Wellton transportation long-range study: final report and executive summary

              | May 2011 | Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation
Wellton Transportation Long-Range Plan
PARA Study
Ta s k A s s i g nme n t M P D 3 0 -10
Final Report
and Executive Summary
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-1 Final Report and Executive Summary
A. INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) awarded funding for the Wellton Transportation
Long-Range Plan PARA Study (Wellton PARA Study) through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas
(PARA) program. The purpose of the PARA program is to assist rural counties, cities, towns, and tribal
communities in addressing a broad range of multimodal transportation planning issues related to
roadways, transit, and non-motorized modes of travel.
The principal purpose of the Wellton Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA Study is to develop a
multimodal transportation plan for a 44-square-mile planning area in the vicinity of the Town of Wellton.
The study has resulted in a plan of improvements for short-term, mid-term, and long-term transportation
planning horizons. The recommendations are multimodal, considering roadways, transit, and non-motorized
(i.e., bicycle and pedestrian) transportation modes.
This executive summary of the Wellton Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA Study Final Report
provides a brief summary of current and future conditions, transportation needs and issues, recommended
improvements, and the implementation plan. More detailed information can be found in the Final Report.
The Wellton Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA Study encompasses the area bounded by County
10th Street, Avenue 20E, County 14th Street, and Avenue 31E, as shown in Figure ES-1.
B. CURRENT CONDITIONS
B.1 Current Land Uses, Ownership, and Environment
The study area is currently comprised of commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, and public uses.
In general, commercial areas are along Avenue 29E (William Street) near Interstate 8 (I-8), and along Los
Angeles Avenue/Old Highway 80 between Avenue 28E and Avenue 30E. There are a few industrial
areas located along the Union Pacific Railroad lines through the study area as well as along I-8.
Residential land uses are spread throughout the study area at varying degrees of density. The majority of
the residential areas are designated low or rural density residential. The areas of land designated medium
or suburban density residential are dispersed throughout the study area, with large pockets north of the
Town of Wellton limits and south of I-8 along County 12th Street. The proximity of the Barry M.
Goldwater Range (BMGR) to the land along the southern boundary of the study area limits the parcel size
of residential development that may occur in these areas. The majority of the land within the study area
west of Avenue 25E is designated for agricultural, rural preservation, or open space uses.
Public ownership within the study area includes: the Town of Wellton, Yuma County, Arizona State Land
Department (ASLD), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The largest private land owner in the area is the Wellton-
Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD).
Most of the study area is relatively flat with typical Sonoran Desert vegetation. Two large washes, the
Ligurta Wash and the Coyote Wash, traverse the study area in a general north-south direction. The study
area also contains the Mohawk Canal, Wellton Canal, and the Wellton-Mohawk Canal.
Environmental features in the vicinity of the study area include the Gila River and Muggins Mountains
Wilderness to the north of the study area, the Gila Mountains to the west of the study area, and the Copper
Mountains to the south of the study area. The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail follows
along the Gila River through the study area. Cultural resources have been identified within the BLM-designated
Ligurta Area Special Cultural Resource Management Area near Ligurta Wash.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
March 2011 ES-2 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: Yuma County and ADOT Figure ES-1 – Study Area
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-3 Final Report and Executive Summary
B.2 Current Population and Employment Estimates
The 2008 year-round population estimate for the Town of Wellton is 2,318 people per the Arizona
Department of Commerce (ADC) website and Table II-2 in the Yuma Metropolitan Planning
Organization (YMPO) 2010-2033 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). To be consistent with the RTP,
the 2008 Wellton population estimate is considered the “current” population of Wellton for the purposes
of this study.
The 2008 population of the unincorporated land within the study area was estimated using 2007 aerial
photography and the population/dwelling unit ratio of 2.59 for unincorporated areas that is shown in
Table II-3 in the RTP. The 2008 population estimates for the study area are shown in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1 – Current Study Area Population
Portion of Study Area 2008 Population
Population within the Town of
Wellton
2,318
Population within the study
area unincorporated land
568
Total 2,886
Sources: Arizona Department of Commerce and aerial photography
It should be noted that there is a significant winter visitor and part-time resident population of several
hundred people within the study area that is above and beyond the population shown in Table ES-1.
Agriculture and ranching activities provide the most employment of any sector in the Wellton area.
Employment data for the study area was estimated using a ratio of employment to population. Per the
RTP, an employment-to-population ratio of 0.34 is valid for the Town of Wellton and a ratio of 0.25 is
valid for Yuma County. Based on these ratios, 2008 employment for the study area was estimated as
shown in Table ES-2.
Table ES-2 – Current Study Area Employment
Portion of Study Area 2008 Employment
Employment within the Town of
Wellton
788
Employment within the study
area unincorporated land
142
Total 930
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
B.3 Current Roadway Network
The current roadway network in the study area is composed of an interstate highway, collectors, and local
streets. The major existing roadways are I-8, Old Highway 80 (Los Angeles Avenue), and Avenue 29E
(William Street). All of the paved roads in the study area have two through lanes (one in each direction)
except for I-8 and the five-lane section of Los Angeles Avenue between Arizona Avenue and Jessie
Street. All intersections in the study area are currently unsignalized.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-4 Final Report and Executive Summary
Only having a few paved roads and crossings of I-8 and the railroad limits the route options through the
study area. This is particularly a potential issue for emergency response providers who like to have
multiple alternate routes in case the primary route is blocked.
B.3.1 Traffic Volumes
Available traffic count data was reviewed to ascertain the volume of traffic on study area roadways.
Daily traffic volume and heavy vehicle percentage data on selected roadway segments was collected in
July 2010 by YMPO. The highest surface street daily traffic volumes occurred on Los Angeles Avenue
(4,400 vehicles per day east of William Street) and Avenue 29E (3,600 vehicles per day between I-8 and
County 12th Street). Daily traffic volumes on I-8 average about 13,000 vehicles per day. I-8 has a high
heavy vehicle percentage of 22 percent, indicating its importance as a freight route.
Peak period intersection movement volumes were counted in July 2010 by YMPO as part of this study at
three intersections. The morning, mid-day, and afternoon peak periods were counted at the intersections
of Old Highway 80/William Street, I-8 Westbound Ramp/William Street, and I-8 Eastbound Ramp/
William Street.
B.3.2 Levels of Service
Daily traffic volumes and corresponding roadway segment capacity thresholds were used to calculate
volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios for the study area roadways to identify roadway segments that are
approaching their maximum capacity. The v/c ratios correspond to level of service (LOS) values ranging
from A (no delay) to F (severe congestion). All study area roadway segments for which current traffic
count volume data was available provide acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better).
For the three intersections where peak hour intersection movement volumes were counted, a planning-level
capacity analysis was conducted on the afternoon peak hour volumes (generally the highest peak
hour volumes of the day). It was determined that all three intersections operate at LOS B.
B.3.3 Crash Analysis
Crash data was obtained for all crashes between 2004 and 2008. There were a total of 21 crashes in the
study area during the analysis period. There was one fatal crash along William Street, north of the I-8
interchange. This crash involved a motorcycle speeding too fast for conditions and alcohol may have also
contributed to the crash. No crash patterns were identified at any of the crash locations that would be
susceptible to correction by safety countermeasures.
B.4 Current Transit Network
B.4.1 Public Transit
Public transit services are currently provided in the Wellton area through the Yuma County Area Transit
(YCAT) Orange Route that runs between Yuma and Wellton. There are currently three bus stops along
this route within the study area at Old Highway 80/I-8 (Ligurta Station), Old Highway 80/Avenue 23E
(Ligurta Creek Road), and Avenue 29E (William Street)/Arizona Avenue. The Orange Route hours of
operation are now from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The frequency of service in Wellton
is one morning and two afternoon trips. Per data provided by YMPO, the total Orange Line ridership in
fiscal year 2010 was 12,971.
YMPO provides a Dial-a-Ride (DAR) curb-to-curb service for Yuma County residents who are 60 years
and older or who are disabled and cannot use the fixed route system.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-5 Final Report and Executive Summary
Funding issues threatened to force the shutdown of the entire YCAT system in 2010. The Yuma region
recently took the first step towards creating a regional transportation authority that can levy a regional
transit tax by forming the Yuma County Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (YCIPTA).
Responsibility for YCAT service operations may transition from YMPO to YCIPTA in the future.
B.4.2 Rail
The railroad tracks that run east-west through the study area are owned by Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR). UPRR provides freight services on the tracks while Amtrak provides passenger services.
The primary railroad tracks in the study area are part of UPRR’s Sunset Route, which runs as many as 70
trains per day from Los Angeles to Houston. The Sunset Route tracks were recently double-tracked in the
study area by UPRR to promote more efficient and safer movement of train traffic. A branch track
known as the Wellton Branch splits off from the Sunset Route tracks just east of Avenue 30E and
continues northeast towards Roll. Other sidings and spur tracks exist near downtown Wellton.
The unstaffed Amtrak station in nearby Yuma provides passenger rail service. Amtrak’s Texas Eagle and
Sunset Limited routes currently stop at the Yuma station three times a week.
There are two grade-separated roadway crossings and three at-grade roadway crossings of the main
railroad tracks in the study area. A quiet zone was recently established at the William Street at-grade
crossing, effectively eliminating train horn noise through much of Wellton.
B.5 Current Non-motorized Network
Non-motorized (i.e., bicycle and pedestrian) facilities are an important part of the multimodal
transportation network in that they provide various options for travel (which is especially critical for
travelers who cannot drive).
Elements that make up bicycle networks can include designated bike routes, striped bike lanes, paved
shoulders along roadways, wide curb lanes, multi-use paths, and sidewalks. The only street within the
study area with paved shoulders is Old Highway 80.
Pedestrian networks are typically comprised of sidewalks, trails, and multi-use paths. Few roadway
segments in the study area currently contain sidewalks. Portions of the Juan Bautista de Anza National
Historic Trail and the El Camino del Diablo Trail are located within the study area.
C. FUTURE CONDITIONS
Future transportation conditions have been analyzed for both the 2033 analysis year and the future build-out
condition. The 2033 analysis year was selected to be consistent with the long-term future 2033
analysis year utilized in the YMPO RTP. The build-out condition is when all of the developable land is
developed per the future land use plan. There is no specific year assigned to build-out as it is highly
dependent on how quickly land develops.
C.1 Future Land Uses
Residential land uses are expected to increase throughout the study area in the future build-out condition,
most notably in the areas west of Avenue 28E and south of I-8. The majority of the land use changes
between current and build-out conditions will occur through the development of land that is currently
vacant or that is being currently used for farming and agricultural land uses. The conversion of vacant or
agricultural land to higher intensity uses will result in greater transportation needs in the build-out
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-6 Final Report and Executive Summary
condition. There are two regions of the study area where the residential land use is not expected to
change significantly from current conditions: near the BMGR; and near the Gila River.
Current commercial land uses along Old Highway 80/Los Angeles Avenue and in the area of the I-8
traffic interchange at Avenue 29E/William Street are anticipated to remain commercial land uses in the
future. Additional future commercial land uses are generally expected to occur along major roadways
like I-8 and Old Highway 80 and at the intersections of major roadways such as at the intersections of Old
Highway 80 with Avenue 20E, Avenue 23E, and Avenue 25E. The agricultural land along Avenue
29E/William Street near I-8 is expected to ultimately be converted to commercial land uses.
Industrial land uses are expected to increase in the future, primarily in the land adjacent to the UPRR
tracks between I-8 and Old Highway 80 on the west side of the study area.
Future open space land uses are anticipated to generally be located along the existing WMIDD canals,
floodways, and protective dikes in the study area where development potential is limited.
Figure ES-2 shows the assumed future build-out study area land uses.
C.2 Future Population and Employment Projections
A two percent compound annual growth rate was assumed to develop an updated 2033 population
projection for the Town of Wellton of 3,803 people. For the build-out population projection, the future
land uses shown in Figure ES-2 were used to determine the projected number of dwelling units, from
which a build-out population of 102,995 people was calculated. Table ES-3 shows the estimated 2008,
projected 2033, and projected build-out year-round resident populations for the study area.
Table ES-3 – Future Study Area Population Projections
Portion of Study Area
2008
Population
2033
Population
Build-out
Population
Population within the Town of
Wellton
2,318 3,803 80,189
Population within the study
area unincorporated land
568 932 22,806
Total 2,886 4,735 102,995
Sources: Arizona Department of Commerce, aerial photography, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
It is anticipated that the winter visitor and part-time resident population will continue to be significant in
the future, though it is anticipated that the percentage of winter visitors and part-time residents as a
portion of the total population will decrease over the years. While the winter visitor population is not
included in the population numbers, it is accounted for in the projected traffic volume demands.
Table ES-4 shows a 2033 employment projection of 1,894 employees and a build-out employment
projection of 41,198 employees for the study area. These employment projections were derived from the
study area population projections in Table ES-3 using an employment/population ratio of 0.40.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-7 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure ES-2 – Build-out Land Use
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-8 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-4 – Future Study Area Employment Projections
Portion of Study Area
2008
Employment
2033
Employment
Build-out
Employment
Employment within the Town of
Wellton
788 1,521 32,076
Employment within the study
area unincorporated land
142 373 9,122
Total 930 1,894 41,198
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
C.3 Future Roadway Network
C.3.1 Anticipated Roadway Improvement Projects
There is currently one programmed/funded study area roadway improvement project in the YMPO 2011
to 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): widening Old Highway 80/Los Angeles Avenue
over Coyote Wash to provide pedestrian facilities across Coyote Wash.
C.3.2 Traffic Volume Forecasts
A travel demand model was developed for the study area to provide a tool for estimating future traffic
volumes. The model utilizes population and employment data, typical vehicle trip generation
characteristics, and roadway network information such as number of through lanes and speed limits to
estimate traffic volumes on the roadway network. The model estimates traffic volumes by determining the
number of vehicle trips produced and attracted by the various land uses and assigning those trips to the
adjacent roadway network.
The RTP 2008 travel demand model was used to create a baseline 2008 model for the study area. A 2033
model was developed using 2033 population and employment data. Due to the relatively low level of
growth anticipated between 2008 and 2033 in the study area, traffic volumes only changed significantly
on Avenue 29E/William Street between Old Highway 80 and I-8, where anticipated daily volumes
increased from about 4,000 vehicles per day in 2008 to 7,000 vehicles per day in 2033. The model outputs
project that all study area roadways will provide acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) in
2033.
A build-out model was also developed that accounts for the anticipated future build-out land uses in the
study area. The build-out model indicates that practically every existing study area roadway segment will
be at or over capacity in the build-out condition if no improvements are made to the current roadway
network.
C.4 Future Transit Network
C.4.1 Public Transit
Public transit services in the study area are anticipated to continue to be provided by YMPO in the near
future via YCAT and DAR services.
The RTP outlines several unfunded recommendations for YCAT, including increasing the Orange Line
frequency, creating a new local circulator route in Wellton, building a park-and-ride lot in the Wellton-
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-9 Final Report and Executive Summary
Tacna area, and modifying street design standards to require transit features such as bus pullouts. Due to
the current funding issues associated with YCAT and the possible transition of transit services from
YMPO to YCIPTA, it is unclear if the recommendations listed in the RTP will be implemented as
planned.
ADOT recently commenced a PARA study on transit in the Yuma region that will assess the current and
future transit needs in the Yuma region and make recommendations on how to improve the current YCAT
and DAR system and address YCAT funding issues.
Based on the projected transit demand, it is anticipated that the study area in the build-out condition
would be able to support a local fixed-route transit system, with tie-ins to a regional transit system.
C.4.2 Rail
Railroad traffic is anticipated to increase in the future as population and employment increase in the
United States in general. As both rail and roadway traffic increase, the need for more grade-separated
crossings will become greater. The Town currently has plans for one additional grade-separated railroad
crossing in the downtown area near or along Dome Street. This project is currently included in the YMPO
2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program though a funding source has not been secured.
ADOT’s 2010 Statewide Rail Framework Study (SRFS) identifies several rail opportunities which could
affect the study area, including expanded Amtrak service and a high-capacity passenger rail line between
Phoenix and San Diego.
The RTP cites the potential for a 5,000 acre inland port in the Yuma region per an ongoing Arizona
multimodal logistics center study. The development of an inland port in the region would increase the rail
and truck traffic through the study area.
C.5 Future Non-motorized Network
At the national level, there is emphasis on complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and providing more bicycle and pedestrian facilities along roadways to create “complete streets”.
Complete streets are designed to function for all users to safely and effectively move along and across a
complete street (see www.completestreets.org).
Elements of a complete street in an urban area include sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders),
special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible transit stops, frequent crossing opportunities, median
islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and more. A complete street in a rural area may
have different elements, but should achieve the same goal.
D. IDENTIFIED CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS
Transportation system needs were identified during the analysis of current and future conditions. In
addition, comments have been received from the public, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and
community leaders. The transportation system needs result from a variety of factors, including roadway
congestion; physical barriers such as irrigation facilities, I-8, and the UPRR; inadequate traffic control
devices; land development and growth projections; gaps in pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and limited
transit service.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-10 Final Report and Executive Summary
D.1 Identified Current Needs
D.1.1 Roadway Network
The following study area roadway segment and intersection improvements are currently needed:
• Paving of multiple roadways;
• Federal functional reclassification of several existing roadway segments;
• New freeway interchanges along I-8; and
• New at-grade and/or grade-separated railroad crossings.
D.1.2 Transit Network
The study area transit needs include improving the current YCAT Orange Line transit service to provide
more frequent service and to expand the Orange Line route to serve more areas of Wellton. A new,
dedicated source of local funding for transit services is also needed.
D.1.3 Non-motorized Network
There is a need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on most roadways within the study area, particularly
in the vicinity of activity centers such as school and government facilities. Bicycle and pedestrian trails
are also desirable along canals. Complete streets roadway cross-sections need to be developed for all
classifications of roadways to better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel.
D.2 Identified 2033 Future Needs
D.2.1 Roadway Network
The following study area roadway segment and intersection improvements will be needed by 2033:
• Paving of additional roadways;
• A traffic control change at the Old Highway 80 and Avenue 29E/William Street intersection;
• Additional freeway interchanges along I-8;
• Reconstruction of the existing freeway interchange along I-8 at Avenue 29E; and
• Additional and/or reconstructed at-grade and grade-separated railroad crossings.
D.2.2 Transit Network
Further expansion of the YCAT Orange Line route and additional increase in service frequency during
peak periods may be needed by 2033.
D.2.3 Non-motorized Network
Additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities on roadways, particularly in the vicinity of activity centers
such as school and government facilities, will be needed by 2033. Complete streets roadway cross-sections
need to be implemented where feasible for all classifications of roadways to better accommodate
bicycle and pedestrian travel.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-11 Final Report and Executive Summary
D.3 Identified Build-out Future Needs
D.3.1 Roadway Network
The following study area roadway segment and intersection improvements will be needed at build-out:
• The construction of a comprehensive, interconnected roadway network;
• Traffic signals or roundabouts at major roadway intersections;
• Additional and/or reconstructed freeway interchanges along I-8; and
• Additional and/or reconstructed at-grade and grade-separated railroad crossings.
D.3.2 Transit Network
Transit demand estimates suggest that the study area at build-out will need a local comprehensive fixed-route
transit system. The local fixed-route transit system will need to be integrated with, and connected
to, future regional transit and rail opportunities. These opportunities include regional transit service,
regional park-and-ride lots, expanded Amtrak service, a regional multimodal logistics center, and a high-capacity
passenger rail line between Phoenix and San Diego that could potentially include a station or
transfer point within the study area.
D.3.3 Non-motorized Network
Clearly-defined, continuous bicycle and pedestrian networks along roadways and multi-use pathways will
be needed at build-out. This includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of activity centers
such as school and government facilities.
Complete streets roadway cross-sections need to continue to be implemented where feasible for all
classifications of roadways to better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel.
E. IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The improvement considerations described below guided the development and analysis of potential
improvements.
E.1 Evaluation Criteria
The following evaluation criteria were considered in the analysis of proposed improvement projects to
identify potential benefits, impacts, and constraints:
• Meets identified need;
• Cost;
• Impacts to right-of-way;
• Impacts to existing businesses/residences;
• Engineering issues;
• Level of service/delay;
• Accessibility/mobility;
• Network continuity;
• Environmental impacts;
• Multimodal compatibility;
• Safety; and
• Public acceptability.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-12 Final Report and Executive Summary
E.2 Functional Classification
Functional classification defines the hierarchy of streets in a roadway system according to the character of
service they provide as it relates to mobility, access, and trip length. Functional classification groups
include principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local roads. In general, principal and minor
arterials provide a high level of mobility for the traveling public with minimal allowance for access, while
the collectors and local roads provide for residential and non-residential access.
To utilize federal funding on roadway improvements, the roadway must have a functional classification.
Most federal funding can only be used on roadways classified as rural major collectors or higher.
E.3 Freeway Interchange Spacing
Federal access control policies for interstate systems generally limit new traffic interchanges (TI) to a
minimum separation distance of two miles. There is currently one TI along I-8 within the study area at
Avenue 29E/William Street. The next closest TIs are the Dome Valley/Ligurta TI, located less than one-half
mile west of the western study area boundary, and the Avenue 36E TI, located five miles east of the
eastern study area boundary. These existing interchanges will affect the location of any proposed TIs
based on the two-mile separation distance requirement.
E.4 Railroad Grade Separation
A railroad grade separation provides a crossing of the railroad where the roadway crosses over or under
the railroad so that there is no conflict between the train and vehicles. A grade-separated crossing
provides a safety benefit and reduces delay compared to an at-grade crossing.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook
recommends that when the crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and the average
annual daily traffic volume (AADT)) exceeds 125,000 in rural areas like Wellton, a grade-separated
crossing should be considered. Using an AADT of 3,500 vehicles per day (vpd) and assuming an average
of 60 trains per day, the existing at-grade crossing at Avenue 29E has a crossing exposure of 210,000,
which meets this criterion. A grade-separated crossing should be considered at this location. Potential
new crossings of the railroad should also be evaluated against the FHWA guidelines to determine if grade
separation should be considered.
E.5 Complete Streets
Proposed complete streets cross-sections for the Town of Wellton are provided in Figure ES-3, Figure
ES-4, Figure ES-5, Figure ES-6, and Figure ES-7. The arterial cross-sections generally are appropriate
for roadways carrying more than 10,000 vpd, while the collector cross-sections generally are appropriate
for roadways carrying less than 10,000 vpd. The multi-use lane shown in the cross-sections is intended
for use by bicycles, as well as by golf carts (as long as the posted speed limit is no higher than 35 mph per
State statute).
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-13 Final Report and Executive Summary
Figure ES-3 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Rural Minor Collector
Figure ES-4 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Rural Major Collector
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-14 Final Report and Executive Summary
Figure ES-5 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Urban Collector
Figure ES-6 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Rural Minor Arterial
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-15 Final Report and Executive Summary
Figure ES-7 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Urban Minor Arterial
F. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the evaluation criteria and considerations described previously, recommended improvements
have been developed to address the study area’s identified current and 2033 future transportation needs.
F.1 Roadway Network
F.1.1 Roadway Paving
Roadway paving is assumed to include the installation of asphalt pavement to the width of the existing
unpaved roadway, generally two lanes in width. This pavement width will allow one paved travel lane in
each direction. Graded shoulders and minor drainage improvements are assumed to be included in the
roadway paving improvement.
The following roadways should be paved by 2033:
• County 10th Street – Avenue 22E to Avenue 27E;
• County 11th Street – Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E;
• County 12th Street – Avenue 25E to Avenue 27E;
• County 12th Street – Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E;
• County 14th Street – Avenue 25E to Avenue 27E;
• Avenue 22E – Old Highway 80 to County 10th Street;
• Avenue 23E – Old Highway 80 to County 10th Street; and
• Avenue 25E – County 12th Street to County 14th Street.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-16 Final Report and Executive Summary
F.1.2 Roadway Widening
Old Highway 80 should be widened from Avenue 29-1/4E/Fresno Street to Wellton Mohawk Drive by
2033. Roadway widening includes widening from one lane in each direction to two lanes in each
direction with a raised or painted median and bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
The widening will increase capacity and improve operations.
A design concept report (DCR) should be prepared before final design plans are developed to define the
design concept to be used in widening Old Highway 80 from Avenue 29-1/4E/Fresno Street to Wellton
Mohawk Drive.
F.1.3 Intersection Traffic Control Change
The Old Highway 80 and Avenue 29E/William Street intersection traffic control should be changed from
two-way stop to four-way stop, traffic signal, or roundabout control by 2033.
F.1.4 New Freeway Interchanges
New TIs along I-8 are recommended at Avenue 25E and at Avenue 31E by 2033. Both of these roadways
already have a grade-separated crossing of I-8 (underpass at Avenue 25E and overpass at Avenue 31E).
Ramps will need to be added that connect the cross-streets to I-8. It is possible that the grade-separated
crossings may need to be reconstructed in conjunction with the construction of the ramps due to the age
and narrowness of the crossing structures.
A DCR should be prepared before final design plans are developed to define the design concept to be
used at each of the new TIs. The Avenue 25E DCR should cover Avenue 25E from Old Highway 80 to
County 12th Street, including both the TI and the nearby railroad crossing. The Avenue 31E DCR should
cover Avenue 31E from Old Highway 80 to County 11th Street, including both the TI and the nearby
railroad crossing.
F.1.5 Freeway Interchange Improvements
The existing TI at Avenue 29E/William Street should be improved by 2033. Recommended
improvements include bridge structure rehabilitation/reconstruction and widening of Avenue 29E to
provide an additional travel lane in each direction along with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on both
sides of the roadway. The traffic control at the ramp intersections could also potentially need to be
upgraded to a traffic signal or roundabout.
A DCR should be prepared before final design plans are developed to define the design concept to be
used to improve the existing TI. The DCR should cover the interchange itself plus the adjacent segments
of Avenue 29E from County 11th Street to County 12th Street.
F.1.6 Railroad Grade Separations
Grade-separated railroad crossings should be provided at the following locations:
• Avenue 25E;
• Avenue 29E/Dome Street; and
• Avenue 31E.
A DCR should be prepared before final design plans are developed to define the design concept to be
used at each of the railroad grade separations. The Avenue 25E and Avenue 31E railroad grade
separations should be included in the aforementioned DCRs for the Avenue 25E and Avenue 31E TIs.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-17 Final Report and Executive Summary
The DCR for upgrading the existing at-grade railroad crossing on Avenue 29E to grade separation should
cover Avenue 29E from Old Highway 80 to County 11th Street as well as the Dome Street grade
separation concept supported by the Town of Wellton.
F.1.7 Functional Classification Changes
A review of the current functional classifications and daily traffic volume counts of the study area
roadways indicates that several roadways in the study warrant reclassification. The recommended
functional classifications are described in Table ES-5. The reclassification process involves reviewing the
changes with YMPO and submitting them to ADOT for approval.
Table ES-5 – Recommended Functional Classification Changes
Roadway Location
Existing
Functional
Classification
Recommended
Functional
Classification
Avenue 25E Old Highway 80 to County 12th Street None Rural Minor Collector
Avenue 25E County 12th Street to County 14th Street None Rural Local
Avenue 29E County 10th Street to County 12th Street Rural Minor Collector/
Rural Local/None Rural Major Collector
Avenue 29E County 12th Street to County 14th Street None Rural Minor Collector
Dome Street County 10th Street to Arizona Avenue None Rural Minor Collector
Avenue 31E Old Highway 80 to County 12th Street Rural Local/None Rural Minor Collector
County 10th
Street Avenue 27E to Avenue 29E None Rural Local
County 10th
Street Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E None Rural Minor Collector
Arizona Avenue Old Highway 80 to Dome Street None Rural Minor Collector
County 11th
Street Avenue 28E to Avenue 29E None Rural Minor Collector
County 11th
Street Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E None Rural Minor Collector
County 12th
Street Avenue 25E to Avenue 27E None Rural Local
County 12th
Street Avenue 27E to Avenue 29E None Rural Minor Collector
County 12th
Street Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E None Rural Local
County 14th
Street Avenue 25E to Avenue 27E None Rural Local
County 14th
Street Avenue 27E to Avenue 29E None Rural Minor Collector
Sources: ADOT and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-18 Final Report and Executive Summary
F.2 Transit Network
F.2.1 Improve Transit Frequency
Improving the frequency of the buses on the current YCAT Orange Line route to regular 60- or 30-minute
headways is recommended. This increase in frequency will enhance the service and attractiveness of the
transit system, particularly during peak periods. To increase the frequency of transit service, additional
vehicles, operators, and funding will be required.
F.2.2 Extend Current Transit Route
Extending the current YCAT Orange Line to service the Coyote Wash area south of I-8 is recommended.
The proposed route extension should commence at the current last bus stop at Avenue 29E/William Street
and Arizona Avenue and continue south along Avenue 29E to the Coyote Wash development. At least
one additional bus stop south of I-8 is envisioned with the Orange Line extension.
F.2.3 Support Efforts to Address Local YCAT Funding Issues
The Town of Wellton should coordinate with the other YCAT funding partners to support efforts to
address current and future YCAT funding issues. The Town of Wellton should continue to be involved
in, and provide support to, the recently formed YCIPTA.
The Town of Wellton should actively participate in the Yuma Regional PARA Transit Study, providing
input on the Town’s transit needs and desired improvements to the YCAT system and its funding.
F.2.4 Conduct a Local Transit Circulator Feasibility Study
A local transit circulator feasibility study that includes a community survey should be conducted to aid
Wellton in planning out the feasibility, routing, and timing of implementing a local transit circulator
beyond the 2033 timeframe. This local circulator will be the initial step towards a comprehensive fixed-route
build-out transit system.
F.2.5 Future Regional Transit and Rail Opportunities
It is recommended that study TAC member agencies be active participants in upcoming discussions on
regional transit and rail opportunities such as regional transit service, regional park-and-ride lots,
expanded Amtrak service, a regional multimodal logistics center, and a high-capacity passenger rail line
between Phoenix and San Diego.
F.3 Non-motorized Network
F.3.1 Develop Trails/Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
A trails/bicycle/pedestrian plan should be developed that provides more detail on the location, type, and
design parameters of non-motorized improvements in the study area.
F.3.2 Add Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities to Roadways
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be provided along the following roadway segments:
• Avenue 29E/William Street – Old Highway 80 to County 12th Street;
• Old Highway 80 – Avenue 25E to Avenue 31E;
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-19 Final Report and Executive Summary
• County 11th Street – Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E;
• County 12th Street – Avenue 25E to Avenue 31E;
• Avenue 25E – Old Highway 80 to County 12th Street; and
• Avenue 31E – Old Highway 80 to County 12th Street.
F.3.3 Safe Routes to School
It is recommended that the Town of Wellton coordinate with the Wellton Elementary School District to
examine conditions in the vicinity of school facilities and submit applications for Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) funding for planning assistance and for projects and activities that improve bicycle and pedestrian
safety and accessibility and reduce traffic and air pollution in the vicinity of school facilities.
G. BUILD-OUT RECOMMENDATIONS
Because the build-out condition is beyond the timeframe of the plan for improvements, specific
recommended improvement projects have not been identified for the build-out condition. There are,
however, several general recommendations that should be considered and accounted for when making
decisions that could adversely impact transportation in the build-out condition.
G.1 Build-out Roadway Improvements
A recommended build-out roadway network has been established for the study area. The resulting
projected build-out daily traffic volumes on the network are presented in Figure ES-8. The recommended
build-out roadway network includes all the proposed roadway improvements described previously plus
numerous other new and improved roadways, including the following:
• New grid network of complete streets arterial and collector roadways that include pedestrian and
bicycle facilities;
• Traffic signals or roundabouts at the major roadway intersections;
• New Avenue 23E TI;
• Improved Dome Valley/Ligurta TI (addition of the south half);
• Grade separated crossings at all railroad crossings in the study area; and
• Widening of I-8 to six lanes (three in each direction).
All roadways are expected to operate at level of service D or better with these recommended
improvements.
Figure ES-9 shows the recommended functional classifications associated with the recommended build-out
roadway network. These classifications correspond to the five complete streets cross-sections
presented previously and accommodate the projected build-out daily traffic volumes.
G.2 Build-out Transit Improvements
A comprehensive fixed-route transit system should be provided in build-out that serves the Wellton area
and is integrated with, and includes connections to, future Yuma County regional transit and rail facilities.
G.3 Build-out Non-motorized Improvements
Clearly-defined continuous bicycle and pedestrian networks along roadways and multi-use pathways and
in the vicinity of activity centers such as school and government facilities are recommended at build-out.
The extensive network of canals in the study area provides an ideal location for new multi-use pathways.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-20 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure ES-8 – Projected Build-out Daily Traffic Volumes on Recommended Build-out Network
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-21 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure ES-9 – Proposed Roadway Classifications for Recommended Build-out Network
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-22 Final Report and Executive Summary
H. PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS
An implementation plan has been developed to prioritize the recommended improvements into short-term
(2011-2015), mid-term (2016-2020), and long-term (2021-2033) timeframes. Table ES-6 presents the
implementation plan, which summarizes the short-term, mid-term, and long-term improvements by mode.
The cost estimate in 2011 dollars is $7.8 million for the short-term timeframe, $26.7 million for the mid-term
timeframe, and $95.6 million for the long-term timeframe, for a total plan cost of $130.1 million. It
should be noted that these plan costs do not include the annual operating costs of improving the
frequency, or expanding the coverage, of transit routes.
The actual phasing of implementation of the recommended improvements will be determined by a variety
of factors, including funding availability, development activity, traffic patterns, and private participation.
Improvement projects may be combined to make more efficient use of available funding. The need for
improvements should be re-evaluated each year as part of the various implementing agencies’ budget
processes or as needed if conditions and travel patterns change significantly.
The overall transportation improvement plan, combining the short-term, mid-term, and long-term
recommended improvements, is presented in Figure ES-10.
H.1 Revenue
Due to recent economic conditions, traditional revenue sources have been reduced or eliminated.
Projected revenues are significantly less than the estimated costs of the recommended improvements.
Additional revenue sources will need to be secured if the recommended improvements are to be
constructed within the recommended timeframes. There are numerous local, state and federal public
sector potential revenue opportunities that should be considered. Private sector revenue opportunities such
as developer impact fees should also be pursued.
Another revenue opportunity is a public-private partnership (P3), where public agencies partner with
private entities to design, construct, operate, and/or maintain transportation infrastructure. Potential
benefits of P3s include access to private funding, accelerated project implementation schedule, and more
efficient asset management. Potential drawbacks of P3s include loss of some public agency oversight,
difficulty in determining appropriate rates for users, and public resistance to private sector participation.
H.2 Title VI Impacts
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations related to disadvantaged, or Title VI, populations (i.e.,
minority, low-income, and elderly populations) state that in determining the site or location of
transportation facilities, selection cannot be made with the purpose or effect of excluding persons from,
denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under any program to which this
regulation applies. According to the regulations, a project cannot be implemented that will cause
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to disadvantaged populations.
The Wellton Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA Study is a long-range multimodal planning study
that was prepared to address the transportation needs in the region for the short-term, mid-term, and long-term
transportation planning horizons. The recommended improvements are expected to improve the
overall transportation system of the region and benefit the region as a whole. Recommended improvement
projects were not selected based on the population that would be impacted, but rather were selected to
address an identified transportation need. More detailed analysis will be needed for individual projects
that are federally-funded to ensure that there are no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to
disadvantaged populations.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-23 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-6 – Implementation Plan
Short-term Improvements (2011-2015)
Project Location Improvement Description
Cost ($)
Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Roadway Improvements
Avenue 25E, Avenue 29E, Dome Street, Avenue
31E, County 10th Street, Arizona Avenue, County
11th Street, County12th Street, and County 14th
Street
Update/assign federal functional
classifications -
Avenue 29E: Old Highway 80 to County 11th
Street and Dome Street potential railroad grade
separation
DCR for railroad grade separation 400,000
County 11th Street: Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E Pave roadway 3,000,000
County 12th Street: Avenue 25E to Avenue 27E Pave roadway 3,000,000
Transit Improvements
YCAT Orange Line Improve frequency to 60-minute headways
during peak periods 500,000*
Modified YCAT Orange Line route Extend route south of I-8 to serve Coyote
Wash area 250,000*
Non-motorized Improvements
Town of Wellton and surrounding community Trails/bicycle/pedestrian plan 150,000
Avenue 29E: Old Highway 80 to County 12th
Street Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities 750,000
County 12th Street: Avenue 27E to Avenue 29E Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities 500,000
Subtotal Short-term Improvements Cost* 7,800,000
*annual operating cost, not included in the total plan cost Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-24 Final Report and Executive Summary
Mid-term Improvements (2016-2020)
Project Location Improvement Description
Cost ($)
Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Roadway Improvements
Old Highway 80: Avenue 29-1/4E to Wellton
Mohawk Drive DCR for widening, bridge over Coyote Wash 350,000
Avenue 25E: Old Highway 80 to County 12th
Street DCR for TI and railroad grade separation 500,000
Avenue 29E: County 11th Street to County 12th
Street DCR for TI improvements 350,000
Avenue 31E: Old Highway 80 to County 11th
Street DCR for TI and railroad grade separation 500,000
County 12th Street: Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E Pave roadway 3,000,000
County 14th Street: Avenue 25E to Avenue 27E Pave roadway 3,000,000
Avenue 25E: County 12th Street to County 14th
Street Pave roadway 3,000,000
Avenue 29E: Old Highway 80 to County 11th
Street and Dome Street potential railroad grade
separation
Construct railroad grade separation and Dome
Street/Avenue 29E connector roadway if Dome
Street location is selected for railroad crossing
15,000,000
Transit Improvements
YCAT Orange Line Improve frequency to 30-minute headways
during peak periods 500,000*
Non-motorized Improvements
County 11th Street: Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities 500,000
County 12th Street: Avenue 25E to Avenue 27E Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities 500,000
Subtotal Mid-term Improvements Cost* 26,700,000
*annual operating cost, not included in the total plan cost Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-25 Final Report and Executive Summary
Long-term Improvements (2021-2033)
Project Location Improvement Description
Cost ($)
Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Roadway Improvements
County 10th Street: Avenue 22E to Avenue 27E Pave roadway 7,500,000
Avenue 22E: Old Highway 80 to County 10th Street Pave roadway 750,000
Avenue 23E: Old Highway 80 to County 10th Street Pave roadway 1,100,000
Old Highway 80 and Avenue 29E/William Street Upgrade traffic control at intersection 300,000
Old Highway 80: Avenue 29-1/4E to Wellton
Mohawk Drive
Widen to four lanes, including bridge
over Coyote Wash 4,000,000
Avenue 25E: Old Highway 80 to County 12th Street Construct TI and railroad grade
separation 35,000,000
Avenue 29E: County 11th Street to County 12th
Street Construct TI improvements 10,000,000
Avenue 31E: Old Highway 80 to County 11th Street Construct TI and railroad grade
separation 35,000,000
Transit Improvements
Town of Wellton and surrounding community Local transit circulator feasibility study 150,000
Non-motorized Improvements
Old Highway 80: Avenue 25E to Avenue 31E Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities 800,000
Avenue 25E: Old Highway 80 to County 12th Street Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities 250,000
Avenue 31E: Old Highway 80 to County 12th Street Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities 250,000
County 12th Street: Avenue 29E to Avenue 31E Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities 500,000
Subtotal Long-term Improvements Cost* 95,600,000
Total Implementation Plan Cost* = $130.1 million 7,800,000 26,700,000 95,600,000
*annual operating cost, not included in the total plan cost Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ES-26 Final Report and Executive Summary
Figure ES-10 – Improvement Plan
Projects not Shown in
Improvement Plan Graphic
Short-term Timeframe
Roadway
• Federal functional
classification changes
• Design Concept Report:
o Avenue 29E or Dome
Street railroad grade
separation
Transit
• Improve frequency to 60-
minute headways during
peak periods
• Provide service south of I-8
Non-motorized
• Trail/Bicycle/Pedestrian
Plan
Mid-term Timeframe
Roadway
• Design Concept Report:
o I-8/Avenue 25E TI and
railroad grade separation
o I-8/Avenue 29E TI
improvements
o I-8/Avenue 31E TI and
railroad grade separation
o Old Highway 80:
Avenue 29-1/4E to
Mohawk Wellton Drive
widening
Transit
• Improve frequency to 30-
minute headways during
peak periods
Long-term Timeframe
Transit
• Local transit circulator
feasibility study
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 i Final Report and Executive Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Process ......................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Summary of Relevant Plans, Documents, and Studies ........................................... 2
1.6 Technical Advisory Committee and Stakeholders ................................................... 4
1.7 Public Involvement ............................................................................................... 4
2 CURRENT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 5
2.1 Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Land Ownership ..................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Environment.......................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Population and Employment Data ........................................................................ 8
2.4.1 Current Population and Employment Totals ........................................................ 8
2.4.2 Current Population and Employment by Traffic Analysis Zones .............................. 10
2.4.3 Title VI Populations ................................................................................... 11
2.5 Current Roadway Network .................................................................................. 14
2.5.1 Traffic Control ........................................................................................... 14
2.5.2 Functional Classifications ............................................................................ 15
2.5.3 Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 16
2.5.4 Roadway Segment Levels of Service .................................................................. 21
2.5.5 Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................................... 23
2.5.6 Crash Analysis .......................................................................................... 23
2.6 Current Transit Network ...................................................................................... 24
2.6.1 Public Transit ........................................................................................... 24
2.6.2 Rail ........................................................................................................ 24
2.7 Current Non-motorized Network .......................................................................... 25
3 FUTURE CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 28
3.1 Land Uses ............................................................................................................ 28
3.2 Population and Employment Data ...................................................................... 30
3.2.1 Future Population and Employment Projections.................................................. 30
3.2.2 Title VI Populations ................................................................................... 32
3.3 Future Roadway Network ................................................................................... 36
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 ii Final Report and Executive Summary
3.3.1 Anticipated Roadway Improvement Projects ....................................................... 36
3.3.2 Functional Classification Changes .................................................................. 36
3.3.3 Traffic Volume Forecasts .............................................................................. 36
3.3.4 Traffic Control ........................................................................................... 37
3.3.5 Interchanges .............................................................................................. 37
3.4 Future Transit Network ....................................................................................... 40
3.4.1 Public Transit ........................................................................................... 40
3.4.2 Rail ........................................................................................................ 45
3.5 Future Non-motorized Network ........................................................................... 45
4 IDENTIFIED CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS ................................... 46
4.1 Identified Current Needs ...................................................................................... 46
4.1.1 Roadway Network ....................................................................................... 46
4.1.2 Transit Network ......................................................................................... 46
4.1.3 Non-motorized Network ................................................................................ 46
4.2 Identified 2033 Future Needs ............................................................................... 46
4.2.1 Roadway Network ....................................................................................... 46
4.2.2 Transit Network ......................................................................................... 46
4.2.3 Non-motorized Network ................................................................................ 47
4.3 Identified Build-out Future Needs ....................................................................... 47
4.3.1 Roadway Network ....................................................................................... 47
4.3.2 Transit Network ......................................................................................... 47
4.3.3 Non-motorized Network ................................................................................ 47
5 EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................... 48
5.1 Meets Identified Need .......................................................................................... 48
5.2 Cost...................................................................................................................... 48
5.3 Impacts to Right-of-Way ..................................................................................... 48
5.4 Impacts to Existing Businesses/Residences .......................................................... 48
5.5 Engineering Issues ............................................................................................... 48
5.6 Level of Service/Delay .......................................................................................... 48
5.7 Accessibility/Mobility .......................................................................................... 48
5.8 Network Continuity ............................................................................................. 48
5.9 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 48
5.10 Multimodal Compatibility .................................................................................... 49
5.11 Safety .................................................................................................................. 49
5.12 Public Acceptability ............................................................................................ 49
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 iii Final Report and Executive Summary
6 IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 50
6.1 Freeway Interchange Spacing .............................................................................. 50
6.2 Railroad Grade Separation ................................................................................... 50
6.3 Build-out Roadway Network Scenarios ................................................................ 52
6.4 Complete Streets .................................................................................................. 52
7 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................... 60
7.1 Roadway Network ............................................................................................... 60
7.1.1 Roadway Paving ........................................................................................ 60
7.1.2 Roadway Widening ..................................................................................... 60
7.1.3 Intersection Traffic Control Change ................................................................. 61
7.1.4 New Freeway Interchanges ............................................................................ 61
7.1.5 Freeway Interchange Improvements ................................................................. 61
7.1.6 Railroad Grade Separations ........................................................................... 61
7.1.7 Functional Classification Changes .................................................................. 61
7.2 Transit Network ................................................................................................... 63
7.2.1 Improve Transit Frequency ........................................................................... 63
7.2.2 Extend Current Transit Route ........................................................................ 64
7.2.3 Support Efforts to Address Local YCAT Funding Issues ....................................... 64
7.2.4 Conduct a Local Transit Circulator Feasibility Study ............................................ 64
7.2.5 Future Regional Transit and Rail Opportunities ................................................. 64
7.3 Non-motorized Network ....................................................................................... 64
7.3.1 Develop Trails/Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan ............................................................ 65
7.3.2 Add Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities to Roadways .............................................. 65
7.3.3 Safe Routes to School ................................................................................... 65
8 BUILD-OUT RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 66
8.1 Build-out Roadway Improvements ...................................................................... 66
8.2 Build-out Transit Improvements ......................................................................... 66
8.3 Build-out Non-motorized Improvements ............................................................. 66
9 PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................... 69
9.1 Traditional Revenue Sources ................................................................................ 69
9.1.1 Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) ................................................. 69
9.1.2 Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) ........................................................... 69
9.1.3 Local General Funds ................................................................................... 74
9.1.4 Surface Transportation Program (STP) ........................................................... 74
9.1.5 Developer Contributions ................................................................................ 74
9.2 Revenue Opportunities ........................................................................................ 74
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 iv Final Report and Executive Summary
9.2.1 Public Sector Opportunities ........................................................................... 75
9.2.2 Public-Private Partnerships .......................................................................... 78
9.3 Agency Coordination and Partnering ................................................................... 79
9.4 Title VI Impacts .................................................................................................. 79
10 APPENDIX............................................................................................ 80
Appendix 10-1: Summaries from Public Open House Meeting No. 1 and Meeting No. 2... 81
Appendix 10-2: 2008 Population and Employment Estimates by TAZ ............................ 92
Appendix 10-3: 2033 Population and Employment Estimates by TAZ ............................ 94
Appendix 10-4: Build-out Population and Employment Estimates by TAZ .................... 96
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 v Final Report and Executive Summary
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 – Current Land Use Plan .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3 – Land Ownership ............................................................................................................ 7
Figure 4 – Environmental and Drainage Features .......................................................................... 9
Figure 5 – RTP Traffic Analysis Zones ........................................................................................ 12
Figure 6 – PARA Traffic Analysis Zones..................................................................................... 13
Figure 7 – Current Roadway Conditions ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 8 – Current Functional Classifications .............................................................................. 18
Figure 9 – Daily Traffic Volume Counts ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 10 – Level of Service Visual Depictions ........................................................................... 22
Figure 11 – Crash Locations and Severity .................................................................................... 26
Figure 12 – Transit and Rail Network .......................................................................................... 27
Figure 13 – Build-out Land Use ................................................................................................... 29
Figure 14 – 2008 Dwelling Units, Population, and Employment by TAZ ................................... 33
Figure 15 – 2033 Dwelling Units, Population, and Employment by TAZ ................................... 34
Figure 16 – Build-out Dwelling Units, Population, and Employment by TAZ ............................ 35
Figure 17 – 2050 Recommended Statewide Scenario Excerpt ..................................................... 38
Figure 18 – Projected 2033 Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 39
Figure 19 – Proposed Wellton Circulator per YMPO RTP .......................................................... 42
Figure 20 – Projected Build-out Population Density .................................................................... 43
Figure 21 – Projected Build-out Employment Density................................................................. 44
Figure 22 – Railroad Grade Separation Considerations ............................................................... 51
Figure 23 – Projected Build-out Daily Traffic Volumes with 1-Mile Crossing Network ............ 53
Figure 24 – Projected Build-out Daily Traffic Volumes with Interchange Crossings Network .. 54
Figure 25 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Rural Minor Collector .......................................... 55
Figure 26 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Rural Major Collector ........................................... 56
Figure 27 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Urban Collector .................................................... 57
Figure 28 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Rural Minor Arterial ............................................. 58
Figure 29 – Complete Streets Cross-Section: Urban Minor Arterial ............................................ 59
Figure 30 – Recommended Federal Functional Classifications ................................................... 62
Figure 31 – Projected Build-out Daily Traffic Volumes on Recommended Build-out Network . 67
Figure 32 – Proposed Roadway Classifications for Recommended Build-out Network .............. 68
Figure 33 – Improvement Plan ..................................................................................................... 73
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 vi Final Report and Executive Summary
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1 – Current Study Area Population ....................................................................................... 8
Table 2 – Current Study Area Employment ................................................................................. 10
Table 3 – Current Population and Employment Estimates by RTP Traffic Analysis Zones ........ 10
Table 4 – Racial Demographic Percentages in the Town of Wellton ........................................... 11
Table 5 – 2000 Title VI Population Percentages .......................................................................... 14
Table 6 – Morning Peak Hour Volume Counts ............................................................................ 20
Table 7 – Mid-Day Peak Hour Volume Counts ............................................................................ 20
Table 8 – Afternoon Peak Hour Volume Counts .......................................................................... 20
Table 9 – LOS Definitions and V/C Ratios .................................................................................. 21
Table 10 �� Roadway Capacities by Facility Type ........................................................................ 22
Table 11 – Intersection LOS Values ............................................................................................. 23
Table 12 – Crashes by Violation Type ......................................................................................... 23
Table 13 – Crashes by Collision Manner ...................................................................................... 24
Table 14 – Future Wellton Land Use Categories .......................................................................... 28
Table 15 – Future Study Area Population Projections .................................................................. 31
Table 16 – Build-out Population Projections by Land Use Type ................................................. 31
Table 17 – Future Study Area Employment Projections .............................................................. 32
Table 18 – Population Growth and Transit Demand Forecasts .................................................... 41
Table 19 – Recommended Functional Classification Changes ..................................................... 63
Table 20 – Implementation Plan ................................................................................................... 70
Table 21 – HURF Revenue Forecast ............................................................................................ 74
Table 22 – Local, State, and Federal Revenue Opportunities ....................................................... 75
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 1 Final Report and Executive Summary
1 INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) awarded funding for the Wellton Transportation
Long-Range Plan PARA Study (Wellton PARA Study) through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas
(PARA) program. The purpose of the PARA program is to assist rural counties, cities, towns, and tribal
communities in addressing a broad range of multimodal transportation planning issues related to
roadways, transit, and non-motorized modes of travel.
1.1 Study Purpose
The principal purpose of the Wellton Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA Study is to develop a
multimodal transportation plan for a 44-square-mile planning area in the vicinity of the Town of Wellton.
The study has resulted in a plan of improvements for short-term, mid-term, and long-term transportation
planning horizons. The recommendations are multimodal, considering roadways, transit, and non-motorized
(i.e., bicycle and pedestrian) transportation modes.
1.2 Study Objectives
Objectives of the Wellton Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA study are:
• Collect and analyze available traffic volume data, crash information, and existing roadway, non-motorized
transportation, and transit infrastructure and services in order to document current needs;
• Develop a travel demand TransCAD model for the Wellton area using available population and
employment information and the current roadway network;
• Use the TransCAD model to project future travel demand for 2033 and build-out;
• Evaluate the performance of the transportation network for each of the horizon years and document
the current and future needs;
• Develop a set of multimodal potential improvements to address the current and future needs;
• Coordinate with ADOT to identify potential new and upgraded interchanges and grade-separated
crossings on Interstate 8 (I-8);
• Collaborate with the Union Pacific Railroad and ADOT to identify future railroad grade separation
needs and pursue future passenger rail service;
• Provide implementation recommendations;
• Formulate infrastructure development policies and guidelines that facilitate public-private
partnerships;
• Explore creative financing opportunities to fund recommended improvements; and
• Document the results of the study process and the recommendations in a ‘reader-friendly’ final report
and executive summary.
1.3 Study Process
During the course of the project, interim documents were prepared to detail the results of specific work
tasks. These interim documents were subject to review and comment and form the basis of the Wellton
Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA Study Final Report. More detailed information can be found in
the following interim documents:
• Working Paper No. 1 – Current Conditions;
• Working Paper No. 2 – Future Conditions and Modeling;
• Working Paper No. 3 – Evaluation Criteria and Plan for Improvements;
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 2 Final Report and Executive Summary
• Public Open House No. 1 Summary; and
• Public Open House No. 2 Summary.
1.4 Study Area
The study area for the Wellton Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA study encompasses the area
bounded by County 10th Street, Avenue 20E, County 14th Street, and Avenue 31E, as shown in Figure 1.
1.5 Summary of Relevant Plans, Documents, and Studies
The following plans, documents, and studies were reviewed in the preparation of this study so that
relevant findings and recommendations could be considered and incorporated in this study.
• Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (January
2007);
• Arizona Department of Transportation Rural Transit Needs Study (May 2008);
• Arizona Department of Transportation 2010 Statewide Rail Framework Study (March 2010);
• Arizona Department of Transportation 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework (March
2010);
• Arizona Subcounty Population Projections (December 2006);
• Bureau of Land Management Yuma Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan (January
2010);
• Coyote Wash Traffic Impact Analysis (June 2005);
• Dome Valley/Wellton Planning Area Background Study (August 2006);
• Dome Valley/Wellton Planning Area Citizen Advisory Group Report (August 2007);
• Federal Highway Administration Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (August 2007);
• Federal Highway Administration Updated Guidance for the Functional Classification of Highways
(August 2010);
• Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wellton-Mohawk Title Transfer Act (December 2006);
• Highway Capacity Manual (October 2000);
• Joint Land Use Study Part Two: Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field/Barry M. Goldwater Range
(February 2005);
• Town of Wellton General Plan 2003-2013 (October 2003);
• Town of Wellton Preliminary Feasibility Assessment Report (April 2006);
• Town of Wellton Railroad Crossing Alternatives (June 2008);
• Town of Wellton Water System Master Plan for the Areas South of the Union Pacific Railroad and
Interstate 8 (March 2008);
• Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (January 1999);
• Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update (July 2006);
• Yuma International Airport Master Plan (September 1999);
• Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization Transit Development Plan for Yuma County Area Transit
(May 2003);
• Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization Yuma Regional Transportation Coordination Plan
(Updated April 2008);
• Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization 2010-2033 Regional Transportation Plan Final Report
(April 2010); and
• Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization 2011 to 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (July
2010).
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 3 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: Yuma County and ADOT Figure 1 – Study Area
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 4 Final Report and Executive Summary
1.6 Technical Advisory Committee and Stakeholders
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provided input on technical issues related to the study and
reviewed deliverables. Members of the TAC represent the following agencies:
• ADOT Multimodal Planning Division;
• ADOT Communication and Community Partnerships;
• ADOT Yuma District;
• Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD);
• Arizona State Land Department (ASLD);
• Town of Wellton;
• Yuma County; and
• Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO).
Other key stakeholders for the study included representatives from the following entities:
• ADOT Environmental Planning Group;
• Arizona Department of Environmental Quality;
• Arizona Farm Bureau;
• Glen Curtis Development, Inc.;
• Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR);
• U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground;
• U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR);
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP);
• U.S. Marine Corps Air Station – Yuma (MCAS);
• Wellton Elementary School District; and
• Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD).
1.7 Public Involvement
Public participation is an integral part of a successful transportation plan. As part of the Wellton
Transportation Long-Range Plan PARA Study, input was obtained from the general public, business
leaders, and elected officials at two public meetings.
The first meeting was held on October 27, 2010 from 5 p.m. to7 p.m. at the Wellton Community Center.
Information on current and future conditions and needs was presented. The second meeting was held on
March 2, 2011 from 5 p.m.to 7 p.m. at the Wellton Community Center. Information on potential
improvement projects and preliminary recommendations were presented. Each meeting included a brief
presentation followed by a question-and-answer session.
The meetings were staffed by Town of Wellton, ADOT, Yuma County, YMPO, and consultant personnel
who were available to provide information, answer questions, and receive comments. Exhibits related to
the study were provided as boards or handouts. Comment forms were made available for use in
submitting written comments. Summaries of the public meetings are located in Appendix 10-1.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 5 Final Report and Executive Summary
2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
2.1 Land Uses
An understanding of current land uses is important for modeling travel characteristics. Land use
information is converted to population and employment data at the traffic analysis zone level for use in
the travel demand model. Typically, population produces trips while employment attracts trips in the
travel demand model.
The study area is currently comprised of commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, and public uses.
In general, commercial areas are along Avenue 29E (William Street) near I-8, and along Los Angeles
Avenue/Old Highway 80 between Avenue 28E and Avenue 30E. There are a few industrial areas located
along the Union Pacific Railroad lines through the project area as well as along I-8.
Residential land uses are spread throughout the study area at varying degrees of density. The majority of
the residential areas are designated low or rural density residential. The areas of land designated medium
or suburban density residential are dispersed throughout the study area, with large pockets north of the
Town of Wellton limits and south of I-8 along County 12th Street.
The largest land use in the study area is designated as “Parks and Open Space” by the Town of Wellton
and “Agricultural/Rural Preservation” by Yuma County. The majority of the land within the study area
west of Avenue 25E is designated with these Agricultural/Open Space uses. The current land use plan is
shown in Figure 2.
There is an extensive canal system through the study area, including the Mohawk Canal, Wellton Canal,
and the Wellton-Mohawk Canal.
The proximity of the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) to the land along the southern boundary of the
study area affects its use designation. The Town of Wellton has adopted the land use designations
recommended by the Federal Government in the Joint Land Use Study for the BMGR. The Town’s
“Rural Density Residential” and “Suburban Rural Density Residential” land uses limit the parcel size of
the residential development that may occur in these areas. Parcels within half a mile of the range have a 5-
acre minimum parcel size and parcels between a mile and half a mile from the range have a 2-acre
minimum parcel size.
A new CBP Border Patrol station is currently being built in Wellton on the west side of Avenue 31E,
directly south of I-8. The new Border Patrol station will accommodate approximately 300 agents.
2.2 Land Ownership
The current land ownership within the study area is shown in Figure 3. Public ownership within the study
area includes: the Town of Wellton, Yuma County, ASLD, USBR, CBP, and BLM.
The largest private land owner in the area is WMIDD. Much of the land within the study area belonging
to WMIDD was acquired in a title transfer with USBR. According to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Wellton-Mohawk Title Transfer Act, approximately 9,800 acres of the undeveloped land
acquired by WMIDD is considered suitable for development in the future. A portion of this transferred
land may also be privately purchased for agriculture-related purposes.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 6 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: Yuma County and Town of Wellton Figure 2 – Current Land Use Plan
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 7 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: Yuma County and WMIDD Figure 3 – Land Ownership
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 8 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.3 Environment
Environmental features in the vicinity of the study area include the Gila River and Muggins Mountains
Wilderness to the north of the study area, the Gila Mountains to the west of the study area, and the Copper
Mountains to the south of the study area.
Most of the study area is relatively flat with typical Sonoran Desert vegetation. Drainage flows from the
surrounding mountains to the Gila River through numerous washes, as shown in Figure 4. Two large
washes, the Ligurta Wash and the Coyote Wash, traverse the study area in a general north-south direction.
The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail follows along the Gila River through the study area
with the El Camino del Diablo Trail following Avenue 25E between I-8 and the BMGR.
Cultural resources have been identified within the BLM-designated Ligurta Area Special Cultural
Resource Management Area (SCRMA) and Muggins Mountains Terraces SCRMA shown in Figure 4.
According to the BLM Yuma Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan, the cultural resources
within the Ligurta Area SCRMA are considered to primarily be for scientific use while the cultural
resources within the Muggins Mountains Terraces SCRMA are considered to be for traditional viewing
and future conservation use.
2.4 Population and Employment Data
2.4.1 Current Population and Employment Totals
The population estimate for the study area is comprised of two components:
• The population within the Town limits; and
• The population within the project study area outside of the Town limits, in adjacent unincorporated
land.
The 2008 year-round population estimate for the Town of Wellton is 2,318 people per the Arizona
Department of Commerce (ADC) website (www.azcommerce.com/econinfo/demographics) and Table II-
2 in the YMPO 2010-2033 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). To be consistent with the RTP, the 2008
Wellton population estimate is considered the “current” population of Wellton for study purposes.
The 2008 population of the unincorporated land within the study area was estimated using 2007 aerial
photography and the population/dwelling unit ratio of 2.59 for unincorporated areas that is shown in
Table II-3 in the RTP. The 2008 population estimates for the study area are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Current Study Area Population
Portion of Study Area 2008 Population
Population within the Town of
Wellton
2,318
Population within the study
area unincorporated land
568
Total 2,886
Sources: Arizona Department of Commerce and aerial photography
It should be noted that there is a significant winter visitor and part-time resident population of several
hundred people within the study area that is above and beyond the population shown in Table 1.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 9 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: Yuma County and BLM Figure 4 – Environmental and Drainage Features
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 10 Final Report and Executive Summary
Agriculture and ranching activities provide the most employment of any sector in the Wellton area.
Employment data for the study area was estimated using a ratio of employment to population. Per the
RTP, an employment-to-population ratio of 0.34 is valid for the Town of Wellton and a ratio of 0.25 is
valid for Yuma County. Based on these ratios, 2008 employment for the study area was estimated as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 – Current Study Area Employment
Portion of Study Area 2008 Employment
Employment within the Town of
Wellton
788
Employment within the study
area unincorporated land
142
Total 930
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
2.4.2 Current Population and Employment by Traffic Analysis Zones
The RTP divided Yuma County into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) for use in the development of a travel
demand model. TAZs are geographic subdivisions of the study area that are used in the database of the
travel demand model. Portions of six of the TAZs used in the RTP (numbered 506, 510, 511, 512, 513,
and 514) are located within the study area. The RTP TAZs are shown in Figure 5.
Because five of the six RTP TAZ boundaries extend past the study area, the population and employment
data for these five TAZs was adjusted to more accurately reflect the socioeconomic conditions within the
study area. The small areas in the southwest and southeast corners of the study area not covered by any of
the RTP TAZs were determined to be negligible in the current condition because these areas are vacant.
The RTP TAZs divided the employment totals into numerous categories. The categories currently
applicable to the study area are retail, office, service, industrial, public, manufacturing, and
elementary/junior high school. The 2008 population and employment estimates for the portion of each
TAZ within the study area are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 – Current Population and Employment Estimates by RTP Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
2008
Dwelling
Units
2008
Popula-tion
2008 Employment
Retail Office Service
Indus-trial
Public
Manufac-turing
Elemen-tary/
JRHS Total
506 62 161 1 0 5 0 0 45 0 51
510 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
511 437 978 45 5 134 27 22 2 0 235
512 198 466 66 3 175 4 2 0 0 250
513 494 1,110 53 10 52 3 200 6 68 392
514 66 161 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Total 1,262 2,886 165 18 368 34 224 53 68 930
Source: YMPO 2010-2033 Regional Transportation Plan and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 11 Final Report and Executive Summary
To develop a more accurate and detailed travel forecast model for the project study area, the six RTP
TAZs in the study area were subdivided into 38 TAZs, designated hereinafter as PARA TAZs. The
PARA TAZs are shown in Figure 6. Appendix 10-2 shows the 2008 population and employment
estimates divided into the PARA TAZs.
2.4.3 Title VI Populations
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes assure that individuals are not subjected to
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. In February 1994,
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The purpose of the order was to focus attention on
the “environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low income communities
with the goal of achieving environmental justice.” The Order does not supersede existing laws or
regulations; rather, it requires consideration and inclusion of these targeted populations as mandated in
previous legislation including:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
• Section 309 of the Clean Air Act; and
• Freedom of Information Act.
The U.S. Department of Transportation issued its final order to implement the provisions of Executive
Order 12898 on April 15, 1997. This final order requires that information be obtained concerning the
race, color or national origin, and income level of populations served or affected by proposed programs,
policies, and activities. It further requires that steps be taken to avoid disproportionately high and adverse
impacts on these populations. One of the first steps in assuring environmental justice is the identification
of those populations specifically targeted by the Order – minority and low-income populations.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the racial composition of the Town of Wellton was predominantly
white, with about 32 percent minorities, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Racial Demographic Percentages in the Town of Wellton
White Not
Hispanic
African
American
Native
American Asian
Native
Hawaiian Other
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
or Latino
68% 2% 1% <1% <1% 25% 3% 41%
Source: 2000 Census
The Executive Order also requires the consideration of persons older than 60 years of age. According to
the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately 37 percent of the population in Wellton is 60 years or older. In
addition, the Order mandates that impacts on low-income people must also be considered. Approximately
21 percent of all people in Wellton are estimated to be living below the poverty level according to the
2000 Census data. Title VI population data for the year 2000 for the Town of Wellton and Yuma County
is shown in Table 5.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 12 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: YMPO Figure 5 – RTP Traffic Analysis Zones
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 13 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 6 – PARA Traffic Analysis Zones
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 14 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table 5 – 2000 Title VI Population Percentages
Population Category
Town of
Wellton
Yuma
County
Females 50.4% 49.5%
Males 49.6% 50.5%
Minority Races 31.8% 31.8%
Persons with disability 25.8% 20.8%
Persons over age 60 37.0% 21.4%
Persons living below the poverty level 21.3% 19.2%
Source: 2000 Census
2.5 Current Roadway Network
The current roadway network in the study area is composed of an interstate highway, collectors, and local
streets. The major existing roadways are described below.
• I-8 – I-8 is an east-west interstate highway that runs from San Diego, California to its junction with I-
10 near Casa Grande, Arizona. Within the study limits, access to I-8 is limited to the interchange at
Avenue 29E (William Street). I-8 has four through lanes (two in each direction). I-8 is also a part of
the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET), a system of roads deemed necessary to support U.S.
military operations;
• Old Highway 80 (Los Angeles Avenue) – Within the study area, Old Highway 80 is a rural major
collector that runs east-west in between I-8 and the Gila River. Old Highway 80 has two through
lanes in each direction plus a center median between Arizona Avenue and Jessie Street. The
remainder of Old Highway 80 in the study area is typically a two-lane rural roadway. Within the
Town of Wellton, Old Highway 80 is also referred to as Los Angeles Avenue; and
• Avenue 29E (William Street) – Avenue 29E is a two-lane north-south roadway that provides access
to I-8 via a traffic interchange. It is one of the few roadways in the study area that crosses I-8,
providing the most direct connection between the Town facilities north of I-8 and the residential and
commercial developments to the south. (Avenue 25E and Avenue 31E are the two other roadways
within the study area that cross I-8, though neither of them have a traffic interchange at I-8.) Within
the study area, Avenue 29E is classified as a rural local road between Canal Avenue and Old
Highway 80 and a rural minor collector north of Old Highway 80. Within the Town of Wellton,
Avenue 29E is also referred to as William Street.
Figure 7 shows the location of the paved roads and grade-separated crossings of I-8 within the study area.
All of the paved roads in the study area have two through lanes (one in each direction), except for I-8 and
the five-lane section of Los Angeles Avenue described above.
Only having a few paved roads and crossings of I-8 and the railroad limits the route options through the
study area. This is particularly a potential issue for emergency response providers who like to have
multiple alternate routes in case the primary route is blocked.
2.5.1 Traffic Control
All intersections in the study area are currently unsignalized, meaning there are no traffic signals in the
study area.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 15 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.5.2 Functional Classifications
Functional classification defines the hierarchy of streets in a roadway system according to the character of
service they are intended to provide as it relates to mobility, access, and trip length. The roles and
standards for each type of roadway must be established in order to plan an efficient and effective system.
Most travel involves movement through a network of roadways of varying functional classification.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed guidelines for federal functional
classification of roadways. The federal functional classification groups include principal arterials, minor
arterials, collectors, and local roads. In general, the principal and minor arterials provide a high level of
mobility for the traveling public with minimal allowance for access, while the collectors and local roads
provide for residential and non-residential access. The FHWA guidelines also distinguish between rural
roadways (in areas with a population less than 5,000) and urban roadways (in areas with a population
greater than 5,000). To utilize federal funding on roadway improvements, the roadway must have a
federal functional classification. Most federal funding can only be used on roadways classified as rural
major collectors or higher.
The following describe the general characteristics associated with the different functional classifications.
Principal Arterials
• Include freeways and major highways;
• Provide regional connectivity;
• Mobility is the primary objective;
• Serve the highest volume generators;
• Usually carry regional bus routes; and
• Limited access with capability of moving high volumes at high speeds.
Minor Arterials
• Higher speed than collector or local;
• Longer trip length compared to collector and local;
• Carry the majority of trips entering or leaving the area;
• Do not usually connect through neighborhoods; and
• Usually carry local bus routes.
Collectors
• Distribute traffic to/from arterials;
• Collect traffic from local streets;
• May carry local bus routes; and
• May access neighborhoods.
Local Roads
• Provide direct access to abutting land;
• Discourage through traffic; and
• Lower speed limit than other classifications.
The study area roadways that currently have federally recognized functional classifications are shown
graphically in Figure 8.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 16 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.5.3 Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume information serves to indicate how close to capacity roadway segments or intersections
may be. Actual daily traffic volume counts are also used to help calibrate the travel demand model as one
of its principal outputs is estimates of daily traffic volumes.
Available traffic count data was reviewed to ascertain the volume of traffic on study area roadways.
Daily traffic volume and heavy vehicle percentage data on selected roadway segments was collected in
July 2010 by YMPO. The daily traffic volume data was adjusted by a seasonal factor of 1.33 to represent
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. The highest surface street daily traffic volumes occurred on Los
Angeles Avenue (4,400 vehicles per day east of William Street) and Avenue 29E (3,600 vehicles per day
between I-8 and County 12th Street). Daily traffic volumes on I-8 average about 13,000 vehicles per day.
I-8 ADTs from 2009 were provided by YMPO. I-8 heavy vehicle percentages were provided by ADOT.
I-8 has a high heavy vehicle percentage of 22 percent, indicating its importance as a freight route.
Morning (AM), mid-day (MD), and afternoon (PM) peak period intersection movement volumes were
counted in July 2010 by YMPO as part of this study at the intersections of Old Highway 80/William
Street, I-8 Westbound Ramp/William Street, and I-8 Eastbound Ramp/William Street.
The ADT volumes are shown in Figure 9 while the AM, MD, and PM peak hour volumes are
respectively shown in Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 17 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: Yuma County and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 7 – Current Roadway Conditions
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 18 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: ADOT and YMPO Figure 8 – Current Functional Classifications
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 19 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: ADOT and YMPO Figure 9 – Daily Traffic Volume Counts
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 20 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table 6 – Morning Peak Hour Volume Counts
Intersection
Name
AM Peak Hour Volume Count by Intersection Movement
(L=Left, T=Through, and R=Right)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R Total
Old Highway 80 and
William Street
24 27 44 12 25 21 8 41 24 41 57 1 325
Interstate 8
Westbound Ramp
and William Street
45 144 0 0 51 59 0 0 0 15 0 7 321
Interstate 8
Eastbound Ramp
and William Street
0 102 17 11 72 0 82 0 29 0 0 0 313
Table 7 – Mid-Day Peak Hour Volume Counts
Intersection
Name
MD Peak Hour Volume Count by Intersection Movement
(L=Left, T=Through, and R=Right)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R Total
Old Highway 80 and
William Street
31 27 57 20 31 21 20 76 29 41 77 3 433
Interstate 8
Westbound Ramp
and William Street
39 125 0 0 96 65 0 0 0 19 0 11 355
Interstate 8
Eastbound Ramp
and William Street
0 109 27 7 86 0 73 0 32 0 0 0 334
Table 8 – Afternoon Peak Hour Volume Counts
Intersection
Name
PM Peak Hour Volume Count by Intersection Movement
(L=Left, T=Through, and R=Right)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R Total
Old Highway 80 and
William Street
21 33 96 13 24 24 12 60 21 49 65 3 421
Interstate 8
Westbound Ramp
and William Street
59 154 0 0 56 63 0 0 0 29 5 12 378
Interstate 8
Eastbound Ramp
and William Street
0 105 37 7 74 0 112 0 73 0 0 0 408
Source: YMPO
Source: YMPO
Source: YMPO
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 21 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.5.4 Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Roadway traffic operations are defined and categorized by the amount of delay experienced by an average
driver. The operations are categorized by a grading system called level of service (LOS), which has a
letter designation ranging from A (no delay) to F (severe congestion). LOS definitions and corresponding
volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios are given in Table 9 as per the Transportation Research Board’s Highway
Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The LOS categories or levels are visually depicted in the photographs
shown in Figure 10.
LOS can be determined from the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of a roadway. As defined in the HCM, the
vehicle capacity of a roadway is “the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a given point during a
specified period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions.” The roadway capacity
thresholds for various facility types shown in Table 10 are derived from the HCM.
Roadway segments below the maximum volume threshold for LOS C likely do not currently need
additional through capacity while roadway segments above the maximum volume threshold for LOS D
likely do currently need additional through capacity. For roadway segments between the maximum
volume thresholds for LOS C and LOS D, more detailed analysis should be conducted to evaluate
intersection geometry, traffic control, and number and spacing of driveways to determine if additional
through capacity is needed.
Daily traffic volumes and corresponding roadway segment capacity thresholds from Table 10 were used
to calculate v/c ratios for the study area roadways to identify roadway segments that are approaching their
maximum capacity.
Based on the v/c ratio ranges and corresponding LOS values given in Table 9, all study area roadway
segments for which current traffic count volume data was available provide acceptable levels of service
(i.e., LOS D or better).
Table 9 – LOS Definitions and V/C Ratios
LOS Definition
V/C Ratio
Range
A Free flow conditions; virtually no delay 0.0 to 0.50
B In the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the
traffic stream begins to be noticeable
0.51 to 0.60
C Still in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the
range in which the operation of individual users becomes
significantly affected by others
0.61 to 0.72
D High-density but still stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver
are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a
generally poor level of comfort and convenience
0.73 to 0.84
E Represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All
speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value
0.85 to 1.00
F Traffic stream is defined as forced or breakdown flow. This
condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point
exceeds the amount which can traverse the point
> 1.00
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2000)
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 22 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Florida DOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook
Figure 10 – Level of Service Visual Depictions
Table 10 – Roadway Capacities by Facility Type
Facility Type 2-Lane 4-Lane 6-Lane
Interstate - 75,000 115,000
Principal Arterial - 34,500 51,800
Minor Arterial - 32,900 49,300
Rural Major Collector 12,600 25,200 -
Rural Minor Collector 12,600 - -
Urban Collector 14,100 28,200 -
Source: YMPO 2010-2033 Regional Transportation Plan
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 23 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.5.5 Intersection Levels of Service
For the three intersections where peak hour intersection movement volumes were counted, a planning-level
capacity analysis was conducted on the PM peak hour volumes (generally the highest peak hour
volumes of the day) using the HCS+ software package. Table 11 shows the LOS values for the three
intersections according to the results of the peak hour capacity analysis. For the one-way stop-controlled
I-8/William Street ramp intersections, the LOS value represents the LOS of the minor approach (i.e., the
I-8 off-ramp). For the four-way stop-controlled intersection of Old Highway 80/William Street, the LOS
value represents the overall intersection LOS. All three study area intersections for which current traffic
count volume data was available provide acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better).
Table 11 – Intersection LOS Values
Intersection
LOS
Value
Old Highway 80/William Street B
I-8 Westbound Ramp/ William Street B
I-8 Eastbound Ramp/ William Street B
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
2.5.6 Crash Analysis
Crash data was obtained from ADOT’s Safety Data Mart in May 2010 for the most currently validated
five-year analysis period at that time, which was for all crashes between 2004 and 2008. There were a
total of 21 crashes in the study area during the analysis period. The crashes by violation type and collision
manner are shown in Table 12 and Table 13. The locations and severity of these crashes are shown in
Figure 11. There was one fatal crash along William Street, north of the I-8 intersection. This crash
involved a motorcycle speeding too fast for conditions and alcohol may have also contributed to the
crash. No crash patterns were identified at any of the crash locations that would be susceptible to
correction by safety countermeasures.
Table 12 – Crashes by Violation Type
Violation Type Crashes
No Improper Action 7
Inattention - Distraction 4
Speed Too Fast for Conditions 3
Other 2
Failed to Yield Right-of-Way 1
Followed Too Closely 1
Other - Unsafe Passing 1
Knowingly Operated with Missing Equipment 1
Drove Road in Opposing Traffic Lane 1
Total 21
Source: ADOT
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 24 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table 13 – Crashes by Collision Manner
Collision Manner Crashes
Single Vehicle 11
Rear End 3
Other 3
Sideswipe (Same Direction) 2
Angle 1
Head-On 1
Total 21
Source: ADOT
2.6 Current Transit Network
2.6.1 Public Transit
Public transit services are currently provided in the Wellton area through the Yuma County Area Transit
(YCAT) system. YCAT services the communities of Yuma, San Luis, Somerton, and Foothills. YCAT’s
long-distance Orange Route is the fixed route that runs between Yuma and Wellton. There are currently
three bus stops along this route within the study area. Funding issues have forced the elimination of two
bus stops along the Orange Route in the study area. The three remaining bus stops are currently located
on Old Highway 80 at I-8 (Ligurta Station), Old Highway 80 at Avenue 23E (Ligurta Creek Road), and
Avenue 29E (William Street) at Arizona Avenue. The route and bus stops in the study area are shown in
Figure 12. The Orange Route hours of operation are now from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. The frequency of service to the Wellton stops is one morning and two afternoon trips. One-way
fares on the Orange Route are $3.50. Per data provided by YMPO, the total Orange Line ridership in
fiscal year 2010 was 12,971.
YMPO provides a Dial-a-Ride (DAR) curb-to-curb service for Yuma County residents who are 60 years
and older or who are disabled and cannot use the fixed route system. Prospective riders must apply and
interview for a photo I.D. card which verifies their eligibility to utilize the service. The DAR service
operates Monday through Saturday, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Any DAR rider that lives in the Wellton area that is
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) certified can only be charged double the fixed-route rate, or $7.00
per one-way trip. If the rider lives beyond three-quarters of a mile from the fixed route service, they will
need to pay the normal Zone H fare of $8.00. The entire study area is within the Zone H ($8.00) DAR fare
zone.
Funding issues threatened to force the shutdown of the entire YCAT system in 2010. The Yuma region
recently took the first step towards creating a regional transportation authority that can levy a regional
transit tax by forming the Yuma County Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (YCIPTA).
Responsibility for YCAT service operations may transition from YMPO to YCIPTA in the future.
2.6.2 Rail
The railroad tracks that run east-west through the study area are owned by Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR). UPRR provides freight services on the tracks while Amtrak provides passenger services.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 25 Final Report and Executive Summary
Per the RTP, the primary railroad tracks in the study area are part of UPRR’s Sunset Route, which runs as
many as 70 trains per day from Los Angeles to Houston. The Sunset Route tracks were recently double-tracked
in the study area by UPRR to promote more efficient and safer movement of train traffic. A
branch track known as the Wellton Branch splits off from the Sunset Route tracks just east of Avenue 30E
and continues northeast towards Roll. Other sidings and spur tracks exist along the one-mile segment of
the Sunset Route tracks between Hindman Street and Dome Street near downtown Wellton.
The unstaffed Amtrak station in nearby Yuma provides passenger rail service. Amtrak’s Texas Eagle and
Sunset Limited routes currently stop at the Yuma station three times a week.
There are two grade-separated roadway crossings and three at-grade roadway crossings of the main
railroad tracks in the study area. Figure 12 shows the locations of these crossings. A quiet zone was
recently established at the William Street at-grade crossing, effectively eliminating train horn noise
through much of Wellton.
2.7 Current Non-motorized Network
Non-motorized (i.e., bicycle and pedestrian) facilities are an important part of the multimodal
transportation network in that they provide various options for travel (which is especially critical for
travelers who cannot drive).
Elements that make up bicycle networks can include designated bike routes, striped bike lanes, paved
shoulders along roadways, wide curb lanes, multi-use paths, and sidewalks. The only street within the
study area with paved shoulders is Old Highway 80.
Pedestrian networks are typically comprised of sidewalks, trails, and multi-use paths. The previously
referenced Figure 7 shows the existing sidewalks within the study area. The only street within the study
area with paved shoulders is Old Highway 80.
Portions of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail and the El Camino del Diablo Trail are also
located within the study limits. These off-road multi-use trails provide recreational opportunities.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 26 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: ADOT Figure 11 – Crash Locations and Severity
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 27 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: YMPO and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 12 – Transit and Rail Network
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 28 Final Report and Executive Summary
3 FUTURE CONDITIONS
Future transportation conditions have been analyzed for both the 2033 analysis year and the future build-out
condition. The 2033 analysis year was selected to be consistent with the long-term future 2033
analysis year utilized in the YMPO RTP. The build-out condition is when all of the developable land is
developed per the future land use plan. There is no specific year assigned to build-out as it is highly
dependent on how quickly land develops.
Identifying the transportation needs for the build-out year benefits the local community by recognizing
specific transportation needs that extend beyond the 20-year design period normally used by ADOT.
Certain local decisions, such as those associated with land use, zoning, and infrastructure planning, could
address longer-term development impacts. For example, Wellton may choose to designate and protect a
wider transportation right-of-way corridor than needed for a two-lane road because the build-out
condition will require a four-lane road.
3.1 Land Uses
For the purposes of this study, all the land within the study area is anticipated to be within Wellton
jurisdictional limits in the future build-out condition. Wellton’s current land use designations and
densities have been used to model the future conditions within the study area. One additional land use,
Agriculture/Rural Preservation, was added to the Wellton land use designations for the agricultural land
directly south of the Gila River. Table 14 shows the future land use categories and densities assumed for
this study. Figure 13 shows the assumed future study area land uses in the future build-out condition.
Table 14 – Future Wellton Land Use Categories
Category Density
Agriculture/Rural Preservation Minimum parcel size of 40 acres
Rural Density Residential Minimum parcel size of 5 acres per dwelling unit
Suburban Rural Density Residential Minimum parcel size of 2 acres per dwelling unit
Low Density Residential Maximum 4 dwelling units per acre
Medium Density Residential 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre
Interstate Commercial Minimum parcel size of 10 acres
Community Commercial Maximum parcel size of 10 acres
Industrial N/A
Parks and Open Space N/A
Public N/A
Sources: Town of Wellton General Plan, Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update, and Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 29 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 13 – Build-out Land Use
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 30 Final Report and Executive Summary
Residential land uses are expected to increase throughout the study area in the future build-out condition,
most notably in the areas west of Avenue 28E and south of I-8. A large majority of the land south of I-8 is
anticipated to be low density residential with smaller pockets of medium density residential scattered
throughout. The areas of medium density residential south of I-8 represent anticipated residential
developments that are currently reflected in the Town of Wellton General Plan (WGP). The majority of
the land use changes between current and build-out conditions will occur through the development of land
that is currently vacant or that is being currently used for farming and agricultural land uses. The
conversion of vacant or agricultural land to higher intensity uses will result in greater transportation needs
in the build-out condition.
There are two regions of the study area where the residential land use is not expected to change
significantly from current conditions: near the BMGR; and near the Gila River. The current land use
restrictions placed upon land within one mile of BMGR are expected to remain in place in the future.
Land within one-half mile of BMGR is restricted to rural density residential use and land within one mile
of the range is restricted to suburban rural density residential use. Land use in the area between the Gila
River and Old Highway 80 that is currently used primarily for agricultural purposes is expected to remain
as such under the category of agriculture/rural preservation.
Current commercial land uses along Old Highway 80/Los Angeles Avenue and in the area of the I-8
traffic interchange at Avenue 29E/William Street are anticipated to remain commercial land uses in the
future. Additional future commercial land uses are generally expected to occur along major roadways
like I-8 and Old Highway 80 and at the intersections of major roadways such as at the intersections of Old
Highway 80 with Avenue 20E, Avenue 23E, and Avenue 25E. The agricultural land along Avenue
29E/William Street near I-8 is expected to ultimately be converted to commercial land uses.
Industrial land uses are expected to increase in the future, primarily in the land adjacent to the UPRR
tracks between I-8 and Old Highway 80 on the west side of the study area.
A significant portion of the study area is anticipated to remain open space and has been categorized as
parks and open space as shown in Figure 13. While the parks and open space use designation allows for
the preservation of land, it also allows it to be utilized for recreational purposes such as trails. This future
land use is generally located along the existing Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District canals,
floodways, and protective dikes in the study area where development potential is limited.
3.2 Population and Employment Data
3.2.1 Future Population and Employment Projections
A two percent compound annual growth rate was assumed to develop an updated 2033 population
projection for the Town of Wellton of 3,803 people. For the build-out population projection, the future
land uses shown in Figure 13 were used to determine the projected number of dwelling units, from which
a build-out population of 102,995 people was calculated using an assumed population/dwelling unit ratio
of 2.41. Table 15 shows the estimated 2008, projected 2033, and projected build-out year-round resident
populations for the study area.
It is anticipated that the winter visitor and part-time resident population will continue to be significant in
the future, though it is anticipated that the percentage of winter visitors and part-time residents as a
portion of the total population will decrease over the years. This proportional decline in winter visitors
and part-time residents is expected to occur because the rate of growth of full-time residents is expected
to be higher than the rate of growth of winter visitors and part-time residents as the Town of Wellton
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 31 Final Report and Executive Summary
becomes more developed and more services can be provided locally. While the winter visitor population
is not included in the population numbers, it is accounted for in the projected traffic volume demands.
Table 15 – Future Study Area Population Projections
Portion of Study Area
2008
Population
2033
Population
Build-out
Population
Population within the Town of
Wellton
2,318 3,803 80,189
Population within the study
area unincorporated land
568 932 22,806
Total 2,886 4,735 102,995
Sources: Arizona Department of Commerce, aerial photography, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 16 shows the projected build-out population for the various residential land use types. The density
ratios in Table 16 are generally the high end of the density range based on current land uses defined in the
Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update and the WGP. One exception is that the ratio of three
dwelling units per acre was used for low density residential rather than the maximum allowable density of
four dwelling units per acre per the WGP. The lower density ratio of three dwelling units per acre was
used to account for the fact that all of the land designated with this use will most likely not be built out to
the maximum density and land will also need to be set aside for public uses such as schools and parks.
Medium density residential use has a range of four to eight dwelling units per acre. The maximum of
eight dwelling units per acre was deemed unrealistic, so a median density of six dwelling units per acre
was used in the build-out projections.
Table 16 – Build-out Population Projections by Land Use Type
Residential Land Uses
Agriculture/
Rural
Preservation Rural Density
Suburban
Density Low Density
Medium
Density Total
Total Area [acres] 3,002 3,686 2,896 9,658 1,917 21,159
% of Study Area 11 13 11 35 7 77
Density Ratio 1 DU per 40 acres 1 DU per 5 acres 1 DU per 2 acres 3 DU per acre 6 DU per acre -
Dwelling Units (DU) 75 737 1,448 28,974 11,502 42,736
Population 181 1,777 3,490 69,827 27,720 102,995
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table 17 shows a 2033 employment projection of 1,894 employees and a build-out employment
projection of 41,198 employees for the study area. These employment projections were derived from the
study area population projections in Table 15 using an employment/population ratio of 0.40. The
employment/population ratio of 0.40 matches the projected employment/population ratio of the Town of
Wellton in 2033 per the RTP.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 32 Final Report and Executive Summary
It is expected that as the region continues to grow, the current employment land uses will be replaced by
more intense employment land uses and more services will be provided locally, requiring fewer trips
outside of the study area for services.
Table 17 – Future Study Area Employment Projections
Portion of Study Area
2008
Employment
2033
Employment
Build-out
Employment
Employment within the Town of
Wellton
788 1,521 32,076
Employment within the study
area unincorporated land
142 373 9,122
Total 930 1,894 41,198
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
The population and employment projection totals shown in Table 15 and Table 17 were distributed
among the 38 PARA TAZs based on the RTP TAZ distribution for 2033, the anticipated future land uses
within each TAZ, aerial photography, and input from the Town of Wellton, Yuma County, and other
project stakeholders. The 2033 population and employment projections for the PARA TAZs are shown in
Appendix 10-3. The build-out population and employment projections for the PARA TAZs are shown in
Appendix 10-4.
The 2033 population projection total shown in Appendix 10-3 was calculated based on
population/dwelling unit ratios used in the travel demand model for the individual TAZs and thus does
not exactly match the 2033 projection total in Table 15. The population/dwelling unit ratios of 2.24 for
Wellton and 2.68 for unincorporated areas that are shown in Table II-13 in the RTP for 2033 were used to
calculate the projected 2033 population in each PARA TAZ.
For comparison purposes, the 2008, 2033, and build-out dwelling units, population, and employment for
each TAZ are displayed graphically in Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16, respectively.
3.2.2 Title VI Populations
The 2010 Census will provide updated information on Title VI populations in the Wellton area. The 2010
Census demographic data for the study area will be available in late 2011 or early 2012. Comparing the
2010 Census Title VI information to the 2000 Census Title VI information may provide insights into how
the percentages and locations of Title VI populations may change in the future condition.
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 33 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: YMPO and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 14 – 2008 Dwelling Units, Population, and Employment by TAZ
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 34 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: YMPO and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 15 – 2033 Dwelling Units, Population, and Employment by TAZ
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 35 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 16 – Build-out Dwelling Units, Population, and Employment by TAZ
091374037 Wellton PARA Study
May 2011 36 Final Report and Executive Summary
3.3 Future Roadway Network
3.3.1 Anticipated Roadway Improvement Projects
There is currently one programmed/funded study area roadway improvement project in the YMPO 2011
to 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):
• Widening Old Highway 80/Los Angeles Avenue over Coyote Wash to provide pedestrian facilities
across Coyote Wash.
ADOT’s recently completed 2010 Statewide Transportation Planning Framework (STPF) includes a
2050 Recommended Statewide Scenario for transportation facilities in the state. This scenario indicates I-
8 through the study area is projected to need to be widened by 2050, as shown in the excerpt of the 2050
Recommended Statewide Scenario presented as Figure 17. It should be noted that the STPF provides a
fiscally unconstrained vision for 2050 and its recommendations are not tied to available funding.
3.3.2 Functional Classification Changes
ADOT, YMPO, and the Town of Wellton have had discussions about updating the current study area
roadway functional classifications to more accurately reflect how the roadways currently function.
Additional functional classification changes will likely be needed in the build-out condition.
3.3.3 Traffic Volume Forecasts
A travel demand model was developed for the study area to provide a tool for estimating future traffic
volumes. The model utilizes TAZ population and employment data, typical vehicle trip generation
characteristics, and roadway network information such as number of through lanes and speed limits to
estimate traffic volumes on the roadway network. The model estimates traffic volumes by determining the
number of vehicle trips produced and attracted in each TAZ and then assigning those trips to the adjacent
roadway network. The model was developed utilizing the TransCAD software program.
The RTP 2008 travel demand model was used to create a baseline 2008 model for the study area. As
described previously, the RTP TAZ boundaries were revised by splitting them into 38 smaller PARA
TAZ boundaries. The roadway network within the model was then updated to account for existing
roadways in the study area because the RTP roadway network in the study area consists only of I-8 and its
interchange with Avenue 29E/William Street. Roads such as Old Highway 80 and Arizona Avenue were
added to the roadway network. The roadway network was configured to ensure that each PARA TAZ
touches at least one roadway so that the volumes generated in each TAZ can be assigned to the roadway
network. The 2008 volumes generated by the model were then compared to available recent traffic count
data from YMPO. Where there were large discrepancies between the YMPO-supplied traffic count data