAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FOR LOS C THAT WOULD WARRANT
PASSING LANE(S) ................................................................................ 90
4-7. 2020 CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES FOR ROADS - AT, NEAR,
OR OVER CAPACITY ............................................................................ 91
v
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
4-8. 2020 CANDIDATE LOCATIONS FOR PASSING LANES ................................ 91
4-9. 2030 CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES FOR ROADS - AT, NEAR,
OR OVER CAPACITY ........................................................................... 92
4-10. 2030 CANDIDATE LOCATIONS FOR PASSING LANES ................................ 92
4-11. HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS WITHIN LA PAZ PLANNING AREA ................ 97
4-12. LA PAZ COUNTY ROAD NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES .............................. 100
4-13 SUMMARY OF MULTIMODAL NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES ...................... 104
4-14. FUTURE POPULATION OF SERVICE GROUPS IN SERVICE AREA .............. 106
4-15. TRUCK AND RAIL FREIGHT NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES......................... 113
5-1. MOHAVE ROAD EXTENSION TRAFFIC VOLUMES.................................. 122
5-2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................................ 122
5-3. FEASIBILITY MEASURES .................................................................... 127
5-4. COMPARISON OF 2030 NETWORKS....................................................... 131
5-5. MINIMUM ROAD ACCESS AND DESIGN CRITERIA ................................. 140
5-6. DRAFT REGIONAL TRANSIT SCHEDULES ............................................. 148
5-7. SUMMARY OF TRANSIT MARKETING DATA GATHERING TECHNIQUES... 155
5-8 SUGGESTED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE . 160
5-9. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ADOT FREIGHT PLANNING AGENDA.............. 163
6-1. LA PAZ ROADWAY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ............................. 167
6-2. LA PAZ MULTIMODAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ........................ 169
6-3. LA PAZ RAIL AND TRUCK FREIGHT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ..... 171
6-4. MATRIX OF KEY FUNDING SOURCES................................................... 172
6-5. FY 2008 FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ARIZONA............................ 175
6-6. ARRA FUND PROJECTS IN LA PAZ PLANNING AREA ............................. 176
6-7. LTAF II DISTRIBUTION, COUNTIES AND CITIES/TOWNS FY 2010 ............. 177
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1. STUDY AREA ....................................................................................... 2
1-2. STUDY PROCESS................................................................................... 3
3-1. COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF TITLE VI POPULATIONS................... 24
3-2. PERCENT OF TOTAL LAND BY OWNER .................................................. 25
3-3. LAND OWNERSHIP............................................................................... 26
3-4. LAND USE .......................................................................................... 27
3-5. ACTIVITY CENTERS............................................................................. 28
3-6. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW .............................................................. 31
3-7. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION--MOBILITY VERSUS ACCESS ................... 37
3-8. ROAD NETWORK AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION............................ 39
3-9. NUMBER OF LANES ............................................................................. 40
3-10. SPEED LIMITS ..................................................................................... 41
3-11. PAVEMENT TYPE ................................................................................ 43
3-12. PAVEMENT CONDITONS – STATE HIGHWAYS......................................... 44
3-13. BRIDGE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 46
3-14. 2009 TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS......................................................... 49
3-15. ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) .......................................... 51
3-16. SEASONAL TRAFFIC VARIATIONS ON STATE HIGHWAYS,
LA PAZ COUNTY ................................................................................. 52
3-17. VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION BY SEASON, QUARTZSITE/SR 95 ATR.............. 54
3-18. PHOTOGRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE....................... 55
3-19. NUMBER OF CRASHES AT SITE ............................................................. 59
3-20. COLLISIONS WITH PEDESTRIANS AND PEDALCYCLISTS.......................... 60
3-21. FATAL CRASH LOCATIONS................................................................... 61
vii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3-22. CRASH RATES ..................................................................................... 62
3-23. STATE HIGHWAY TRUCK VOLUMES...................................................... 67
3-24. TOWN OF QUARTZSITE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE FACILITIES ........................................................................... 69
3-25. TRAILS ............................................................................................... 70
4-1. LA PAZ COUNTY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS........................................ 74
4-2. 2030 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES............................................................ 81
4-3. PROJECTED POPULATION DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE - 2020 .................. 82
4-4. PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE – 2020................ 83
4-5. PROJECTED POPULATION DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE - 2030 .................. 84
4-6. PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE – 2030................ 85
4-7. BASE ROAD NETWORK- FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION.......................... 88
4-8. BASE ROAD NETWORK- NUMBER OF LANES .......................................... 89
4-9. 2020 BASE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
LEVEL OF SERVICE - OFF-PEAK SEASON................................................ 93
4-10. 2020 BASE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
LEVEL OF SERVICE - PEAK SEASON ...................................................... 94
4-11. 2030 BASE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
LEVEL OF SERVICE - OFF-PEAK SEASON................................................ 95
4-12 2030 BASE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
LEVEL OF SERVICE - PEAK SEASON ...................................................... 96
4-13. HYPOTHETICAL TRANSIT ROUTES ...................................................... 107
4-14. BICYCLE USER MAP – STUDY AREA DETAIL ........................................ 110
5-1. ROAD WIDENING ALTERNATIVE NETWORK FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION............................................................................... 117
5-2. ROAD WIDENING ALTERNATIVE NETWORK NUMBER OF LANES............ 118
viii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
5-3. NEW ALIGNMENTS ALTERNATIVE NETWORK
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION........................................................... 119
5-4. NEW ALIGNMENTS ALTERNATIVE NETWORK NUMBER OF LANES......... 120
5-5. 2030 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROADWAY WIDENING
ALTERNATIVE - OFF-PEAK SEASON..................................................... 123
5-6. 2030 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROADWAY WIDENING
ALTERNATIVE - PEAK SEASON ........................................................... 124
5-7. 2030 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES NEW ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVE - OFF-PEAK SEASON..................................................... 125
5-8. 2030 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES NEW ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVE - PEAK SEASON ........................................................... 126
5-9. RECOMMENDED FUTURE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ..................... 136
5-10. 2020 ROAD PLAN ............................................................................... 137
5-11 2030 ROAD PLAN ............................................................................... 138
5-12. ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION ................................................................ 141
5-13. MAJOR COLLECTOR STREET .............................................................. 141
5-14. MAJOR COLLECTOR STREET ALTERNATIVE......................................... 142
5-15. RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET ..................................................... 142
5-16. RURAL HIGHWAY.............................................................................. 143
5-17. POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AT T-INTERSECTION................................ 143
5-18. TRANSIT PLAN.................................................................................. 147
5-19. TYPES OF TRANSIT VEHICLES ............................................................ 150
5-20. FREIGHT PLAN.................................................................................. 162
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The La Paz Transportation Planning Study was conducted as part of the Planning Assistance
for Rural Areas (PARA) program sponsored by the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division. The PARA program provides federal funds to non-metropolitan
communities for the purpose of conducting transportation planning studies. The
La Paz Transportation Planning Study has been a joint effort of ADOT, La Paz County, Town
of Parker, Town of Quartzsite, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT). This Study
developed 5, 10, and 20-year transportation plans, as well as an implementation program, to
guide the County, Towns, and the CRIT in meeting transportation needs for the Study Area
into the future. Figure 1-1 presents the Study area.
The Study identified roadway and multimodal improvements to meet the growing population
and changing land uses to improve mobility and safety, and to encourage sensible and
sustainable development. The feasibility of funding and implementing the needed
improvements was assessed, and a long-range multimodal transportation plan is provided as
well as practical tools for day-to-day programming and funding of transportation
improvements.
While this Study includes roadway facilities owned and operated by ADOT within the planning
area, it is important to recognize that improvements to the State Highway System can be made
only after in-depth planning and engineering studies are conducted by ADOT, and upon
approval of the State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange improvements must be
approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Any recommendations made by
this Study for improvements on State facilities can serve only as suggestions for further study.
BACKGROUND
The La Paz Transportation Planning Study Area is contiguous with La Paz County, which is
located in Western Arizona and is bounded by the Colorado River (California State Line) on
the west, Mohave County on the north, Maricopa County on the east, and Yuma County on
the south. La Paz County was created from the Northern half of Yuma County in 1983.
For many years, the Study Area’s developed land has been concentrated along the Colorado
River and along SR 95, SR 72, and SR 60. The rugged terrain and dominance of Federal land
(Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and military) has channeled recent growth to private
lands adjacent to previous settlement. Development is in several communities, located on or
north of I-10, and each with a population of fewer than 5,000 persons. I-10 carries
considerable traffic—particularly freight trucks—through the County and the economies of
Quartzsite and Ehrenberg, in particular, are linked to I-10 traffic.
With respect to year-round population, recent growth within the Study Area has been modest
compared to that in the remainder of Arizona. Seasonal residents and tourists, however, have
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 2
FIGURE 1-1. STUDY AREA
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 3
Final Report
•Draft Final
Report
•Final Report
Final Report
•Draft Final
Report
•Final Report
Second
Open
House
Second
Open
House
Develop Plan for
Improvements
•Roadway System
•Truck and Rail
Freight
•Multimodal
Transportation
•Identification of
Funding Sources
Develop Plan for
Improvements
•Roadway System
•Truck and Rail
Freight
•Multimodal
Transportation
•Identification of
Funding Sources
Define Future
Conditions
•Future Socioeconomic
Data
•Future Base Roadway
Network
•Transit Demand and
Transit Deficiencies
•Non-Motorized
Alternative
Define Future
Conditions
•Future Socioeconomic
Data
•Future Base Roadway
Network
•Transit Demand and
Transit Deficiencies
•Non-Motorized
Alternative
Stakeholder
Interviews
And
First
Open House
Stakeholder
Interviews
And
First
Open House
Inventory Current
Conditions
•Existing Conditions
•Street Network
•Socioeconomic Data
•Travel Demand Model
Inventory Current
Conditions
•Existing Conditions
•Street Network
•Socioeconomic Data
•Travel Demand Model
flocked to the area. The many recreational activities and specific events that attract visitors
are dispersed throughout the County. The few roadways have been strained to handle the
traffic and are sometimes filled to capacity by seasonal flows and special events. Even when
total traffic volume is less, many roadways have a mix of ordinary commuting, agricultural
vehicles, recreational traffic, and freight-truck traffic sharing the road.
Most of the roadway network has only two lanes, while I-10 has four lanes, and a few miles of
SR 95 in Parker/Parker Strip areas has a mix of three and four lanes. The mix of traffic on a
largely two-lane network leads to safety problems, pavement deterioration, stopped traffic
when incidents occur, and many other concerns.
While the existing roadway network—with improvements—will likely carry most of the future
traffic, the participating agencies joined together to explore innovative solutions for freight,
transit, and non-motorized travel.
STUDY PROCESS
The planning process conducted for the La Paz PARA Study is illustrated in Figure 1-2.
FIGURE 1-2. STUDY PROCESS
This study produced a transportation plan with short-, mid- and long-range elements, as well
as a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to guide La Paz County, the Towns of Parker
and Quartzsite, and the CRIT in implementing improvements to ensure a safe and efficient
transportation system. The consultant team worked closely with the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), other stakeholders, and the public to develop a transportation plan that
meets transportation needs within the community vision. Working papers were prepared
documenting the existing and future socioeconomic and multimodal transportation conditions
as well as previous and ongoing studies. In addition, a TransCAD travel demand model was
developed and calibrated against available traffic counts as a tool to estimate future travel
demand.
Public Involvement activities were coordinated with the public involvement firm, Logan
Simpson Design under the guidance of the ADOT Communication and Community
Partnerships Division. One-on-one meetings were held with individual stakeholders to obtain
data, issues, and potential solutions.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 4
Based on the future conditions, draft short-, mid-, and long-range transportation plans
including roadway, freight and multimodal elements were developed in consultation with the
TAC and evaluated against an agreed upon set of performance and feasibility measures. The
draft plans were documented in a third working paper. A TIP was prepared identifying
recommended projects, project priorities, responsibilities, schedule, and costs. The
implementation plan outlines actions to implement multimodal projects, and strategies for
transportation system management, access management, and travel demand management.
A draft final report was prepared and reviewed by the TAC and revised where necessary.
This final report was then prepared and submitted to ADOT and La Paz County.
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The La Paz Transportation Planning Study has been prepared through an extensive open
process of coordination, cooperation, and communication among La Paz County, Town of
Parker, Town of Quartzsite, CRIT, and ADOT. Table 1-1 lists the various coordination and
advisory meetings and presentations conducted during the planning process.
TABLE 1-1. COORDINATION, COOPERATION & COMMUNICATION
ACTIVITIES
TAC Meetings/Teleconferences:
January 27, 2009, Parker
June 23, 2009, Quartzsite
March 4, 2010, ADOT Yuma District Conf Rm
March 23, 2010, Quartzsite
May 20, 2010, ADOT Yuma District Conf Rm
Public Open Houses First Round
June 23, 2009
Town of Quartzsite Council Chambers
June 24, 2009
Town of Parker Council Chambers
Stakeholder Interviews
April 7, 8, and 9, 2009
Public Open Houses Second Round
March 23, 2010
Town of Quartzsite Council Chambers
March 24, 2010
Town of Parker Council Chambers
Technical Advisory Committee and Stakeholder Interviews
A Technical Advisory Committee, as listed in Table 1-2, guided the conduct of the La Paz
Transportation Planning Study, reviewed and commented on study documents, and
participated in stakeholder interviews and Public Open Houses.
In addition to the guidance of the TAC, individual stakeholder interviews were conducted in
April 2009. The purpose of the interviews was to identify major transportation related issues
and to obtain ideas on possible ways to address potential deficiencies and needs. Table 1-3
lists the 20 interviewees and the dates of the interviews.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 5
TABLE 1-2. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Representation/Agency
Arizona Department of Transportation Colorado River Indian Tribes
Paul Patane, Yuma District Gregory Fisher, Planner I - Interim TERO Dir
Michel Jones, Yuma District Richard Ench, Planning Consultant
Justin Feek, Multimodal Transportation Div Town of Quartzsite
Michele Beggs, Communications and Emmett Brinkerhoff, Public Works Director
Community Partnerships Town of Parker
Mark Hoffman, Multimodal Transportation
Div
Guy Gorman, Community Development Dir
Tish Hunter, Environmental Planning
Specialist
Arizona Game & Fish Department
La Paz County Bill Knowles, Habitat Specialist
Tom Simmons, Public Works Director Western Arizona Council of Governments
Scott Bernhardt, Community Development Dir Brian Babiars, Acting Director
Bureau of Land Management Lima & Associates Consultant Team
Gina Trafton, Lake Havasu Field Office Peter Lima, Ph.D., P.E., President
Robert Bohannan, Sr Transportation Planner
TABLE 1-3. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWEES
Stakeholder Organization
April 7, 2009
Donna Baker NPG Cable
Guy Gorman, Community Economic Director* Town of Parker
Sergeant Chad Hinderliter Department of Public Safety
April 8, 2009
Tanya L. Cecil, General Manager Arizona & California Railroad
Dennis Shrewsbury, Administrative Sergeant Town of Parker Police Department
Rich Ench, Tribal Planner* Colorado River Indian Tribes
Scott Bernhart, Community Development Mgr* La Paz County
Joan-Marie King, Planner La Paz County
Jerry Rather, Park Manager Buckskin Mountain State Park
Lee Eseman, Western Regional Manager Arizona State Parks
Ted Swendra, Airport Manager Colorado River Indian Tribes
April 9, 2009
Aaron Curtis, Yuma Field Office Bureau of Land Management
Robert K. Holt, P.E. The Holt Group
Barbara Martin The Holt Group
Robert Flanders, Quartzsite Maintenance Arizona Dept. of Transportation
Melanie Headstream, Planner III Arizona State Land Department
The Hon. Walt Akin, Mayor Town of Quartzsite
The Hon. Wes Huntley, Councilman Town of Quartzsite
Ms. Alex Taft, Manager Town of Quartzsite
James D. Downing, P.E., President Harcuvar Company
*Members of La Paz Transportation Planning Study TAC
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 6
Public Involvement
Two rounds of Public Open Houses were held for the study. The format of the Open Houses
consisted of a short PowerPoint presentation, followed by questions and answers from the
attendees. In addition, display boards were available for review by the public and
representatives of the study team were available to answer question.
For the first round, public meetings were held in Quartzsite on June 23 and in Parker on June
24, 2009. The purpose of the first round of open houses was to introduce the study and
schedule to the public, review existing socioeconomic and transportation conditions, and
obtain feedback on conditions and transportation related issues. For the second round, public
meetings were held in Quartzsite on March 23 and in Parker on March 24, 2010. The purpose
of the second round of open houses was to present the draft transportation plan including 2020
and 2030 road plans, a multimodal element, and a freight element.
The Summary Public Involvement Report, under separate cover, presents additional details on
the public involvement process including information material distributed and comments from
the public.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
Chapter 2 of this report presents a review of previous studies and current transportation
programs. The next chapter describes the current socioeconomic and transportation conditions
in La Paz County. Future socioeconomic and transportation conditions are then described in
Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents the analysis of alternative future roadway networks. The
Multimodal Transportation Plan is presented in Chapter 6 including the Multimodal Element
and Freight Element. The final chapter describes an implementation program including
implementation strategies and funding sources.
The Summary of Public Involvement Report, under separate cover, describes the public
involvement process and activities. Comments received from the public are included in the
report.
A series of Working Papers was prepared during the study. Each working paper is posted on
the project Website: http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/lapaz.asp. The first
working paper Working Paper 1: Current Conditions presents an inventory and analysis of
current socioeconomic transportation conditions and deficiencies in the Study Area. The
second paper, Working Paper 2: Future Conditions describes the projection and analysis of
future socioeconomic and transportation conditions within La Paz County. Working Paper 3:
Draft Transportation Plan presents an analysis of alternative road networks and Draft 2020
and 2030 Road Plans as well as recommended Multimodal and Freight Elements.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 7
2. PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS
This chapter reviews studies, plans, and programs related to transportation in La Paz Study
Area. The purpose of the review was to gain knowledge of the County and an understanding
of the transportation conditions, issues, and transportation related studies within the Study
Area.
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS
Table 2-1 briefly summarizes these studies and plans with findings and recommendations that
may affect the future transportation characteristics of the Study Area. The documents are
referenced throughout the report in regard to transportation conditions issues and proposed
transportation projects in order to help shape the La Paz County Transportation Plan.
A detailed review is provided on Transportation Improvement Programs for ADOT and
Western Arizona Association of Governments (WACOG) directly after Table 2-1, as they have
a direct influence on the development of the transportation plan:
A more detailed summary of the following studies may be found in the La Paz Transportation
Planning Study Working Paper 1, which is available online at:
http://mpd.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/lapaz.asp:
• La Paz County Comprehensive Plan
• Town of Quartzsite General Plan
• Town of Parker General Plan
• Western Regional Framework Study
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF STUDIES AND PLANS
Study Description
Federal Studies and Plans
Bureau of Land
Management,
Lake Havasu Field Office,
Approved Resource
Management Plan and
Final Environmental
Impact Statement, 2007.
Presents the analyses of five alternatives for management of 1.3 million acres of
public land. The proposed plan provides for a balance between authorized
resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources.
Major issues include the identification of lands to be made available for disposal,
management of recreation and public access, designation, and management of
Special Designations, management of wilderness characteristics, management of
wild burros around Alamo Lake, and BLM’s role in the management of Lake
Havasu.
http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/info/nepa/environmental_library/arizona_resource_
management/LHFO_ROD_07.html
Design Concept Report:
US 95 MP 42- Cibola
Lake Rd, ADOT Tracs
#H7022 01L, 2009.
ADOT and the FHWA are conducting an engineering study and environmental
analysis for improvements on US 95 between milepost 42 and milepost 82.
Proposed improvements include constructing two new travel lanes, new bridges,
and replacing existing bridges.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 8
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF STUDIES AND PLANS (Continued)
Study Description
Yuma Field Office,
Proposed Resource
Management Plan and
Final Environmental
Impact Statement, April
2008.
The document analyzes alternatives to resolve management issues, determines
management objectives and actions, and establishes monitoring methods to
facilitate multiple use and sustained yield management for the entire planning
area.
http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/planning/yuma_plan/reports/prmp.html
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan La Paz
County Bureau of Land
Management Yuma and
Lake Havasu Field Office,
no date.
Provides analysis of the wildfire threat in La Paz County and a mitigation plan to
lower the threat from wildfire to the identified communities.
http://www.azsf.az.gov/UserFiles/PDF/LaPazDesertCWPP.pdf
State Studies and Plans
Arizona Framework
Studies, ADOT, On-going.
A consortium of State, regional, and local stakeholders is working on the planning
process Building a Quality Arizona for State transportation infrastructure needs.
As part of this process, Regional Framework Studies will feed into the Statewide
Transportation Planning Framework. The Framework studies are long-range
visionary plans focusing on transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
http://www.bqaz.gov/weaz.asp
Western Regional
Framework Study.
Working Paper: Existing
and Future Conditions,
ADOT, April 2008.
A consortium of State, regional, and local stakeholders is working on the planning
process Building a Quality Arizona for State transportation infrastructure needs.
As part of this process, Regional Framework Studies will feed into the Statewide
Transportation Planning Framework. The Framework studies are long-range
visionary plans focusing on transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
The Western Arizona Region includes Mohave, La Paz, and Yuma Counties.
Products completed to data include: Working Paper 2: Existing Conditions,
Community Workshops, Round 1, March/April 2008. Working Paper 2 compiles
an inventory and analysis of the Existing and Future Conditions gathered from
previous and current studies. Work has also been accomplished on population
and employment forecasts and the development of a Statewide travel demand
model.
2003 Arizona Climbing
Lanes and Passing Lane
Prioritization, ADOT,
May 2004.
This study identifies and prioritizes climbing lane and passing lane projects to be
considered on State highways for the ADOT Five-Year Transportation Facilities
Construction Program.
I-10 National Freight
Study, May 2003.
A joint effort by eight state Departments of Transportation including Arizona with
the purpose to analyze current and projected freight movements and develop a
strategy for improving freight flow along the Interstate 10 (I-10) Corridor.
Arizona Access
Management Study,
ADOT, On-going.
ADOT is conducting a Statewide Access Management study to develop an access
management classification system for the State Highways, and to develop a
comprehensive access management manual to guide access management on State
highways. Access levels will be assigned to State highways throughout the State.
http://mpd.azdot.gov/planning/accessmgt.php
Arizona Statewide Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan,
ADOT, August 2003.
The Arizona Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan provides a long-term plan for
a Statewide system of interconnected bicycle facilities that will guide ADOT
transportation decisions relating to bicycle and pedestrian travel, planning, and
facility development.
The Western Arizona
Framework Study is
summarized in detail in
the La Paz PARA
Working Paper 1.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 9
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF STUDIES AND PLANS (Continued)
Study Description
Arizona Transit Needs
Study, ADOT, May 2008.
ADOT worked with State, regional, and local stakeholders to identify rural transit
needs and to develop regionally-based solutions to rural public transportation in
Arizona. The Study establishes Arizona’s long-term strategic direction of rural
transit service provision.
http://mpd.azdot.gov/transit/ArizonaRuralTransitNeedsStudy.asp
Arizona Rail Framework
Study, ADOT, April
2008.
The Statewide Rail Framework Study will describe a rail development program
and investment strategy for the State of Arizona to promote the development of an
efficient, multimodal transportation system for people and goods. The Study will
address rail transportation needs across Arizona considering existing conditions
and estimated future needs for both freight rail and passenger rail.
http://www.bqaz.gov/PDF/Rail_Framework_Summary.pdf
Multimodal Freight
Analysis Study, ADOT,
November 2007.
Describes and evaluates Arizona’s existing freight infrastructure, including the
highways and rail lines that traverse the La Paz area. The Study identifies unmet
needs and recommends projects for improving the efficiency of the movement,
collection, and distribution of freight.
http://mpd.azdot.gov/planning/freightstudy.php
Arizona Statewide
Railroad Inventory and
Assessment, ADOT,
March 2007.
A comprehensive review of existing railroad fixed plant, facilities, and
operations.
State Transportation Board
Policies, ADOT, Rev.
2003.
Presents policies pertaining to the following areas; priority programs;
establishing, altering or vacating highways; construction contracts, accelerated
funding mechanisms; local government airport grants; and designating scenic or
historic highways.
State of Arizona Rail
Safety & Security
Resource Guide, ADOT,
November 2007.
This plan focuses on targeted areas of railroad safety with emphasis on specific
needs identified by the “USDOT Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass
Prevention Action Plan” developed by the United States Department of
Transportation. The purpose of the plan is to establish and provide actions that
continue to allow rail transportation, within and through Arizona, to be efficient,
safe and secure.
http://mpd.azdot.gov/transit/PDF/AzRailSafetySecurity_1107.pdf
Hazardous Materials
Commodity Flow Study
Report: I-10 Corridor
from SR 85 to California,
Arterial Highways and
Railroads, Maricopa and
La Paz Counties, Arizona,
Arizona State Emergency
Response Commission
Arizona Division of
Emergency Management,
December 2008.
This study focused on the transportation of hazardous materials along Interstate 10
(I-10) from State Route (SR) 85 to the Arizona/California border, arterial
highways, and two railroads. Arterials highways within the Study Area include
SR 85, US Highway (US) 60, SR 72, and SR 95. The railroads along the corridor
include the Arizona & California Railroad (ARZC) and the Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR).
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 10
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF STUDIES AND PLANS (Continued)
Study Description
Local Studies and Plans
La Paz County
Comprehensive Plan, May
2005.
The La Paz County Comprehensive Plan, May 2005 is the overall countywide
plan for development in La Paz County. The plan includes three elements: land
use, environment, and multimodal transportation. The Land Use Element
provides the proposed general distribution, location, and extent of land for
housing, business, industry, public facilities, and open space. The Environmental
Element identifies environmental issues and provides strategies to preserve and
enhance the natural environment. The Multimodal Transportation Element
identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed roadways as
well as other forms of transportation including transit.
Transportation Goals
Goal 1: Develop a system of County roads and State highways to safely and
conveniently serve residents, businesses, and visitors.
Goal 2: Develop a multimodal transportation system
Goal 3: Develop La Paz County rail, trucking, and aviation facilities Multimodal
Transportation Plan
The Multimodal Transportation Element provides an efficient transportation
system that moves people and goods throughout La Paz County and supports the
current and projected land use in the General Plan. The Element outlines goals
and policies guiding development of a comprehensive circulation system
supporting findings of the Land Use Element.
Town of Quartzsite
General Plan, 2003.
The Quartzsite General Plan is the long-range and visionary plan providing
guidance to where Quartzsite wants to be in the future. The plan is comprised of
the following elements:
• Land Use • Circulation
• Open Space • Growth areas
• Conservation and Environment Element • Cost of Development Element
Transportation Goals
Goal: Achieve a coordinated transportation program to provide a safe and
efficient roadway system for transportation of personal and commercial
vehicles in cooperation with the County and other governmental agencies.
Goal: Improve internal circulation through design and construction of a collector
street and local street feeder system into the Town’s major arterials.
Goal: Coordinate Main Street corridor facility improvements into the Town’s
land use pattern and, thereby, into the local economic development
strategy.
Goal: Augment the vehicular network of roadways with facilities for visitor and
resident convenience as well as for alternative modes of transportation for
persons of all ages.
The Town of Quartzsite
General Plan is
summarized in detail in
the La Paz
Transportation Planning
Study Working Paper 1.
The La Paz County
Comprehensive Plan is
summarized in detail in
the La Paz
Transportation Planning
Study Working Paper 1.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 11
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF STUDIES AND PLANS (Continued)
Study Description
Traffic Impact Study,
Truck Stop and Motel
NWC I-10 and Vicksburg
Road, March 2005.
Traffic impacts analysis of the proposed development of a truck stop and motel on
an 11-acrea site adjacent to the northwest corner of I-10 and Vicksburg Road.
Major Findings: The 2005 level of service for both the I-10 and Vicksburg Road
intersection and for the site driveways indicated that the operation would be
within acceptable ranges of level of service.
Major Recommendations: No major recommendations to improve the intersection
or roadway.
Initial Traffic Impact
Analysis, Terrible Herbst,
SR 95/California Avenue,
July 20, 2006.
Traffic Impact Analysis of a proposed gasoline service station located at the
corner of Riverside Drive/California Avenue intersection.
Major Findings: The analysis determined that the site and intersection are
anticipated to operate at an adequate level of service during the 2007 weekday
peak hours with the project.
Major Recommendations: No roadway or intersection improvements were
recommended.
The Arizona Travel Plaza
Traffic Impact Study, La
Paz County, July 2006.
Analyzes the traffic impacts of the proposed commercial development located on
the northwest corner of Ehrenberg Poston Highway and North Frontage Road in
Ehrenberg, Arizona. The proposed site will take access from the North Frontage
Road south of the site, and Ehrenberg Parker Highway (Old Highway) west of the
site. The main route to distribute traffic to the surround area is through Interstate
10.
Major Recommendations:
Year 2010, without construction of the Arizona Travel Plaza:
- The westbound and eastbound off ramps are widened to provide separate
right- and left-turn lanes.
Year 2010, with full construction of the Arizona Travel Plaza:
- The westbound and eastbound off ramps are widened to provide separate right
and left turn lanes.
- Widen North Frontage Road to four (4) lanes adjacent to the site.
- Realign the North Frontage Road/Ehrenberg Poston Highway intersection so
that the North Frontage Road is the through road and the Ehrenberg Poston
Highway is the north leg of the “T” intersection. Northbound traffic from the
interchange can continue through to northbound Ehrenberg Poston Highway
by a channelized right turn movement. The second eastbound lane on North
Frontage Road becomes an exclusive right-turn lane onto the westbound I-10
on-ramp.
Year 2015 with or without the site development:
- Widen the overpass over I-10 to include one through lane and one left turn
lane in each direction (four lanes total).
- Traffic signals at I-10 eastbound ramp junction.
Year2015, without the full development of the Arizona Travel Plaza:
- Traffic signal at the I-10 westbound ramp junction. This is due to a different
traffic pattern in the no-build case, requiring signalizing both ramp junctions.
Year 2020 with full development of the Arizona Travel Plaza:
- A right turn deceleration lane on North Frontage Road westbound at the first
driveway (Access A).
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 12
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF STUDIES AND PLANS (Continued)
Study Description
Petro Shopping Centers,
LP Development,
Quartzsite, Arizona,
December 2007.
Traffic Impact Analysis Report to the proposed auto/truck travel center located
southeast of the I-10/Quartzsite Blvd Interchange.
Major Findings: The study area will require mitigation to maintain level of
service D or better at several study intersections.
Major Recommendations: Signalize the interchange intersections at the east and
westbound ramps. Add a southbound right-turn lane at the Quartzsite Blvd/WB
ramp. Add a right-turn lane on the westbound exist ramp at Quartzsite Blvd.
Extend the right-turn-storage on the eastbound exit ramp. Widen Quartzsite Blvd
between the eastbound ramps and frontage road (Dome Rock Road/Kuehn Street)
to provide left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane. Add a westbound
right-turn lane at the Quartzsite Blvd frontage road intersection. Widen
Quartzsite Blvd south of the frontage road to provide a left-turn bay and two-way
left-turn lane and a right-run lane. A center-turn lane should be provided the
length of the site.
Town of Parker General
Plan, January 2008.
The Town of Parker General Plan serves as a policy guide for future development
in the Town of Parker. The Plan states that it is intended to be both long range
and visionary and aims to provide guidance for desired future growth through the
year 2025. The Plan is comprised of vision and themes, existing conditions, a
land use element, a transportation element, and an implementation plan.
Transportation Goals
Goal 1: Provide a safe and efficient transportation system within the Town of
Parker.
Goal 2: Provide for and encourage the use of non-vehicular modes of circulation.
Traffic Impact Statement,
Bella La Paz Residential
Development, March
2008.
Analysis of traffic impacts of a proposed 500 unit single family residential
development located adjacent to the southwest side of SR 72 south of 69th Street.
Major Findings: Traffic operating conditions in 2008 through 2016 with the
project critical traffic movements will be within the acceptable ranges of level of
service. No additional through traffic lanes are needed on SR 72 and no auxiliary
right-turn lanes are needed at the intersection of SR 72 and 69th Street.
Major Recommendations: A left-turn lane on northwest bound SR 72 and 69th
Street is warranted and should be constructed.
Wal-Mart Supercenter
Parker, Arizona, Traffic
Impact Analysis, February
2006.
Addendum #1, April 17,
2006. Addendum #2,
June 21, 2006.
Analyzes the traffic impacts of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter located at the
southwest corner of Airport Road and SR 95 in Parker, Arizona.
Major Findings: All study intersections were projected to operate at level of
service C or better for the 2007 and 2012 plus site conditions with minor
mitigations.
Major Recommendations: All project driveways along SR 95 were
recommended to be restricted for right-in/right-out traffic movements only. Dual
left-turn lanes on the south leg and dual left-run lanes and an exclusive right turn
lane on the north leg of SR 95 and Airport Road were recommended. An
exclusive left-turn lane, one through travel and an exclusive right-turn lane were
recommended on the west leg of SR 95/Airport Road intersection.
The Town of Parker
General Plan is
summarized in detail in
the La Paz
Transportation Planning
Study Working Paper 1.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 13
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF STUDIES AND PLANS (Continued)
Study Description
Quartzsite Park Place
Travel Center Traffic
Impact Analysis Report,
November 2006.
Traffic Impact Analysis of a proposed gasoline service station and travel center
located at the corner of Riggles Avenue/Mockingbird Street intersection.
Major Findings: The study determined that Riggles Avenue and Mockingbird
Street intersection will operate at acceptable level of service under year 2008
project conditions.
Major Recommendations: The construction of a two-way center left-turn lane
and stop signs at project driveways would enhance traffic safety and traffic flow.
The project should build curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the project’s frontage
area.
Bill’s Ghost Travel
Center, Traffic Impact
Analysis Report, May
2009.
Traffic Impact Analysis of a proposed gasoline service station located at the
corner of West Main Street/Main Event Way intersection.
Major Findings: The study determined that the West Main Street and Main
Event Way intersection will operate at acceptable level of service under year 2009
project conditions.
Major Recommendations: The construction of a two-way center left-turn lane
and stop signs at project driveways would enhance traffic safety and traffic flow.
The northbound lane at Quartzsite Boulevard and Main Street should be
reconstructed to an exclusive left-turn and a shared right/through lane. The
eastbound approach at Quartzsite Boulevard and Main Street should be
reconstructed to an exclusive right-turn and a shared through/left left.
Interstate 10 Ehrenberg
Area Traffic Impact
Study, Revised August 14,
2007.
Analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed Arizona travel Plaza and several other
proposed residential and commercial developments located near the I-
10/Ehrenberg Poston Highway traffic interchange. New developments include:
Arizona Travel Plaza, located on the North Frontage Road; Emerald Springs,
located north of Comber Road and west of Sourdough Road; River Bend Estates,
located south of Comber Rd, and west of Sourdough Rd.; and Rio Laguna,
located north and south of Ehrenberg Road, at Ehrenberg Poston Highway.
Major Recommendations: Year 2010 with Arizona Travel Plaza - Reconstruct
I-10 Poston Road traffic interchange to include a roundabout at the north ramp
junction. Construct a WB right-turn lane on the North Frontage Road at Access
B, the auto entry.
Year 2010 with Development – Reconstruct Parker Ehrenberg Highway/Poston
Road intersection to be a roundabout.
Year 2015 with Development – Widen North Frontage Road to four lanes from
Poston Road to Old Highway. Widen Poston Road to four lanes from I-10 North
roundabout to the roundabout at Parker Ehrenberg Highway. Construct a
roundabout on the south side of I-10 at the I-10 Ramp Junction and South
Frontage Road. Widen Parker Ehrenberg Highway to four lanes with center
median or turn lane from the roundabout at Poston Road to Sourdough Road.
Widen Sourdough Road to four lanes from Parker Ehrenberg Highway to Comber
Blvd. Construct a connection from Rio Laguna to Poston Road located about 500
feet south of the roundabout entrance at Parker Ehrenberg Highway. Install all
way stop sign control at Sourdough Road/Comber Road.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 14
STATEWIDE, REGIONAL, LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
Transportation improvement programs were reviewed for State, regional, and local
jurisdictions to identify programmed projects, project description and type, and project cost.
Tables 2-2 through 2-7 present the following transportation improvement program committed
projects:
• La Paz County Transportation Investment Strategy. A Statewide investment strategy
was prepared by ADOT, COGS, local governments, and counties to identify
preliminary 2030 State, regional, and local multimodal needs (Table 2-2).
• ADOT Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program (Table 2-3).
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - The Arizona Transportation State Board
approved highway projects in La Paz County as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment (Table 2-4).
• Western Arizona Association of Governments (Table 2-5).
• ADOT YUMA District Projects and Studies (Table 2-6).
• ADOT Avi Suquilla Airport Projects (Table 2-7).
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 15
TABLE 2-2. LA PAZ COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Project/
Program
Project/Program Description Estimated Cost
Strategic Highway Projects
US 95 Improvements
35
US 95: Widen to 4-lane from the County Line to the County
Line
Transportation benefits
accrue to Yuma County
Strategic Highway Project Total 0
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Programs
Public Transit Projects and Programs
66 Connecting communities bus transit program $10,000,000
67 Enhancing public transportation programs $3,264,772
68
Transit serving elderly, person with disabilities and tribal
populations in rural areas
$924,711
69 Statewide vanpool and rideshare programs $1,313,977
70 Transit/rail planning, marketing and other related programs $105,118
Strategic Rail and Transit Projects and Program Total $15,608,578
Local Mobility Projects and Programs
La Paz County $48,267,129
Parker $13,731,386
Quartzsite $15,071,034
Colorado River Indian Tribes $7,541,727
Local Mobility Projects and Program Totals $84,611,276
Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikeable Communities
La Paz County $1,909,940
Parker $915,343
Quartzsite $1,004,644
Colorado River Indian Tribes $2,083,476
Transportation Enhancement and Walkable/Bikable
Communities Total
$5,913,403
La Paz County Total $106,133,257
Source: www.AZDOt.GOV/Statewide_Transportation_Investment_Strategy/pdf/LaPaz-61908.pdf
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 16
TABLE 2-3. ADOT FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, LA PAZ COUNTY
FY 2010 – FY 2014 (Dollars in Thousands)
Route BMP Type of Work FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Summary
60 0 State Parks Roads Construct Parking $0 $800 0 0 $800
10 3 Reconstruct Ehrenberg Port of Entry
Statewide Pavement Preservation
$11,000
$1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
$11,000
1,000
Total $12,000 $800 0 0 $12,800
Source: Arizona Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, FY 2009-FY 2013
TABLE 2-4. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT PRIORITIZED LIST OF PROJECTS,
LA PAZ COUNTY
Priority Route BMP EMP Project Name Type of Work Programmed Cost
6 95 63.0 80.0 Peligro-Clarks Pavement Preservation
Estimated Construction completion by 5/2010
No $8,600,000
27 95 128.93 131.3 Passing Lanes South of Bouse
Wash
Construct Passing Lanes
Construction complete as of 11/6/09
Yes $1,600,000
Source: Arizona State Transportation Board, March 13, 2009
Note: Includes re-lining along US 95 from Quartzsite south
TABLE 2-5. WESTERN ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM,
LA PAZ COUNTY
Year Sponsor
Project
Location
Length
Miles Type of Work
Functional
Class
Lanes
Before
Lanes
After
Fed Aid
Type
Federal
Funds
Local
Match Total Cost
5-Yr Local Construction Program
2013 La Paz Alamo Road Guard Rail
Repl.
Major Collector 2 2 STP/HURF $162,500 $16,250 $178,750
WACOG Bridge Replacement Program
2009 La Paz Cibola Bridge
B#10221
0.1 Reconstruction 2 2 Bridge $1,000,000 $1,600,000
Source: Arizona Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, FY 2010 - 2013
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 17
TABLE 2-6. ADOT YUMA DISTRICT PROJECTS AND STUDIES
Route Project/Study Anticipated Schedule
Construction
US 60 Re-surfacing from I-10 to Vicksburg Road Under Construction
I-10 Spot Repair from MP 30 to MP 44 Waiting Award
Under Design
SR 95 SR 95 replace Colorado River bridge at Parker During FY 10
SR 95 Add center turn lane and drainage improvements on SR 95 at Holiday Harbour During FY 10
US 95 Re-surfacing US 95 from MP 96 to MP 104 During FY 11
US 95 Intersection improvements (turning lanes) on US 95 at MP 82 and MP 89 During FY 11
SR 95 Shoulder widening along SR 95 between MP 131.7 and MP 142. No later than FY 11
SR 95 Intersection improvements on SR 95 at MP 160.9 When funded by US Fish and
Wildlife Service
I-10 Replace Oxbow bridge; new port of entry at Ehrenberg on I-10 During FY 10
I-10 Gateway signage in Quartzsite on I-10, US 95 and SR 95 During FY 11
US 60 Intersection improvement with roundabout on US 60 at Vicksburg Road During FY 10
SR 72 Shoulder widening on SR 72 between MP 13 and MP 14 No later than FY 11
Studies
US 95 US 95 from MP 42 to MP 80 to improve road to all-weather 4-lane road from
MP 42 to MP 63 and pavement preservation (re-surfacing) MP 63 to MP 80
To be built next 20 years
Source: ADOT Yuma District
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 18
TABLE 2-7. AVI SUQUILLA AIRPORT PROGRAMMED PROJECTS
FY Project Component Project Description State Share Local Share
Federal
Share
Project
Total
2011 Apron: Rehabilitate Apron -
Reconstruction
Reconstruct 5,000 sy of apron west and
south of Maintenance Hangar and
pavement preservation (seal cracks and
seal or thin overlay of 57,000 sy GA
Apron and T-Hangar Taxi lanes
constructed in 2002 and the mid 90's.
$15,000 $15,000 $570,000 $600,000
2011 Other:<Construct/Improve/Repair>
<Fuel Farm/Utilities> [MAP] - Other
Construct 5,000 lf fire line to provide
ramp area fire protection. Construct
sewer, storm drainage and other utilities,
reconstruct 8,000 sy access road and
11,000 sy GA public parking.
$52,500 $52,500 $1,995,000 $2,100,000
2012 Taxiways:<Extend/Widen/Strengthen>
Taxiway Standards
Completion of Rwy 1-19 parallel twy
approximately 4,800' x 50' including
MITL and Guidance Signs required to
meet FAA Standards and allows Exit twy
A2 to be reconfigured or eliminated.
$51,250 $51,250 $1,947,500 $2,050,000
2013 Apron:Expand Apron - Capacity Reconstruction and new construction of
about 28,000 sy of asphalt concrete
paved GA apron area including storm
drainage improvements.
$45,000 $45,000 $1,710,000 $1,800,000
2014 Ground Transportation
construct/Expand/Improve/Modify/
Rehabilitate>Service Road - Other
Pave perimeter road with aggregate base
and asphalt concrete pavement 16' wide,
approximately 42,000 sy of pavement,
extend culverts.
$37,500 $37,500 $1,425,000 $1,500,000
2015 Taxiways :Extend Taxiway - Capacity Extend three taxi lanes approximately
400' x 75' each for T-Hangar or
corporate hangar development.
$15,000 $15,000 $570,000 $600,000
Airport Total $216,250 $216,250 $8,217,500 $8,650,000
County Total $216,250 $216,250 $8,217,500 $8,650,000
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division, www.azdot.gov/MPD/airport_development/PDF/ACIP_2011_2015_april.pdf
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 19
3. CURRENT CONDITIONS
This chapter presents an inventory and analysis of current socioeconomic and transportation
conditions and deficiencies in the Study Area. First, the current socioeconomic conditions are
summarized. A discussion of the physical and natural resources follows. Next, the current
road conditions and current traffic and safety conditions are described. The final section
describes the multimodal conditions including rail, transit, freight, and non-motorized modes.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
A description of the current socioeconomic conditions in La Paz County including the current
population of incorporated and non-incorporated areas and demographic characteristics of the
population follows. In addition, current employment conditions are discussed including major
employers, estimated employees by area, and estimated employees by job classification.
La Paz County
La Paz County is located on the western boundary of Arizona along the Colorado River
between the rapidly growing metropolitan areas of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and southern
California with rail and interstate highway access. The County is bordered by Maricopa
County on the east, Yuma County to the south, and Mohave County to the north separated by
the Bill Williams River, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties are across the
Colorado River to the west in the State of California.
The County is 4,518 square miles in area and is the third smallest County in Arizona with the
lowest population density of slightly more than four persons per square mile. La Paz County
has over 100 miles of frontage on the Colorado River with nearly half of that in the CRIT
Reservation.
As noted in the La Paz County Comprehensive Plan, the County���s land area is characterized
by sandy beaches, rugged mountains, open desert, and vast agricultural lands. The Plan also
notes that many of these areas are adjacent to each other with shear cliffs rising from the
Colorado River channel and irrigated farmland abutting open desert.
The County’s access to River recreation, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges are an
attraction to thousands of annual visitors placing tourism as the top industry. Agriculture is
the next largest economic sector in the County.
Mining and prospecting for gold and other minerals along with hunting for gems are
significant activities drawing people to La Paz County. Prospecting and searching for gems
range from serious business endeavors to recreational hobbies. Residents and visitors use the
State Highway, County, and local road system as well as off-highway trails to access remote
areas for these activities.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 20
The Town of Quartzsite and Town of Parker are the two primary communities in the County.
Communities along the River include Ehrenberg, Cibola, and Parker Strip. Other
communities in the County are Bouse, Brenda, Harcuvar, Hope, Poston, Quartzsite, Salome,
Vicksburg, and Wenden.
The La Paz County Comprehensive Plan identified several “Growth Areas” that are
anticipated for future development. These areas include:
• Quartzsite has the land base and a significant amount of privately-held land within its
incorporated boundaries to support development. The Town has aggressively taken
steps to develop its water and wastewater systems and other infrastructure to
accommodate future development.
• Parker South is located just over 10 miles south of the original townsite. This area is
considered within the Town of Parker’s municipal limits though separated by the CRIT
Reservation. The Town of Parker has invested significant infrastructure development
resources in anticipation of and to encourage a full range of land uses.
• The Salome-Wenden area, Cibola, Brenda, and the Parker Strip are also anticipated to
grow as privately-held land is abundant in these areas.
• Ehrenberg also has growth potential based on its strategic location on the California
border and excellent transportation access. Lack of privately-held land in Ehrenberg
could hinder growth, but there are significant holdings of State highway lands in the
vicinity that could accommodate new development should the market warrant.
• Bouse is also an area where growth can be expected. The community consists of
mostly privately-held land with several miles of frontage along SR 72. The area is
anticipated to continue to attract residential and neighborhood-type commercial
development.
Town of Parker
The Town of Parker is located along the east bank of the Colorado River in the northern
corner of the Colorado River Indian Community. Situated on a Mesa, the Town is at an
elevation of approximately 450 feet above sea level and is within the Sonora Desert. East of
the community are the Gibraltar Mountains and the Whipple and Riverside Mountains are
north and southwest of the Town, respectively. The Town is a one square mile area and
includes an annexed area of 13,000 acres of non-contiguous land ten miles south, known as
Parker South. In total, the Parker “Area” includes the following:
• Town of Parker
• Parker South
• Parker Valley
• Parker Strip
• Communities of Earp, Parker Dam, and Big River on the California side of the river
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 21
The Town was laid out as a grid street system with a railroad through center of town to serve
as a depot and watering station and shipping station. As the County Seat for La Paz County,
the Town is the prime location of government employees and services. More recently, the
Parker area economy has transitioned from one based on agriculture and mining industries to a
more service-oriented economy catering to tourists and visitors seeking hunting, fishing, and
water recreation opportunities.
Parker Strip
The 16-mile Parker Strip Area in the northwest portion of the La Paz County resembles a
“beach town.” The popularity of the Parker Strip is due to its location along the Colorado
River and the fact that the land is mostly privately-held between Federal, State, and local
agencies. As a result of this popularity, the Parker Strip has developed at higher densities than
communities in the County’s unincorporated areas.
The Strip is a mix of full time residences, vacation homes, small commercial businesses,
eating and drinking establishments, and boating and recreational related industrial operations.
Currently, some redevelopment is occurring on various properties. Construction includes
some large higher priced single family homes.
Considerable tourism activities are frequent along the Parker Strip with the number of visitors
and recreational users increasing significantly on summer weekends.
Town of Quartzsite
The Town of Quartzsite is located in the Sonoran Desert approximately 31 miles from the
Colorado River along Interstate 10 and US 95. Approximately 3,354 persons were full time
residents as measured by the 2000 Census.’
The major contributor to Quartzsite’s economy is tourism. Travelers stop in the area for food,
lodging, fueling, and shopping. In the winter months, the Town provides retail and other
services to visitors residing at the many mobile home parks in the vicinity. Over one million
and a half people are attracted annually to the major gem, mineral, and general swap-meeting
shows representing thousands of vendors.
Colorado River Indian Tribes
The CRIT is composed of about 3,500 members from four Tribes: Mohave, Chemehuevi,
Hopi, and Navajo. The 270,000 acre CRIT Reservation traverses both the Arizona and
California sides of the Colorado River. The Town of Parker is the primary community in the
CRIT Reservation. The Town is located on a combination of Tribal land—leased land that is
owned by CRIT, and land owned by non-Native Americans.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 22
The Reservation includes other communities such as Poston, located 10 miles south of Parker.
Poston was the site in World War II of one of the United States' largest Japanese internment
camps now home to the Poston Monument, a monument to the Japanese internees.
The primary economic activity on the CRIT Reservation is agriculture including growing
cotton, alfalfa, and sorghum. However, the Tribal economy has grown and diversified and
includes the following:
• Sand and gravel operations
• Real estate development and retail stores
• The Blue Water Resort and Casino in Parker attracting both cultural and recreational
tourists to the area
Attractions within the CRIT include the Ahakhav Preserve and CRIT Museum.
POPULATION
Table 3-1 presents demographic data from the US 2000 Census for incorporated towns, Civil
Designated Places (CDPs), and other unincorporated areas. Table 3-2 shows the estimated
changes in population from the year 2000 as reported by the US census to 2007 as reported by
the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES). Table 3-3 presents a demographic
summary as reported by the US 2000 Census.
TABLE 3-1. YEAR 2000 POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS
Area Population
Dwelling
Units
Occupied
Dwelling Units
Arizona 5,130,632 2,189,189 1,901,327
La Paz County 19,715 15,133 8,362
Parker Strip CDP 3,302 4,925 1,589
Bluewater CDP 730 537 337
Parker Town 3,140 1,157 1,064
Salome CDP 1,690 1,176 780
Wenden CDP 556 309 207
Bouse CDP 615 562 320
Poston CDP 389 110 101
Quartzsite Town 3,354 3,186 1,850
Ehrenberg CDP 1,357 824 545
Cibola CDP 172 161 65
Municipality Totals 15,305 12,947 6,858
Estimated La Paz Non Municipality Totals 4,410 2,186 1,504
Source: US Census 2000
CDP – Civil Designated Place
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 23
TABLE 3-2. CHANGES IN POPULATION
Area
DES Estimate
July 1, 2007
US Census
4/1/2000
Change
Percent
Change
Arizona 6,500,194 5,130,632 1,369,592 26.7%
La Paz County 21,529 19,715 1,814 9.20%
Parker Town 3,401 3,140 261 8.31%
Quartzsite Town 3,671 3,354 317 9.45%
Unincorporated Areas 14,457 13,221 1,236 9.35%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, US Census 2000
TABLE 3-3. DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Area
Total
Population
Aged 65
and Over
Minority
Below
Poverty
Mobility
Limited
Arizona 5,130,632 653,778 1,856,374 698,669 902,252
La Paz County 19,715 5,088 7,142 3,798 3,058
Town of Parker 3,140 296 1,713 460 678
Town of Quartzsite 3,354 1,843 185 457 356
Source: US Census 2000, Lima & Associates
Environmental Justice (Title VI) Populations
Environmental justice was established as a federal government priority in 1994 with the
issuance of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. In addition, to minority and low income
populations, this Study addresses both elderly (Aged 65 and older), and mobility-limited
populations. Environmental justice issues related to transportation in La Paz County have
been addressed through this Study in the following manner.
• This section presents US Census data that describes the population living within
geographic areas that could be affected by proposed transportation improvements.
• The draft transportation plan includes an analysis of whether the recommended projects
may differentially affect Environmental Justice Populations. This Study examines
potential effects, both positive and negative, that these projects may have on minority,
low-income populations, mobility-limited, and elderly populations. If any of the
potential projects place a disproportionate burden on minority or low-income
populations, the Study explains the considerations that dictated this recommendation
over alternative actions.
• The public involvement activities made a concerted effort to reach minority and low-income
populations when conducting the Study’s public meetings.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 24
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Minorities Age 65 and Over Mobility Limits
(Age 16-64)
Below Poverty
Line
Arizona
La Paz
County
Figure 3-1 compares the percentages of Title VI populations in the Study Area with those
Statewide.
FIGURE 3-1. COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF TITLE VI POPULATIONS
EMPLOYMENT
Employment information was obtained from a comprehensive commercial database provided
by InfoUSA that includes 14 Million U.S. Businesses. The number of employees by area
within the County is presented in Table 3-4.
TABLE 3-4. 2008 EMPLOYEES BY AREA, LA PAZ COUNTY
Area Total Employees
Bouse CDP 123
Cibola CDP 26
Ehrenberg CDP 534
Parker Area 6,270
Poston CDP 70
Quartzsite Town 2017
Salome CDP 627
Wenden CDP 131
Total 9,798
Source: InfoUSA Employment Database, February 2009
CDP – Census Designated Place
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 25
57.81%
8.58%
5.11%
13.73%
14.77%
BLM
State Trust, Wildlife, Local and State Parks, and Other
Military
Colorado River Indian Tribes
Private
Approximately 9,800 people are employed in La Paz County. Major employers in the Study
Area include the Blue Water Resort and Casino, and Safeway and Bashas’ grocery stores in
the Parker area, Quartzsite Senior Citizens and Tri-State Care Flight in Quartzsite, and the
Flying J Travel Plaza in Ehrenberg. Area schools and government agencies are also
significant employers. The Parker area has the highest number of employees, approximately
6,300 and includes the three largest employers. The service industry employs the highest
percentage of employees.
LAND USE
The allocation of land ownership in the County is graphically summarized in Figure 3-2 and
illustrated in Figure 3-3. Only about five percent of the land in the County is privately owned
and approximately 86 percent is owned by federal, State agencies, and local agencies. The
Bureau of Land Management is the largest land owner in the County, owning and managing
approximately 58 percent of the land in the County. The CRIT owns approximately 9 percent
of the land.
General land use in the Study Area is shown in Figure 3-4 and major activity centers
throughout the Area are shown in Figure 3-5.
FIGURE 3-2. PERCENT OF TOTAL LAND BY OWNER
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 26
FIGURE 3-3. LAND OWNERSHIP
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 27
FIGURE 3-4. LAND USE
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 28
FIGURE 3-5. ACTIVITY CENTERS
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 29
La Paz County Parks
La Paz County’s system of parks includes the following (La Paz County Comprehensive Plan):
• La Paz County Park is located north of Parker on the west side of SR 95. The park has
camping facilities, boat access to the Colorado River, one-mile of River Frontage. The
park is adjacent to County-owned Emerald Canyon Golf Course, which is open to the
public.
• Bouse Community Park is located south of SR 72 in Bouse on Plomosa Road,
sometimes referred to as Quartzsite Scenic Route. The park includes 25 dry camping
sites and 15 with water available. Day use facilities are also available.
• Ehrenberg Community Park is located in Ehrenberg on Parker/Poston Road. The park
is a partnership between La Paz County and the Ehrenberg Improvement Association.
The park offers day use facilities.
• Cibola Historic Park is located on Baseline Road of Highway 78 south of Cibola and
adjacent to the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. The park offers day use facilities.
• Patria Flats Park is located adjacent to the Parker Strip on the Colorado River. The
park offers day use facilities including boating amenities.
• Centennial Community Park is located just off US 60 between Salome and Wenden.
The park contains 26 dry camp sites and day use and recreational facilities.
Arizona State Parks
Alamo Lake State Park is located in the northeast portion of the County along the northern
border of the County. Alamo Lake is located on the Bill Williams River where the Big Sandy
River and Santa Maria River come together. The Lake was created with the completion of
Alamo Dam in 1968. The environment around the lake consists of desert and mountainous
landscape. The Park is popular for outdoor fun and is known for premier bass fishing and a
variety of wild flowers and wildlife including bald and golden eagles, waterfowl, foxes,
coyotes, and mule deer. Wild burros also roam the area.
Buckskin Mountain State Park is located between the Colorado River and SR 95
approximately 12 miles northeast of the Town of Parker. The Park offers scenic views of the
River and Mountains along the Parker Strip. Park amenities include a campground, cabanas,
boat ramp, picnic area, basketball and volleyball court, playground, restaurant, camp store,
arcade, gas dock, and ranger station. The Park has 68 RV sites with water and electric.
River Island State Park a few miles north on SR 95—has 37 sites.
PHYSICAL, NATURAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
La Paz County is in the north-central portion of the Sonoran Desert with characteristics
ranging from very arid to lush desert. This chapter discusses the County’s rich natural and
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 30
cultural resources. Transportation planning for the County must recognize the importance of
preserving these resources as well as provide access to them where needed.
Figure 3-6 presents an environmental overview of the County showing rivers and streams,
lakes, wilderness areas, and mountain ranges. Mountain ranges include the Gibraltar
Mountains, Rawhide Mountains, Arrastra Mountains, Harcuvar Mountains, Harquahala
Mountains, Eagletail Mountains, New Water Mountains, and Trigo Mountains. Elevations in
the County range from 5,691 feet at Harquahala Peak on the far eastern edge of the County to
just a few hundred feet above sea level at the Colorado River. The County includes fourteen
designated Wilderness Areas and Wildlife Refuges. In addition, the southwestern part of the
County includes the northern portion of the Yuma Proving Grounds owned and operated by
the United States Military.
Wildlife
Wildlife is abundant in La Paz County. The warm climate, water resources, and topography
provide a unique habitat for wildlife. Big game species include desert bighorn sheep, mule
deer and javelina. Desert bighorn sheep are found in the mountainous areas. However,
mining, habitat encroachment, disease, and road construction have depleted much of the
bighorn sheep populations in the area. The most commonly sighted of the big game species
are Mule deer that inhabit the densely vegetated desert washes, bajadas, and foothills. Bajadas
are shallow slopes that accumulate material from the weathering of rocks, retaining water and
supporting vegetation. A small population of javelina inhabits the Plomosa Mountains.
Small game species found throughout the area include Gambel’s quail, white-winged dove,
mourning dove, and desert cotton-tail rabbit. Furbearers include bobcat, ring-tailed cat, kit
fox, and coyote. Other wildlife species found in the County include Merriam’s kangaroo rat,
several species of pocket mouse, white-throated woodrat, black-tailed jackrabbit, and Harris’
antelope squirrel. Common bird species are black-throated sparrow, cactus wren, greater
roadrunner, Gila woodpecker, verdin, loggerhead shrike, and black-tailed gnatcatcher.
Reptiles and amphibians include the sidewinder, western diamondback rattlesnake, Sonoran
gopher snake, western whiptail, desert iguana, zebra-tailed lizard, side-blotched lizard, red-spotted
toad, and Great Plains toad.
Wild Burros roam in areas in the County having been first introduced into the Desert
Southwest by Spaniards in the 1500s. Although Wild Burros are not technically classified as
Wildlife, the BLM manages Wild Burros to assure the herd’s free-roaming character, health,
and self-sustaining ability. Figure 3-6 also illustrates Wilderness Areas and Wildlife
corridors. The following wildlife is listed as “Special Status” species in the Study Area:
• Bald eagle • Southwestern willow flycatcher
• Bonytail chub • Yuma clapper rail
• California Brown Pelican • Yellow-billed cuckoo
• Razorback sucker • American peregrine falcon
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 31
FIGURE 3-6. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 32
The Bonytail Chub is an endangered freshwater fish native to parts of Arizona, California,
Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. Critical habitat for this fish is along the Colorado River. The
California Brown Pelican is proposed to be “delisted” and the Yellow-billed Cuckoo is listed
as a “candidate”. Also, the BLM is attempting to have the Sonoran Desert Tortoise placed on
the Endangered Species list. Such a designation could have a significant impact on area
roadway planning and construction.
Federally Designated Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas
La Paz County has fourteen designated refuges and wilderness areas preserved from
development. These are listed in Table 3-5 below and depicted in Figure 3-6.
TABLE 3-5. STUDY AREA ACREAGE OF WILDLIFE REFUGES
AND WILDERNESS AREAS
Refuge Acreage within Study Area
Imperial National Wildlife Refuge 9,216
Trigo Mountains Wilderness 30,300
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 97,826
Cibola National Wildlife Refuge 16,600
Eagletail Mountains Wilderness Area 89,000
East Cactus Plain Wilderness Area 14,630
Swansea Wilderness Area 15,755
Cactus Plain Wilderness Study Area 58,904
Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness Area 18,805
Rawhide Mountains Wilderness Area 41,600
Bill Williams River Area 6,105
Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Area 4,584
Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness Area 3,500
New Water Mountains Wilderness Area 24,644
Source: La Paz County Comprehensive Plan, adopted may 2, 2005,
Wildlife Corridors
To promote wildlife movement, agencies that manage wildlife have identified wildlife
corridors that connect areas of relatively undisturbed land (see Figure 3-6). Wildlife corridors
are important for seasonal migration and to maintain genetic diversity. La Paz County has
multiple wildlife corridors, with most located south of I-10 and in the eastern portion of the
County. Recommended transportation improvements in the La Paz transportation plan must
recognize these corridors.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 33
Biotic Communities
Vegetation in La Paz County ranges from the Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desertscrub to
Upland Sonoran Desertscrub and Interior Chaparral in the higher elevations. Desertscrub
habitats typically are open, scattered assemblages of broadleaved evergreen or deciduous
shrubs such as the Creosotebush. Interior Chaparral shrubs are dwarf evergreen oaks typically
growing at elevations of 4,000 to 5,500 feet. The shrubs are deep-rooted, broad-leaved, and
leathery leaved.
Desert drainages with mixed riparian scrub are located throughout the County and support
stands of desert ironwood, blue palo verde, honey mesquite, smoke tree, and various other
shrubs and grasses. In addition, the sand dunes north of Quartzsite are stabilized and support
endemic species of plants unique to the area.
'Ahakhav Tribal Preserve
The 'Ahakhav Tribal Preserve in the CRIT Reservation is a 1,253 acres wilderness area and a
3.5 acre park. A reconstructed Colorado River backwater offers fishing, canoeing, birding,
and swimming. A 4.6 mile fitness trail is maintained in the preserve. The park includes a
playground and picnic facilities. The preserve offers recreational and learning opportunities to
the surrounding community and visitors. In addition, the preserve is a revegetation area for
endangered and threatened plants and animals native to the Lower Colorado River Basin.
Bureau of Land Management
Land owned by the BLM in La Paz County is managed by Yuma and Lake Havasu Field
Offices. The Lake Havasu Field Office oversees the largest portion of the BLM lands in La
Paz County, nearly 1.3 million acres of public land encompassing more than 140 miles of the
lower Colorado River. The field office boundaries include portions of Arizona's La Paz and
Mohave counties, and California's San Bernardino County. This area includes five wilderness
areas and one wilderness study area. Additionally, the field office manages one Area of
Critical Environmental Concern, one National Scenic Area, and one river segment suitable for
Wild and Scenic River Designation.
The Yuma Field Office manages 1.2 million acres of southwestern Arizona and southeastern
California including 155 miles of the lower Colorado River. The field office oversees four
wilderness areas, along with significant archeological and historic sites. It is home to Juan
Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, one Area of Critical Environmental Concern, five
properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and Betty’s Kitchen National
Recreation Trail.
The lands managed by the Lake Havasu and Yuma Field Offices provide recreation for the
area's 10 million annual visitors enjoying water sports, hiking, biking, camping,
rockhounding, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and off-highway vehicle adventures. During
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 34
winter, the desert becomes a small city as long-term campers escape the northern winter. The
river and desert provide habitat for desert bighorn sheep, and other wildlife, as well as wild
burros and horses.
Resource Management Plans
The BLM has prepared an Approved Lake Havasu District Resource Management Plan and a
Proposed Yuma District Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Yuma District. The plans focus on the following areas:
• Biological Resources Management • Recreation Management
- Soil, Water, Air (Watershed) - Area of Critical Environmental Concern
- Vegetation - Wilderness
- Riparian - Special Designations
- Special Status Species - Back County Byway
- Wildlife and Fisheries - Wild and Scenic Rivers
• Cultural Resource Management • Rangeland Management/Grazing
• Fire Management • Travel Management
• Lands and Realty Program • Visual Resource Management
• Mineral Resources • Wild Burro Management
• Paleontological Resource Management • Wilderness Characteristics
Two BLM facilities have recently opened in the Parker Strip Recreation Area – located south
of Parker Dam, on the California side of the Colorado River. The Rockhouse Visitor Center
and Boat Ramp provides visitors with recreation and other information, scenic views
overlooking the river, and restrooms. Boat launching is free to the public. Also in the Parker
Strip area, the Empire Landing Campground is open. This beach front facility has expanded
and improved the amenities to include 40 RV sites, 16 tent sites, shade ramadas, picnic tables,
BBQ grills, drinking water, hot showers, restrooms, and RV dump station.
The BLM also has prepared the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, La Paz County, January
2008. The plan provides an analysis of the wildfire threat in La Paz County and a mitigation
plan to lower the threat from wildfire to the identified communities. Additionally, the BLM
has developed the La Paz Travel Management Plan and Environmental Assessment that
officially designated 1,700 miles of inventoried roads, trails, and drivable desert washes.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
Archaeological evidence of aboriginal inhabitants is found throughout the County. Sites
include campsites, lithic quarries, lithic scatters, ceramic scatters, sleeping circles, rock
alignments, and trails. Site types include geoglyphs ceremonial sites, roasting pits, hunting
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 35
blinds, pictographs, cremation sites, and historic wagon roads. Lithic refers to stone or rock
materials or tools. Geoglyphs are earth figures or intaglios—large figures, designs, and
pathways drawn into the desert pavement.
Table 3-6 lists cultural sites that are in and around the Town of Quartzsite managed by the
BLM. Table 3-7 presents sites that are on the National Register of Historical Places. Other
places of historic interest include:
• Bradshaw Ferry • Petermans Station
• Tyson's Well Stage Station Museum • Grave of Hi Jolly
• Poston Memorial, CRIT • Parker Dam
• Parker Railroad Station • Bouse Assay Office
• Camp Bouse • 9th Tank Group Memorial
Environmental Concerns
Potential concerns within the Study Area include impacts of waste management and treatment
facilities, leaking underground storage tanks, and mines. Mine locations also pose a safety
concern. Abandoned mine shafts continue to be an area hazard, and there has been one recent
fatality. No inventory of abandoned mines exists.
According to information on the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) web
site, La Paz County and local communities are in attainment of air quality standards.
CURRENT ROAD CONDITIONS
This section presents the current road conditions in La Paz County. Road conditions discussed
include current roadway characteristics, roadway infrastructure conditions, traffic volume
counts, and level of service. Multimodal conditions are discussed in the next chapter including
transit and rail characteristics and characteristics of non-motorized facilities.
Current Roadway Characteristics
This section presents characteristics of the roads in La Paz County including functional
classification, number of lanes, and speed limits.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 36
TABLE 3-6. BLM MANAGED CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES
IN AND AROUND QUARTZSITE
Name Description Significance
Fisherman Intaglio Human-shape figure holding a large
spear with a white quartz point
Popular, Sociocultural
Big Arrow Site Complex geoglyph with two human
figures, a huge arrow, and several other
features
Popular; Sociocultural
Bouse geoglyph Large human-shaped earth figure Scientific
White Cross Small cross and circle made of white
quartz
Scientific
Circle and Arrow Small rock alignment in the form of an
arrow emerging from a circle
Scientific
Tyson Wash Site A complex with many petroglyphs, a
water tank in the wash, and mortar holes
in the rocks
Popular; Sociocultural
Dripping Springs Complex petroglyph site and historic
mining developments at an active seep
Popular; Sociocultural
Tule Springs Site includes petroglyphs and evidence of
mining activity
Scientific; Popular
Lazarus Tanks Group of red pictographs Scientific
North Kofa Site Large site with petroglyphs Scientific; Popular
Black Mesa Southwest Small complex of petroglyphs Scientific
Kegley/Lynch #1 Small complex of petroglyphs Scientific
Bear Hills Site Small petroglyph site with several rock
rigs
Scientific; Popular
Rock Ring “Town” Complex of very large rock rings Scientific; Popular
The Community Center “Big House” area with several huge
cleared areas
Scientific
The Quartzsite Rock
Alignment
Military rock alignment of a large arrow
pointing to Quartzsite
Sociocultural
Military Campsites Training or maneuver sites related to
General Patton’s World War II or 1964
Desert Strike activities
Scientific; Popular
Quartzsite Milling Site A huge milling site on the side of a hill Popular; Sociocultural
Granite Mountain Cabin A small stone mining cabin Scientific; Popular
Spanish Wall A stone wall built to create a drywash
ramp for mining purposes
Popular; Sociocultural
Erdman Mine A unique mining operation Scientific; Popular
Source: Town of Quartzsite General Plan
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 37
TABLE 3-7. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Site
Area of
Significance
Cultural
Affiliation Period of Significance Owner
Eagletail Petroglyph
Site, Hyder
Prehistoric Late Archaic,
Patayan,
Hohokam
1500-1999 BC, 1000-1499
BC, 500-999 BC, 499-0 BC,
499-0 AD, 1000-500 AD,
1499-1000 AD
Federal
Harquahala Mountain
Smithsonian Solar
Observatory Historic
District, Harquahala
Mountain
Science 1900-1924, 1925-1949 Federal
Harquahala Peak
Observatory, E of
Wenden
Science 1900-1924 Federal
Old La Paz,
Ehrenberg
(Laguna de La Paz)
Transportation,
Education, Historic
- Aboriginal
American,
rural, Mojave,
Chemehuevi
1850-1874 Private
Old Presbyterian
Church, SW of Parker
Religion, Historic-
Aboriginal
Mojave 1900-1924 Private
Parker Jail, N side of
Agency Rd. Parker
Politics
/Government
1900-1924 Private
Ripley Intaglios Prehistoric,
Historic-Aboriginal
Yuman 1500-1599, 1600-1649, 1650-
1699, 1700-1749, 1750-1799,
1800-1824, 1825-1849, 1850-
1874
Federal
Source: National Register of Historic Places
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/az/La+Paz/state.html
Functional Classification
A functional classification groups
roads by mobility and access.
Mobility represents the movement of
people and freight from place to
place and access represents the
connection between roadways and
properties along the roadways.
Roads are generally classified into
freeways, arterials, collectors, and
local roads. Figure 3-7 illustrates the
relationship of mobility and access to
the road classification. A freeway,
for example, provides mobility over
long distances with minimal access to
adjoining properties. Arterials
provide a high level of mobility
Increasing Access
Increasing Mobility
Freeways
Arterials
Local Streets
Collectors
FIGURE 3-7. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
MOBILITY VERSUS ACCESS
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 38
serving longer distance trips and provide access to adjacent property. A collector road, on the
other hand, provides both mobility between neighborhoods and commercial areas and access to
these areas from arterials. Local streets provide access to individual homes and businesses
within neighborhoods and commercial areas.
Roadway functional classifications were developed to reflect both urban and rural areas in the
Study Area. Figure 3-8 displays the functional class of each roadway in the Study Area.
Freeways provide high mobility and limit access through traffic interchanges at selected
locations. Adjacent properties do not have access to freeways. Interstate 10 (I-10) is an east-west
freeway through the Study Area which has limited access and carries a large volume of
traffic at high speeds. The interstate facilitates interregional and interstate traffic movements
through the region and facilitates access to the region.
Arterials serve or bypass the primary centers of activity, carry relatively high traffic volumes,
and carry the primary portion of trips entering and leaving the area. Some arterials have full
or partially controlled access to improve mobility. Arterials in the Study Area include SR 95,
SR 72, and US 60.
The collector road system distributes trips from the arterials to the local streets. Collector
streets also provide traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and low density areas,
and direct access to adjacent property. Collector streets that have been identified for this
Study include:
• Ehrenberg Parker Highway • Avenue 42 E
• McVay Road • Vicksburg Road
• Salome Road • Alamo Road
• Plamosa Road
Local streets provide the highest level of access by providing direct access to residential and
commercial properties. Specific local streets are not included as part of the Study.
Number of Lanes
Figure 3-9 illustrates the number of lanes on roads within the County. Two lane roadways are
the predominate roadways in La Paz County. Interstate 10 is a four-lane divided roadway and
segments of SR 95 are four to five lanes.
Speed Limits
Figure 3-10 illustrates the posted speed limits on roads in La Paz County. Interstate 10 has the
highest speed limits at 75 mph. Portions of State highways are posted as 65 mph.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 39
FIGURE 3-8. ROAD NETWORK AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 40
FIGURE 3-9. NUMBER OF LANES
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 41
FIGURE 3-10. SPEED LIMITS
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 42
CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS
Surface Type
Paved and unpaved roads within the Study are shown in Figure 3-11. Of the 780 miles of
road in the County, approximately 166 miles are unpaved.
Pavement Conditions – State Highways
Pavement conditions reported for State highways were obtained from ADOT. Pavement
conditions for road sections in the Study Area appear on Figure 3-12. Pavement conditions
are rated on a Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) scale ranging from superior (4.0 to 5.0) to
very poor (0.0 to 1.0). The PSR is assigned based upon the collective judgment of selected
road users who assess the smoothness of the ride and the visible signs of pavement distress.
ADOT considers road segments for pavement rehabilitation if their PSR is below a threshold
value, set at between 3.55 and 3.75 depending on the type and local climate of the roadway.
Table 3-8 summarizes the miles of State highways that are within each PSR category.
Pavement Conditions – La Paz County Routes
La Paz County employs a rating system for pavement condition called the Remaining Service
Life (RSL) based on pavement condition, as well as the number of years before it will require
reconstruction or rehabilitation. Table 3-9 summarizes the mileage with RSL rating categories
for pavements on La Paz County Roads. Working Paper 1 presents the detail on pavement
segments for County Roads.
Bridge Conditions
Bridge conditions were obtained from ADOT. Bridges in the County were evaluated for
sufficiency rating, functionally obsolete status, and structurally deficient status.
Bridge Sufficiency Rating (BSR) is an indication of bridge sufficiency to remain in service.
A 100 percent BSR indicates an entirely sufficient bridge and zero percent represents an
entirely insufficient or deficient bridge. A low BSR may be due to structural defects, narrow
lanes, low vertical clearance, or any of many possible issues.
Functionally Obsolete describes a bridge that is no longer by design functionally adequate for
its task. Such a bridge may be perfectly safe and structurally sound, but may cause traffic
jams or may not have adequate clearance for an oversized vehicle.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 43
FIGURE 3-11. PAVEMENT TYPE
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 44
FIGURE 3-12. PAVEMENT CONDITIONS – STATE HIGHWAYS
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 45
TABLE 3-8. SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ON STATE HIGHWAYS,
LA PAZ COUNTY
Condition Mileage Percent
Fair 37.00 12%
Good 124.00 39%
Superior 154.00 49%
Total 315.00 100%
Source: ADOT Pavement Management System, 2009
TABLE 3-9. PAVEMENT REMAINING SERVICE LIFE,
LA PAZ COUNTY ROADS
RSL Category Remaining Service Life
Total Road
Mileage
Percent
Mileage
I 0-2 years 17.53 7.93
II 3-7 years 161.26 72.99
III 8-12 years 40.63 18.39
IV 13-17 years 0.00 0.00
V 18-22 years and 1.52 0.69
VI 23- 25 years 0.00 0.00
Total 220.94 100.00
Source: La Paz County Public Works. October 2008 through March 2009
Structurally Deficient describes a bridge with one or more structural defects that require
attention. This status does not indicate the severity of the defect but rather that a defect is
present.
Bridge conditions are displayed on Figure 3-13. A BSR less than 80 indicates that the bridge
is eligible for rehabilitation and a rating greater than 80 indicate that the bridge is in good
condition. Twenty-three bridges have a BSR that render them eligible for rehabilitation. As
shown in Table 3-10, eight bridges are categorized as either functionally obsolete or
structurally obsolete. While not structurally obsolete, bridges on Mohave Road often have
traffic that meet or exceed weight restrictions.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 46
FIGURE 3-13. BRIDGE CONDITIONS
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 47
TABLE 3-10. FUNCTIONALLY AND STRUCTURALLY OBSOLETE BRIDGES,
LA PAZ COUNTY
Agency Route MP Name Length Deficiency
Sufficiency
Rating
La Paz
Co Oxbow Bridge 567 F 66.94
La Paz
Co Farmer's Bridge 400 F 75.66
ADOT I-10 17.50 West Quartzsite TI UP 249 F 75.35
ADOT I-10 5.84 Tom Wells Rd TI UP 247 F 86.23
ADOT I-10 26.65 Gold Nugget TI UP 250 F 92.88
ADOT SR 95 S 144.83 Colorado River Bridge 656 S 6.00
ADOT SR 95 161.73
Bill Williams River
Bridge 1126 S 47.86
ADOT I-10 0.01 Ehrenberg Bridge 1113 S 67.72
Source: ADOT Bridge Management System, 2009
La Paz County Road Needs
Arizona Association of County Engineers (AACE) 2008 Roadway Needs Study Update
documents road needs for each County in Arizona. The total road needs in La Paz County for
the period 2009 to 2018 was approximately $153.6 million excluding right-of-way cost of
approximately $9.1 million. Table 3-11 summarizes the estimated road needs by maintenance
and construction costs. Chapter 4 summarizes transportation needs and deficiencies identified
by stakeholders.
TABLE 3-11. 2009-2018 NEEDED EXPENDITURES FOR LA PAZ COUNTY
(Amounts Shown in Thousands)
Period
Maintenance
&
Operations
Existing
Bridges
New
Bridges
on
Existing
Roads
Upgrade
Existing
Roads
New
Road Safety Total
2009-2013 $36,796 $1,442 $0 $63,083 $0 $10,132 $111,453
2014-2018 $36,796 $1,442 $0 $89 $0 $3,833 $42,160
Total $73,593 $2,883 $0 $63,172 $0 $13,965 $153,613
Source: AACE 2008 Roadway Needs Study
Excludes right-of-way
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 48
Ports-Of-Entry
Two of Arizona’s 22 ports-of-entry are situated in La Paz County: one in Ehrenberg serving
interstate traffic and one in Parker. These ports monitor and screen all commercial traffic
entering the State for registration, tax, size, and weight restrictions, commercial driver’s
license requirements, and insurance requirements. Vehicles are checked to ensure that they are
properly maintained and operated safely.
CURRENT TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONDITIONS
This section presents data on current traffic and safety conditions in the County.
Traffic Volume Data Sources
Data for traffic volumes were obtained from the following sources:
2009 Study Data - Traffic count data for this Study was collected on various roads during the
weeks of February 3, 2009 through February 26, 2009, in order to count traffic volumes
during the peak winter season. The data collected included 48-hour Average Daily Traffic
(ADT), hourly turning movement counts, and vehicle classification counts. Figure 3-14
illustrates the locations of traffic count data and type of traffic counts taken. Detailed traffic
count data is documented in Working Paper 1.
ADOT Automated Traffic Recorder (ATR) - Automated Traffic Recorder sites maintained
by ADOT continuously collects traffic data at selected locations on State highways. For this
Study, the traffic count data was obtained from the following locations on State highways
within or near La Paz County:
La Paz County Maricopa County
Ehrenberg: I-10 at MP 2.48 Aquila: US 60 at MP 82.57
Utting: SR 72 at MP 35.00
Quartzite: SR 95 and MP 115.40
Parker: SR 95 at MP 147.10
ATR data includes hourly traffic volumes and vehicle classification counts continuously taken
throughout the year. The ATR traffic volume data is tabulated by day and month to represent
the daily and seasonal traffic volume fluctuation at the ATR station. The Average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) is then computed for each ATR station by dividing the total volume of
vehicles by 365 days. Daily and seasonal adjustment factors are developed by ADOT to
convert a traffic count taken at a location on any given day and month to an AADT. ADOT
periodically conducts daily traffic counts at specified locations on State highways and converts
the counts to AADTs and prepares an annual traffic count report. ADOT also maintains
historical AADTs at these locations.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 49
FIGURE 3-14. 2009 TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 50
Local Traffic Data - Available daily traffic data provided by La Paz County, Town of Parker,
and Town of Quartzite.
Daily Traffic Volume
Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3-15 for State highways, County
roads, and local roads in the County. Working Paper 1 explains how this information was
derived.
The highest daily traffic volumes occur on I-10, ranging between 16,025 vehicles per day on
the east end of the County to 22,104 vehicles per day on the west end. Traffic volumes on the
State highways vary from 1,591 vehicles per day on US 60 to 2,091 on the rural portions of
US 95. The daily traffic volumes on US 95 in the Town of Parker range between 10,270
vehicles per day and 16,048 vehicles per day. The intersection of California Avenue and
Riverside Boulevard in Parker is the highest traffic volume intersection in the Study Area.
Comparison of 2007 and 2008 Daily Traffic Volumes
Table 3-12 compares 2007 and 2008 AADTs at each of the ATR sites. Traffic volumes on
State highways in La Paz County have decreased from 2007 to 2008 between 6.4 and 9.1
percent. This type of reduction in traffic volumes has occurred throughout the State as well as
the nation. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Highway Policy Information
reported that the annual vehicle miles traveled decreased 3.7 percent from 2007 to 2008.
Table 3-13 presents peak-hour volumes at the intersection of California Avenue and Riverside
Boulevard in Parker—the Study Area’s busiest intersection.
TABLE 3-12. COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2008 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ATR 2007 AADT 2008 AADT Percent Change
Ehrenberg 24,013 22,121 -7.90
Aguila 1,739 1,627 -6.40
Utting 2,144 1,997 -6.80
Quartzsite 2,735 2,485 -9.10
Parker 12,426 11,390 -8.30
Source: ADOT Traffic Count Database System, 2009
AADT – Average Annual Daily Traffic, two-way vehicles per day
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 51
FIGURE 3-15. ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT)
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 52
TABLE 3-13. TRAFFIC VOLUME AT CALIFORNIA AVE
AND RIVERSIDE BLVD INTERSECTION
Period Time Total Approach Volumes
AM Peak Hour 7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. 1,540 vehicles per hour
Mid Day Peak Hour 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. 2,318 vehicles per hour
PM Peak Hour 4:15 p.m. – 5:15 p.m. 1,888 vehicles per hour
Seasonal and Daily Traffic Variations
Figure 3-16 illustrates the monthly variation of the traffic recorded at each ATR site. The
peak traffic season on State highways in La Paz County falls between October and May. The
highest traffic volumes are expected in the January through March period. The ATR site on
SR 95 in Quartzsite recorded the highest variation in peak-season traffic.
ADOT has developed factors from the ATR data for converting an ADT taken at any day and
month to an AADT. Working Paper 1 includes the conversion factors for the ATR locations
in La Paz County.
FIGURE 3-16. SEASONAL TRAFFIC VARIATIONS ON STATE HIGHWAYS,
LA PAZ COUNTY
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
Percentage of AADT
Aguila
Utting
Parker
Quartzsite
Ehrenberg
Source: ADOT Traffic Count Database System, 2009
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 53
Vehicle Classification Data
Vehicle classification data is data collected for the type of vehicle such as automobiles, pick up
trucks, light-weight trucks, medium trucks, and heavy trucks. Classification data was obtained
from two sources; 1) the ADOT ATR sites; and 2) vehicle classification counts taken for this
Study. Table 3-14 presents the vehicle classification data from the ADOT ATR sites grouped
into three categories: 1) motorcycles, cars and light trucks; 2) Medium trucks and buses; and
3) large buses. Table 3-14 presents classification data for the average percent of daily traffic
of the entire year of 2008. Working Paper 1 presents the classification data for February and
June 2008, representing the peak and off-peak traffic season.
TABLE 3-14. VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
AVERAGE PERCENT OF DAILY TRAFFIC (January 2008 – December 2008)
ATR/Route
Average Daily
Traffic Volume
Motorcycles,
Cars and
Light Trucks
Recreational
Vehicles, Medium
Trucks and Buses
Large
Trucks
Ehrenberg/I-10 22,133 60% 7% 33%
Aguila/US 60 1,637 85% 10% 5%
Utting/SR 72 2,004 63% 3% 34%
Quartzsite/SR 95 2,488 75% 11% 14%
Parker/SR 95 11,400 91% 6% 3%
Source: ADOT Traffic Count Database System, 2009
ATR – Automated Traffic Recorder
Vehicle classification in the Study Area varies by season. The Town of Quartzite experiences
the highest changes in types of vehicles during the peak season than other locations in the
County. Figure 3-17 compares the vehicle classes recorded at the Quartzsite ATR for the off-peak
and peak seasons. The volume of cars, motorcycles, and light trucks in the peak season
is double the volume in the off-peak season. Similarly, the volume of recreational vehicles,
medium trucks and buses in the peak seasons is double the volume in the off-peak season.
Vehicle Classification Data – 2009 La Paz Transportation Study
Vehicle classification data was collected during February 2009 for this Study and is presented
in Working Paper 1. State Route 72 has the highest percentage of trucks ranging from 36
percent to 40 percent. This may primarily be due to trucks diverting from SR 72 to I-10 via
Vicksburg Rd.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 54
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Average Daily Traffic
Motorcycles, Cars and Light
Trucks
Medium Trucks and Buses Large Trucks
Off-Peak Season (June) Peak Season (February)
FIGURE 3-17. VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION BY SEASON,
QUARTZSITE/SR 95 ATR
Source: ADOT Traffic Count Database System, 2009
Current Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that characterizes how well traffic is flowing
and the perception of traffic conditions by motorists and passengers. Levels of service range
from LOS A to LOS F where LOS A represents the free flow of traffic with minimum
interruptions and delay, and LOS F represents high congestion with significant delay and
occasional blockage of intersections stopping traffic on particular road segments. Methods
documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) were applied in evaluating existing
road level of service conditions. Levels of service were estimated for road segments (between
major intersections), unsignalized intersections, and signalized intersections.
Road Segment Levels of Service
Figure 3-18 presents photographs represents various levels of service and Table 3-15 gives the
levels of service for ranges of volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios on road segment. Based on the
AADTs and estimated daily capacities, all of the roads in La Paz County are at a LOS A or B,
expect for Riverside Drive from SR 95 to Buckskin Mountain Park, which is a LOS C, and
Rio Vista Drive, which is a LOS D.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 55
FIGURE 3-18. PHOTOGRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
TABLE 3-15. ROAD SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS AND
DESCRIPTIONS
LOS V/C Ratio Capacity Level Range Description
A 0.0 to 0.29 Under Capacity Free flow, low volumes and densities, high
speeds. Drivers can maintain their desired speeds
with little or no delay and are unaffected by other
vehicles.
B 0.30 to 0.47 Under Capacity Reasonably free flow. Traffic is noticeable, but
drivers have reasonable freedom to select their
speeds and lanes.
C 0.48 to 0.68 Under Capacity Speeds remain near free flow, but freedom to
maneuver is restricted.
D 0.69 to 0.88 Near Capacity Speed begins to decline with increasing volume
and drivers have limited maneuverability.
E 0.89 to 1.00 At Capacity Unstable flow with volume at or near capacity.
Freedom to maneuver is extremely limited.
F Greater than
1.00
Over Capacity Gridlock conditions with speeds dropping to zero
at times.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, Exhibit 21-2, p. 21-3.
Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service
Both two-way and all-way unsignalized intersections were evaluated for AM, mid-day, and
PM peak-hour periods in February 2009. Table 3-16 displays LOS criteria for stop sign
controlled intersections. For two-way controlled unsignalized intersections, the performance
criteria are the levels of service estimated on the minor street approaches and left-turn lanes on
major street approaches. The levels of service at all-way intersections are estimated for all the
traffic movements.
Good to Excellent
Under Capacity
Acceptable
Under Capacity
Congested
Over Capacity
LOS A/B LOS C LOS E/F
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 56
TABLE 3-16. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Level of
Service
Average Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A 0-10
B >10-15
C >15-25
D >25-35
E >35-50
F >50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000
Table 3-17 presents the turning movements with a LOS greater than C for unsignalized
intersections. Working Paper 1 presents the level of service for all the turning movements for
the intersections approaches where traffic counts were taken.
TABLE 3-17. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE C OR LOWER
Intersection
Time
Period Direction
Turning
Movement LOS
California Ave and 16th St 11-1 p.m. Eastbound Left-Right C
California Ave and 16th St 4-6 p.m. Eastbound Left-Right C
California Ave and Mohave Rd 11-1 p.m. Eastbound
Left-Through-
Right C
California Ave and Mohave Rd 4-6 p.m. Eastbound
Left-Through-
Right C
I-10 and Ehrenberg Westbound 11-1 p.m. Westbound
Left-Through-
Right C
I-10 and Quartzsite Ave Eastbound 11-1 p.m. Eastbound Left-Through D
I-10 and Quartzsite Ave Eastbound 4-6 p.m. Eastbound Left-Through C
I-10 and Quartzsite Ave
Westbound 11-1 p.m. Westbound
Left-Through-
Right C
Main St and Kofa 11-1 p.m. Southbound Left-Right C
Main St and Moon Mountain Ave 11-1 p.m. Southbound Left D
Main St and Moon Mountain Ave 4-6 p.m. Southbound Left C
Main St and Riggles Ave 11-1 p.m. Eastbound Left C
Main St and Riggles Ave 4-6 p.m. Eastbound Left C
Main St and Quartzsite Blvd 11-1 p.m. Westbound Left C
Main St and Quartzsite Blvd 11-1 p.m. Northbound Right C
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 57
Signalized Intersection Level of Service
Signalized intersections in the Study Area were evaluated for AM, mid-day, and PM peak-hour
periods. Table 3-18 displays LOS criteria for signal controlled intersections as published
in the HCM manual.
TABLE 3-18. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Level of Service Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)
A 0-10
B >10-20
C >20-35
D >35-55
E >55-80
F >80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000
Table 3-19 presents the levels of service for the traffic movements at signalized intersections.
Working Paper 1 presents the level of service for all the turning movements for the
intersections approaches where traffic counts were taken. Working Paper 1 includes the traffic
count timing for the signalized intersections.
TABLE 3-19. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
California Ave and
Arizona Ave
California and
Riverside Blvd
Melton St and Kuehn
St
7-9 11-1 4-6 7-9 11-1 4-6 7-9 11-1 4-6
Eastbound
LT B - B B D D B B B
TH B B B B C D C C B
RT B B B - - - - - -
Westbound
LT - - - B D D B B B
TH B B B B D D C C C
RT - - - - - - - - -
Northbound
LT A A A C C C A B B
TH A A A C C C B C B
RT - - - C E C - - -
Southbound
LT A A A B D C A B B
TH A A A C C C B C C
RT - - - C C C - - -
Note: Levels of service based on optimized condition using ADOT traffic signal timing.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 58
Crash Analysis
Crashes were analyzed for all public roads within La Paz County for the five-year period of
January 2003 through December 2007 using data provided by the ADOT Accident Location
Identification Surveillance System (ALISS). Figure 3-19 illustrates the location of all the
crashes in the five-year period, Figure 3-20 shows the location of vehicle/pedestrian crashes
and vehicle/pedalcyclist crashes, Figure 3-21 illustrates the location of fatal crashes, and
Figure 3-22 displays the accidents rates for State Highways, Salome Highway, and Vicksburg
Road.
The following findings summarize the crash analysis:
• A total of 2,586 crashes occurred during the five-year period of January 2003 through
December 2007, an annual average of 517 crashes per year.
• US 95 in Parker experienced the highest crash rates over the five-year period with rates
of 1.7 crashes per million vehicle miles and over.
• US 95 in Quartzsite and Vicksburg Road between US 60 and I-10 experienced crash
rates of 1.0 crashes per million vehicle miles and over.
• Of the 2,586 crashes, 1,572 crashes or 60.8 percent were non-injury crashes.
• Almost five percent of the total crashes or 126 crashes were fatal crashes. The roads
with the highest number of fatal crashes include I-10 and SR 95. Twelve fatal crashes
during the five-year period occurred on reservation roads.
• Almost 17 percent, 432 crashes were intersection related crashes. The intersections
with the highest number of crashes include: California Avenue/Riverside Drive,
California Avenue/11th Street, and SR 72/SR 95.
• Colliding with other motor vehicles accounted for 1,146 crashes or approximately 44
percent. Approximately 18 percent crashes resulted from vehicles colliding with fixed
objects.
• Vehicles colliding with pedestrians and pedalcyclist accounted for 28 crashes,
approximately one percent of the total crashes.
• Of the 2,586 crashes, a total of 844 crashes, almost one-third of the crashes were either
rear-end, side-swipe, or angle crashes, typically associated with intersection and
driveway crashes.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 59
FIGURE 3-19. NUMBER OF CRASHES AT SITE
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 60
FIGURE 3-20. COLLISIONS WITH PEDESTRIANS AND PEDALCYCLISTS
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 61
FIGURE 3-21. FATAL CRASH LOCATIONS
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 62
FIGURE 3-22. CRASH RATES
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 63
CURRENT MULTIMODAL CONDITIONS
This section discusses the current multimodal transportation conditions in the County including
rail passenger, truck freight service, transit, and pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities.
Rail Service
In 1908, the Santa Fe Railway completed an alternate main line in an east-west direction
across what is now La Paz County under the auspices of its subsidiary, the Arizona &
California Railroad. The railroad parallels US 60 from the eastern County line to Hope,
where it turns northwest and follows SR 72 and SR 95 through Bouse to Parker.
In 1991, the trackage was leased to the Arizona & California Railroad (ARZC) for operation
as an independent short line headquartered in Parker. The lease includes 190 miles of
mainline track between Cadiz, California, which is located between Barstow and Needles on
the BNSF “Transcon” mainline; and Matthie, Arizona, 5 miles north of Wickenburg. Also
included in the transaction, are a 50-mile branch from Rice, California to Blythe, and 57 miles
of trackage rights between Matthie and Phoenix. The railroad does not typically operate trains
all the way to Phoenix, but exchanges rail freight traffic with the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railway (BNSF) at Castle Hot Springs, a rail siding in the community of Morristown
adjacent to US 60 between Wickenburg and Phoenix. The railroad is now part of Rail
America, a nationwide short line railroad conglomerate.
The ARZC handles BNSF traffic from Los Angeles that is destined for Phoenix and currently
operates the following rail freight services:
• One round trip between Parker and Cadiz, California, 5 days per week
• One round trip between Parker and Castle Hot Springs, 5 days per week
• One cement train from Cadiz to Matthie through Parker each week. This train carries
product from California to Phoenix for use in construction.
• Three repositioning trains through Parker each week, which return empty cars to the
West that carried automobiles, containerized freight, and other commodities to
Phoenix.
The railroad also services two intermodal facilities. Matlock Projects is a chemical
distribution facility that receives about five rail tank car loads a week, and is located near the
railroad depot in Parker. La Paz Products is a fuel distribution center located approximately
one mile northeast of the Junction of SR 95 and SR 72. Other Parker-area freight customers
are Superior Bulk Logistics, in Parker Central, and Titan Energy, in Parker South.
The railroad handled 18,922 carloads of freight in 2007; however, traffic declined after the
onset of the recession and the railroad handled approximately 12,000 carloads in 2008.
Maximum operating speed on the non-signalized system is 49 mph.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 64
Stearlite plastic pellets are off-loaded at Parker and trucked to Lake Havasu City. Plastic
pellet consignees in Phoenix and Las Vegas are served from sidings in Maricopa County and
California, respectively. Two carloads of low-grade hazardous material are delivered in
Parker each month and off-loaded to trucks for disposal. The railroad stores liquefied
petroleum gas in rail tank cars in Parker for Exxon Petroleum. Exxon leases tracks from the
railroad for this purpose. No regularly scheduled rail passenger service is operated.
Approximately 9,000 crossties and between 1 and 2 track-miles of rail are replaced annually.
Twenty-nine employees work for the railroad. Many live in Lake Havasu City and commute.
TRANSIT AND INTERCITY BUS SERVICES
Quartzsite Transit Services (QTS) provides priority service to town residents for medical,
social, and recreational needs. Services are provided to Blythe, California and Parker,
Arizona once a week and to Lake Havasu City once a month. The van schedule and suggested
donations are shown in Table 3-20.
TABLE 3-20. QUARTZSITE TRANSIT VAN SCHEDULE AND SUGGESTED
DONATIONS FOR SERVICE (ROUND TRIP)
Monday Quartzsite $2.00
Tuesday Blythe $5.00
Wednesday (1st & 3rd) Yuma/Algodones $10.00
Every Wednesday Quartzsite $2.00
Thursday Parker $7.00
Friday Quartzsite $2.00
Source: http://www.ci.quartzsite.az.us/about/transit/
The Quartzsite Transit Services Website list the following additional services area:
• 1st & 3rd Wednesdays the van will make a trip to Yuma/Algodones for people needing
medications and other shopping needs. A minimum of 5 passengers are needed in
order for QTS to make the trip. A rider must make a reservation no more than 48
hours in advance of the day of the trip. Pick-up will begin at 8:00 am with an
anticipated return of 5:00 pm. Remaining Wednesdays will be local runs.
• Lake Havasu City trip will be the 2nd Wednesday of each month, for shopping and
medical appointments. Suggested donation is $10.00 for round trip travel.
Reservations must be made 48 hours in advance.
The La Paz County Health Department provides free transit services to the entire County.
The Department coordinates services with Quartzsite Transit Services. Table 3-21 shows the
schedule for the service.
Lima & Associates La Paz Transportation Planning Study – Page 65
TABLE 3-21. LA PAZ COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE
Parker (Town)
Monday thru Friday - 8 AM to 3 PM
Parker Dam Route M-F
First Pick-up at 8:30AM upriver then leaves Town at 10:30AM, 1PM & 2:30PM
Salome/Wenden Route
Monday and Friday — to Parker
Tuesday—to Wickenburg — Except one Tuesday a month to Surprise.
Salome/Wenden runs must have at least 4 riders for a trip over 20 miles. Due to this
rule, Schedules are subject to change a