Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Task Assignment MPD 79-12 May 2013 City of Yuma Prepared By Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. .…………………………………………………………………………………..1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1. Background ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.2. Purpose and Need Statement ............................................................................................ 3 1.3. Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Study Area.......................................................................................................................... 4 1.5. Report Organization ........................................................................................................... 5 2. Current Conditions ................................................................................................................. 8 2.1. Summary of Relevant Studies ............................................................................................ 8 2.1.1. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Interstate-8 (I-8)/US 95 Corridor Study (1988) ............................................................................................................ 8 2.1.2. ADOT, SR 195 Yuma Area Service Highway (ASH) Design Concept Report (1998) ...……………………………………………………………………………………………8 2.1.3. ADOT, Yuma ASH Environmental Assessment (2005) ........................................... 8 2.1.4. City of Yuma, Major Roadways Plan (2005) ........................................................... 9 2.1.5. City of Yuma, General Plan (2012) ......................................................................... 9 2.1.6. City of Yuma, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Fiscal Years 2012-2021) ....... 9 2.1.7. Yuma County, CIP (Fiscal Years 2010-2014) ....................................................... 10 2.1.8. Yuma County, 2020 Comprehensive Plan (Circulation Element) (2012) .............. 10 2.1.9. YMPO, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (2010) ............................................. 10 2.1.10. YMPO, Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) (Fiscal Years 2012-2016) .......... 10 2.1.11. YMPO Travel Demand Model 2009 Update (2010) .............................................. 10 2.1.12. MCAS-Yuma, Traffic Study (2008) ....................................................................... 11 2.1.13. MCAS-Yuma, Master Plan (2007) ........................................................................ 11 2.1.14. Yuma International Airport, Master Plan (2009) ................................................... 11 2.1.15. City of Somerton, Small Area Transportation Study (2006) .................................. 12 2.1.16. Imperial County, Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2007) ...................... 12 2.1.17. Imperial Valley Association of Governments, San Diego-Imperial County I-8 Corridor Strategic Plan (2009) ............................................................................................. 12 2.1.18. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)-District 11, I-8 Imperial County Transportation Concept Summary (2009) ........................................................................... 13 2.1.19. Caltrans, State Route 186 Transportation Concept Study (2010) ........................ 13 i Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.1.20. Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program: Yellow-billed Cuckoo Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use on the Lower Colorado River and Tributaries, 2010 Annual Report (2011) ................................................................................................. 13 2.1.21. Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Study (bqAZ) (2010) ................. 14 2.1.22. Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy (2003) ................... 14 2.2. Existing Socio-economic Conditions ................................................................................ 14 2.2.1. Land Use ............................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2. Land Ownership .................................................................................................... 15 2.2.3. Population and Demographics .............................................................................. 18 2.2.4. Employment and Activity Centers ......................................................................... 22 2.2.5. Commuting to Work ............................................................................................... 27 2.3. Existing Topographic Features and Utilities ..................................................................... 27 2.3.1. Topography ........................................................................................................... 27 2.3.2. Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 27 2.3.3. Utilities and Drainage ............................................................................................ 30 2.4. Existing Transportation Infrastructure .............................................................................. 37 2.4.1. Roadway Network ................................................................................................. 37 2.4.2. Traffic Counts ........................................................................................................ 43 2.4.3. Crash History ......................................................................................................... 46 2.4.4. Alternative Transportation Modes ......................................................................... 48 2.5. Preliminary Environmental Review ................................................................................... 52 3. 2.5.1. Title VI and Environmental Justice ........................................................................ 52 2.5.2. Endangered Species and Protected Habitats ....................................................... 60 2.5.3. Prime and Unique Farmlands ................................................................................ 61 2.5.4. Potential Environmental Challenges of Crossing the Colorado River ................... 62 Future Conditions ................................................................................................................ 63 3.1. Forecast of Future Conditions .......................................................................................... 63 3.1.1. Future Land Use and Development ...................................................................... 63 3.1.2. Current Ongoing Studies ....................................................................................... 77 3.1.3. Future Socio-Economic Conditions ....................................................................... 78 3.1.4. Future Transportation Infrastructure ...................................................................... 86 3.2. Future Traffic and Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 90 3.2.1. Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................. 90 3.2.2. Deficiencies ........................................................................................................... 90 ii Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4. Corridor Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 95 4.1. Preliminary Typical Sections ............................................................................................ 95 4.1.1. Existing Rural Two Lane ....................................................................................... 95 4.1.2. Rural Freeway ....................................................................................................... 96 4.1.3. Expressway ........................................................................................................... 97 4.1.4. Principal Arterial .................................................................................................... 98 4.1.5. Minor Arterial ......................................................................................................... 99 4.2. Preliminary Corridors ...................................................................................................... 101 4.2.1. Corridor No. 1 (Along Existing Ave D and County 14th Street) ........................... 101 4.2.2. Corridor No. 2 (¼ Mile East of Avenue D and ¼ Mile North of County 14th Street) …………………………………………………………………………………………...103 4.2.3. Corridor No. 3 – Meandering (¼ Mile off of Avenue D and County 14th) ............ 106 4.3. Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................ 108 4.3.1. Proposed Alternatives ......................................................................................... 108 4.3.2. Preliminary Alternative Matrix/Evaluation ............................................................ 109 4.3.3. Alternatives for Secondary Evaluation ................................................................ 113 4.4. Secondary Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................. 117 4.4.1. Secondary Alternative Matrix/Evaluation ............................................................. 117 4.4.2. Selection of Preferred Alternative ........................................................................ 119 4.5. Alternative Connections to I-8/Colorado River Crossing ................................................ 123 4.5.1. Algodones Road Connection ............................................................................... 123 4.5.2. Winterhaven Interchange Connection ................................................................. 125 4.6. Implementation/Funding Strategies for Preferred Alternative ........................................ 127 4.6.1. Implementation for the Preferred Alternative ....................................................... 127 4.6.2. Funding ............................................................................................................... 128 5. Public Outreach ................................................................................................................. 129 6. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 130 7. Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 133 iii Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figures Figure 1-1: Southwestern Yuma County ....................................................................................... 6 Figure 1-2: Study Area .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-1: Existing Land Use ..................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2-2: Land Ownership ....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2-3: Population Density .................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2-4: Housing Density ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 2-5: Main Employment Sites, Schools, Businesses, and Health Facilities ...................... 25 Figure 2-6: Employment Densities .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 2-7: Hydrology and Irrigation Features ............................................................................ 29 Figure 2-8: City of Yuma Domestic Water Distribution Facilities................................................. 31 Figure 2-9: City of Yuma Waste Water Facilities ........................................................................ 33 Figure 2-10: City of Yuma Storm Water Facilities ....................................................................... 34 Figure 2-11: Private Utilities ........................................................................................................ 36 Figure 2-12: Functional Roadway Classifications ....................................................................... 38 Figure 2-13: Number of Lanes .................................................................................................... 40 Figure 2-14: Speed Limits ........................................................................................................... 41 Figure 2-15: Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Signalized Intersections ................................. 45 Figure 2-16: Crash Summary by Injury Severity for Avenue D and County 14th Street ............. 46 Figure 2-17: Crash History – 2007 to 2011 ................................................................................. 47 Figure 2-18: Crash Summary by Manner of Collision for Avenue D and County 14th Street ..... 48 Figure 2-19: Rail Facilities .......................................................................................................... 51 Figure 2-20: Minority Populations ............................................................................................... 54 Figure 2-21: Populations with Hispanic Origins .......................................................................... 55 Figure 2-22: Low-Income Populations ........................................................................................ 58 Figure 2-23: Populations Aged 60 or Older ................................................................................ 59 Figure 3-1: Redevelopment Areas Map for the City of Yuma ..................................................... 65 Figure 3-2: Land Use Element: Focus Area Map for the City of Yuma ....................................... 66 Figure 3-3: Growth Area Element: Growth Areas Map for the City of Yuma............................... 67 Figure 3-4: North Gila to TS-8 to Yucca 230kV Transmission Line Project (APS)...................... 69 Figure 3-5: City of Somerton Land Use Map .............................................................................. 71 Figure 3-6: City of San Luis Future Land Use Plan .................................................................... 73 Figure 3-7: Yuma County: Yuma Mesa Planning Area Land Use Map ....................................... 75 Figure 3-8: Yuma County: Yuma Valley & NW Yuma Planning Areas Land Use Map ............... 76 Figure 3-9: 2010 Population Densities (in Persons per Square Mile) ......................................... 81 Figure 3-10: 2033 Population Densities (in Persons per Square Mile) ....................................... 82 Figure 3-11: 2009 Employment Density (per Square Mile) ......................................................... 84 Figure 3-12: 2033 Employment Density (per Square Mile) ......................................................... 85 Figure 3-13: 2033 Functional Roadway Classifications .............................................................. 87 Figure 3-14: 2033 Future Speed Limits ...................................................................................... 88 Figure 3-15: 2033 Future Number of Lanes ................................................................................ 89 Figure 3-16: 2009 Existing LOS .................................................................................................. 92 Figure 3-17: 2033 Future LOS .................................................................................................... 93 iv Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-18: Daily Traffic Growth on Avenue D and County 14th Street vs. YMPO Regional Population ................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 4-1: Rural Two Lane Roadway Typical Section ............................................................... 95 Figure 4-2: Rural Four Lane Freeway Typical Section ............................................................... 96 Figure 4-3: Expressway Typical Section ..................................................................................... 97 Figure 4-4: Principal Arterial Typical Section .............................................................................. 98 Figure 4-5: Minor Arterial Typical Section ................................................................................... 99 Figure 4-6: Corridor No. 1 Alignment ........................................................................................ 101 Figure 4-7: Corridor No. 2 Alignment ........................................................................................ 104 Figure 4-8: Corridor No. 3 Alignment ........................................................................................ 106 Figure 4-9: Preliminary Corridors: 1, 2 and 3 ............................................................................ 110 Figure 4-10: Yuma Clapper Rail, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, Yellow-billed Cuckoo ................... 112 Figure 4-11: Algodones Road Connection ................................................................................ 124 Figure 4-12: Winterhaven Interchange Connection .................................................................. 126 Tables Table 1-1: Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 4 Table 1-2: Study Area Distribution ................................................................................................ 5 Table 2-1: Land Use within the Study Area ................................................................................ 15 Table 2-2: Land Ownership within the Study Area ...................................................................... 15 Table 2-3: Percent Change in Population 2000-2010 by Jurisdiction ......................................... 18 Table 2-4: Population in the Study Area ..................................................................................... 19 Table 2-5: Housing Occupancy Status within the Study Area .................................................... 19 Table 2-6: Major Employers in the Vicinity of the Study Area ..................................................... 23 Table 2-7: Functional Classification and Mileage within the Study Area .................................... 37 Table 2-8: Right of Way Available for Typical Roadways within the Study Area ........................ 42 Table 2-9: Traffic Control Type for Major Intersections within the Study Area ............................ 43 Table 2-10: Existing AADT Volumes in the Study Area .............................................................. 44 Table 2-11: Number of Crashes by Year in the Study Area ........................................................ 46 Table 2-12: Racial Minorities ...................................................................................................... 53 Table 2-13: Racial Demographics and Hispanic Origins in the Study Area ................................ 53 Table 2-14: Racial Demographics and Hispanic Origins in Yuma County Jurisdictions ............. 53 Table 2-15: Disabled Populations ............................................................................................... 56 Table 2-16: Elderly Populations .................................................................................................. 57 Table 2-17: Main Areas With Populations Sensitive to Environmental Justice ........................... 60 Table 2-18: Special Status Species Potentially Occurring within Study Area ............................. 61 Table 3-1: Existing Population Data............................................................................................ 79 Table 3-2: Annual Population Projections and Growth Rates ..................................................... 80 Table 3-3: Employment Projections and Growth Rates .............................................................. 83 Table 4-1: Proposed Alternatives by Corridor ........................................................................... 108 Table 4-2: Preliminary Alternative Analysis Matrix .................................................................... 115 Table 4-3: Secondary Alternative Analysis Matrix .................................................................... 121 v Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Abbreviations AADT ACS ADOT APS ASH ASLD BLM Caltrans CDP CEQA CIHAD CIP DCR EJ FHWA HNAPZ HUD I-8 kV LOS LRTP MCAS MODE mph MSA NW PARA Average Annual Daily Traffic American Community Survey Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Public Service Yuma Area Service Highway Arizona State Land Department Bureau of Land Management California Department of Transportation Census Designated Place California Environmental Quality Act Cocopah Indian Housing and Development Capital Improvement Program Design Concept Report Environmental Justice Federal Highway Administration High Noise or Accident Potential Zone U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Interstate 8 Kilovolt Level of Service Long Range Transportation Plan U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Main Outlet Drain Extension Miles per Hour Metropolitan Statistical Area Northwest Planning Assistance for Rural Areas PM10 POE ROW RTP RV SR TAC TAZ TDMS TI UP USACE USDA USFWS Particulate Matter 10 Port of Entry Right-of-Way Regional Transportation Plan Recreational Vehicle State Route Technical Advisory Committee Traffic Analysis Zone Traffic Data Management System Transportation Interchange Union Pacific U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vi Yuma Expressway Study Final Report YCAT YCIPTA YMPO YUWW Yuma County Area Transit Yuma County Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization Yuma West Wetlands vii Yuma Expressway Study Final Report viii Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Executive Summary The City of Yuma and Yuma County are located in southwestern Arizona and are serviced by three major ADOT state routes: I-8, US 95 and SR 195, along with a grid based local road system owned and operated by the City of Yuma or Yuma County. The Yuma Expressway Corridor Study focuses on the area along the western and southern boundaries of the City of Yuma. The Yuma Region has experienced large growth over the past several decades and it is anticipated that the pattern will continue well into the future. To ensure that local input and direction is incorporated into the study process, the study has been conducted with guidance from a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), composed of members representing the following agencies:              City of Yuma Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Yuma County Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) Cocopah Tribe Quechan Indian Tribe City of San Luis City of Somerton Imperial County Transportation Commission Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Arizona Game and Fish The study process was performed in three basic steps, which compiled the information into a working paper that was reviewed by the Yuma Expressway TAC. The finalized versions of the working papers are the major sections in this study. 1. Current Conditions 2. Future Conditions 3. Corridor Alternatives Current Conditions The Current Conditions of the Yuma Expressway Study Area gathered available data and information on existing conditions. This information was the baseline for the understanding of the community objectives, opportunities and constraints. Applicable existing studies were summarized and documented. Existing topographic features, socioeconomic data, roadway classifications, traffic counts, multimodal transportation facilities and environmental constraints were documented, as well. 1 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Future Conditions The future land use, future socio-economic conditions, planned transportation infrastructure and summaries of current ongoing studies were analyzed and documented in the Future Conditions working paper. The analysis assumed that there are no improvements made to the overall transportation network other than those that are already programmed. The information presented showed that existing and previously planned roadways within the project study area would provide an acceptable level of service to the traveling public for the near future. It is estimated that County 14th Street will need capacity upgrades from its current configuration when the population of the Yuma region reaches approximately 370,000. Corridor Alternatives Using the information analyzed and documented in the Current and Future Conditions working papers, along with input received from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the first public meeting, three corridors were generated and studied to identify the future impacts and benefits to the region. Each corridor was evaluated for a variety of different facility types including arterial streets, an expressway, and a rural freeway. One corridor was determined to be unreasonable because it had significant impacts to the Yuma Marine Corps Air Station and was eliminated. The remaining corridors and facility type alternatives were presented to the public at the second public meeting. Based on guidance from the TAC and public input, Corridor 3 Expressway (Alternative 3B) was selected as the preferred alternative. The Expressway would consist of three lanes in each direction with limited access at major cross roads. Alternative 3B also requires that the roadway be constructed off the existing County 14th Street and Avenue D alignments. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) process was utilized for this study. While the PEL does not preclude the identification of a preferred alternative it does require that any alternatives that have not been eliminated as unreasonable be carried forward in the development of a NEPA-compliant document if the project is to be eligible for federally funding. Thus, any right-of-way preservation based on this study is done at risk. 2 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the City of Yuma cooperatively conducted the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study to develop a preliminary assessment and feasibility of a proposed corridor alignment along the south and western portions of the City of Yuma. Improvements to this corridor would benefit the region by addressing a number of different customers traveling around and through the region. 1.2. Purpose and Need Statement The purpose of this study is to plan for adequate transportation capacity in the Yuma Expressway Study Area. This study will look at the future need of improving the existing transportation system within the study area, or the possibility of constructing new roadways within the study area. The likelihood of future development in southwestern Yuma County generates the underlying need for this corridor, which is expected to address a potential increase in traffic on roadways within the study area. Although many portions of the study area are slated to remain agriculture for many years to come, it is prudent for City of Yuma and surrounding communities to plan for development should land use change in the future. The Yuma Expressway Corridor Study will serve as a basis for future planning studies, if and when land use changes occur. Additionally, the Study will provide a “trigger” or threshold for interim roadway improvements that will be needed before the construction of an expressway is justified. 1.3. Goals and Objectives As Yuma County continues to transform and grow in the coming decades, the need for the Yuma County Expressway, generally aligned along County 14th Street and Avenue D, will increase. Through a combination of actions, the Yuma Expressway has the potential to not only support economic development as envisioned in local plans, but it could also enhance the quality of life for area residents by improving accessibility and safety. A list of goals and objectives were developed based on existing and future conditions, technical data, and guidance from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Goals are long-term ideas, describing future expected outcomes. They are not necessarily measurable or tangible, as they outline generic actions to help achieve a vision. Objectives are measurable and define specific actions that, when taken, will accomplish established goals. The purpose of goals and objectives is to outline the framework for developing the Yuma Expressway Corridor in a manner that reflects the overall vision of the impacted communities. 3 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 1-1 presents the three goals and supporting objectives proposed for this corridor. These goals and objectives guide the development of alternatives and are further described in Chapter 4. Table 1-1: Goals and Objectives GOAL 1 Promote economic development within the region by providing additional access for regional and local needs GOAL 2 Improve safety throughout the corridor for all users. Objective 1.1 Encourage transportation improvements that align with planned growth and are consistent with local plans. Objective 2.1 Consider access management during roadway design, specifically, conflicting turning movements. Objective 2.2 Develop an Expressway design that reduces and/or better manages recurrent congestion. Objective 2.3 Moderate travel speeds via design. Objective 2.4 Consider all potential users in the planning and design process. Objective 3.1 GOAL 3 Provide an Expressway Corridor that balances both regional and local needs. Objective 3.2 Objective 3.3 Objective 3.4 Accommodate and improve connectivity for traffic between the two Ports of Entry along the Mexico border in San Luis and I‐8. Consider local transportation within and between Yuma and the cities of Somerton and San Luis. Coordinate with MCAS‐Yuma as they reroute their main entrance to connect south with County 14th Street instead of to the east along Avenue 3E Provide for safe and convenient access to local land uses. 1.4. Study Area The Yuma Expressway study area is located in the Greater Yuma Area, in the southwestern region of Arizona. The Yuma Expressway study area is situated in the vicinity of the City of Yuma, City of Somerton, unincorporated Yuma County, the Cocopah Indian Reservation, and the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation as illustrated in Figure 1-1. Other jurisdictions located near the study area include the City of San Luis, Arizona and Winterhaven, California. Avenue D and County 14th Street are the primary axes for the study area. As shown in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2, the Yuma Expressway study area runs from north to south along Avenue D, between Interstate 8 (I-8) and County 14th Street, then from west to east along County 14th Street, between Avenue D and State Route (SR) 195, also referred to as the Yuma Area Service Highway (ASH) and the Robert A. Vaughan Expressway. A two-mile wide area centered along Avenue D and County 14th Street was used for this analysis. As shown in Table 1-2 most of the study area is unincorporated, with only 20.6% of the study area located within the City of Yuma. Most of the Yuma Expressway study area is situated within the State of Arizona, except for the section of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation which is within Imperial County in the State of California. 4 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report The Quechan Indian Tribe constitutes the population of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in Imperial County, California. Similarly, the Cocopah Indian Tribe inhabits the Cocopah Indian Reservation in Yuma, Arizona. For purposes of this report, references to the Reservations refer to the actual land or jurisdiction. References made to the Quechan or Cocopah tribes refer to those people who consider themselves part of that tribe. Table 1-2: Study Area Distribution Jurisdiction City of Somerton City of Yuma Cocopah Indian Reservation (AZ-Yuma County) Fort Yuma Indian Reservation (CA-Imperial County) Unincorporated Area – Yuma County Unincorporated Area – Imperial County Total Study Area Area ( sq miles) 0.6 7.2 0.7 0.6 25.8 0 Percent of Total Study Area 1.7% 20.6% 2.0% 1.7% 73.9% 0.0% 34.9 100.0% Source: Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2008 1.5. Report Organization This report is organized into the Introduction, Current Conditions, Future Conditions, Corridor Alternatives, and Conclusion. The Introduction chapter provides the background for the study, defines the study area, outlines the goals and objectives for the corridor and presents the organization of the report. Chapter 2, Current Conditions describes the existing conditions within the Yuma Expressway study area and more generally its vicinity, where appropriate. Existing socio-economic conditions and transportation-related characteristics are also described, as well as other physical and environmental features. Chapter 3, Future Conditions, presents the forecasted future conditions of the region, including a description of anticipated traffic operations within and around the Yuma Expressway study area. The operational analysis is based upon Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) travel forecasts, which in turn are dependent upon regional population and employment forecasts. This report summarizes the regional population and employment projections, identifies projected travel characteristics, and forecasts future roadway operations assuming there are no improvements made to the overall transportation network other than those already programmed. Chapter 4 presents the various alternatives and the method of evaluation for the preferred alternative. The alternatives consist of various corridors and multiple typical sections/roadway types. The alternatives were evaluated and presented to the TAC to ensure consensus with the methodology used to identify a preferred alternative. 5 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 1-1: Southwestern Yuma County Source: YMPO, 2011; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012; Bing, 2012 6 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 1-2: Study Area Source: YMPO, 2011; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012; Bing, 2012 7 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2. Current Conditions This chapter describes the current conditions within the Yuma Expressway study area and more generally its vicinity, where appropriate. Section 2.1 summarizes relevant studies to the study area, Section 2.2 discusses existing socio-economic conditions, Section 2.3 describes existing topographic features and utilities, and Section 2.4 describes transportation-related infrastructure and characteristics in the study area. Section 2.5 discusses environmental features in the study area and provides a preliminary environmental review. 2.1. Summary of Relevant Studies 2.1.1. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Interstate-8 (I-8)/US 95 Corridor Study (1988) The I-8/US 95 Corridor Study, completed by ADOT in 1988, identified and evaluated options to meet short- and long-term transportation needs for the I-8 and US 95 corridors. Findings revealed that neither corridor had sufficient capacity to accommodate future traffic demands. This study resulted in a recommendation to continue the planning process by performing a location study to identify potential alternative corridors. Based on subsequent studies, two corridors were selected: one, which is now the existing State Route (SR) 195, connecting the international border at San Luis, north to I-8; and a second that looped around the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)-Yuma and the Yuma International Airport connecting SR 195 to I-8, now referred to as the Yuma Expressway. 2.1.2. ADOT, SR 195 Yuma Area Service Highway (ASH) Design Concept Report (1998) The 1998 Yuma ASH Design Concept Report addressed design issues and design alternatives for the proposed ASH in the Yuma Metropolitan Area. While the Yuma Expressway is not specifically mentioned in this document, it does reference the need for a major intersection, including the installation of traffic signals, at County 14th Street. 2.1.3. ADOT, Yuma ASH Environmental Assessment (2005) ADOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO), identified the need to provide a direct transportation route to the future commercial international port of entry (POE) (San Luis II) 5 miles east of San Luis, Arizona. While the Diplomatic Note creating this POE specified that only commercial traffic would utilize this port, it is master-planned for the possible future expansion to serve as a full-service Port to inspect privately-owned vehicles, pedestrians, as well as commercial vehicles. An Environmental Assessment was completed in 2005 to evaluate alternative options for the approximately 24-mile long ASH that has been designated as SR 195 by the State Transportation Board. A preferred alternative was selected, and in 2007 a Finding of No 8 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Significant Impact was issued and approved, completing the environmental process for this project. By 2009 the SR 195 corridor was designed and constructed. 2.1.4. City of Yuma, Major Roadways Plan (2005) The purpose of the 2005 Major Roadways Plan is “to define policies for development of a roadway system that will adequately serve the City of Yuma and surrounding area when it is fully developed at densities shown/predicted in the Land Use Element.” This plan includes a street classification system, development standards for improving existing roads and constructing new ones, as well as designated truck routes and scenic corridors that require special design attention. The Major Roadways Plan is also the policy guide for placing street improvement projects into the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The Roadways Plan Map identifies the Yuma Expressway and defines it as a major, 4- to 6-lane carrier of regional and cross-town traffic with completely controlled access. Private property access would only occur if frontage roads were present. Intersections are typically at-grade, located at major streets with a preferred one-mile spacing. 2.1.5. City of Yuma, General Plan (2012) According to the City of Yuma 2012 General Plan, “Yuma was one of the forty fastest growing Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) of the United States from 2000 to 2009; and from 2008 to 2009, the fastest growing MSA in Arizona.” Measures have been taken by the City to address growth and implement priority roadway improvements, mainly in the form of traffic system management and operational enhancements. Goals, objectives and policies in this plan specifically address the need for roadways that facilitate access to major commercial and industrial clusters in the area and/or facilitate movement of large trucks through the area. Most of the existing roadways used for cross-town travel were originally designed for property access rather than traffic efficiency. The Yuma Expressway, as identified in the General Plan would be constructed to accommodate more regional needs. This route would also be designated as a hazardous cargo route, as identified in the Yuma County Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan. 2.1.6. City of Yuma, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Fiscal Years 20122021) The City of Yuma FY2012-FY2021 CIP is a 10-year schedule of public physical improvements to the City’s infrastructure. It serves as a guide for construction, development and funding for identified improvements. The Yuma Expressway is included as a Priority III project for FY 2012. Construction of this facility, based on recommendations found in the 2005 Major Roadways Plan, would increase mobility as well as provide an expressway bypass around the southern and western sides of the City of Yuma that currently does not exist. 9 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.1.7. Yuma County, CIP (Fiscal Years 2010-2014) The Capital Improvement Projects Quarterly Report: FY 2012 Second Quarter: July 2011 through December 2011 is the most recent report for 2012 for Yuma County. It does not mention the Yuma Expressway. 2.1.8. Yuma County, 2020 Comprehensive Plan (Circulation Element) (2012) Effective as of March 2012, the Yuma County 2020 Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide development and growth of the unincorporated area of Yuma County over the next ten years. The conservation of natural resources as well as the efficient and appropriate utilization of public monies will both play major roles throughout this process. Although the Yuma Expressway is not specifically mentioned, the Circulation Element identifies roadway improvements, not including additional lanes, to County 14th Street from Avenue 3E to SR 195. This element also states that “roadway segments that promote grid continuity, and provide a backbone to the overall transportation network” (such as County 14th Street and Avenue 3E) should be identified and utilized as a means to address unacceptable levels of service. 2.1.9. YMPO, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (2010) The 2010-2033 RTP builds upon the findings and conclusions of the 2006-2029 RTP. The planning portion of the Yuma Expressway is listed as a recommended project for 2010-2014. This expressway is identified as two separate pieces: Avenue D to SR 195, and County 14th Street to I-8. In addition, the Roadway Element section of the 2010-2033 YMPO RTP identifies the need for a 4-lane expressway along County 14th Street from SR 195 to Foothills Boulevard, a possible eastward extension of the Expressway. This report also indicates that the City of Yuma has included funding in its CIP to study two new corridors: an expressway corridor along County 14th Street and Avenue D from SR 195 to I-8 in California. 2.1.10. YMPO, Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) (Fiscal Years 2012-2016) The Yuma Expressway is mentioned in the TIP as part of the City of Yuma CIP, Transportation Projects, 2012-2016. 2.1.11. YMPO Travel Demand Model 2009 Update (2010) The updated YMPO Travel Demand Model was calibrated using the 2008 transportation network and estimated 2008 socio-economic data for the YMPO planning area located mostly in the southwest corner of Yuma County. This model represents YMPO transportation facilities and travel patterns using these facilities, ultimately accounting for travel demand generated by the surrounding communities. 10 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.1.12. MCAS-Yuma, Traffic Study (2008) At the time this report was written, approximately 5,300 people worked at MCAS-Yuma, including personnel living off-base. It was estimated that a maximum addition of two squadrons could potentially be expected in the future, the equivalent of 800 personnel. As a result, peak hour traffic volumes on the base were expected to increase by about 15%. Three alternatives were considered to alleviate traffic congestion on the base, each one included plans to create a new entrance to the south of the base.  Alternative 1 – New southern gate plus restricted access at the north gate.  Alternative 2 – New southern gate plus delivery access only at north gate.  Alternative 3 – New southern gate plus unrestricted access at north gate. Alternative 1 was recommended as the most suitable option because not only does it provide the best average levels of service for the most congested intersection on the base, but it is also the most viable option in terms of security and levels of service. 2.1.13. MCAS-Yuma, Master Plan (2007) MCAS-Yuma consists of approximately 4,800 acres. The station also maintains and manages airfield facilities used by Yuma International Airport via a 1956 Patent, which established MCASYuma as a shared-used airfield. The 2001 MCAS-Yuma Master Plan was updated in 2007. While the mission has not changed – managing a complex of unique training ranges, and providing facilities and services to enhance the combat capability of the Marine Corps and other military services nationwide – there have been notable developments in the physical and operational characteristics of the base. Key issues identified in the Master Plan include: air operations, aircraft maintenance, administration, public safety, medical, bachelor housing, community support, and utilities/circulation. With regard to Circulation Facilities, the only project planned is the extension of O’Neill Street south to County 14th Street (P-532). This project is included in the list of Programmed Projects, which are all high priority CIP projects, supported by the basic facilities requirements, but which have not yet been approved or funded for construction. The O’Neill Street extension is currently programmed for Fiscal Year 2014 and will include construction of a Security Access Control Facility. Once completed, O’Neill Street will serve as the new Main Gate into the MCAS-Yuma facility. 2.1.14. Yuma International Airport, Master Plan (2009) The Yuma International Airport focuses mainly on defense and military operations. Commercial operations include two Federal Express shipments arriving daily and passenger flights to Atlanta, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco. While no immediate plans have been made to increase the movement of commercial goods at the airport, it is something to move toward in the future. The 2009 Master Plan sets forth plans to improve the existing public airfield facilities, including further development of the passenger terminal area, an 11 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report expansion of the rental car section, and the addition of expanded facilities for both fixed base operators, as well as general aviation. Lands within the existing airport boundaries will also be preserved to support supplementary aviation-related facilities. These improvements would be phased and completed based on demand. 2.1.15. City of Somerton, Small Area Transportation Study (2006) This Transportation Study was developed by the City of Somerton, cooperatively with ADOT and the YMPO. It identifies roadway and transit improvements needed in order to meet the growing population and changing area land uses. The majority of improvements mentioned were focused along US 95 (Main Street) and Somerton Avenue, the two major perpendicular corridors in Somerton. One transit goal set forth in this plan is to locate and reserve space for a Community Multimodal Center which could include a transfer terminal for use by the Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) Yellow Line buses, which run north into the City of Yuma via US 95. In addition, the Cocopah Tribe has discussed expansion plans for the already popular casino located on Avenue B between County 15th and 16th streets, located on Reservation land near the northeast corner of Somerton. 2.1.16. Imperial County, Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2007) The 2002 Imperial County LRTP was updated in 2007 to account for increases in population, housing, trade, as well as changes in land use developments. In order to accommodate this demand, short-, mid- and long-term transportation improvement projects were prioritized. Project 20 is the only project with any relation to the Yuma Expressway project because it addresses improvements to the SR 186 and I-8 interchange across the border in California. SR 186 is a 2.1 mile long north-south route connecting Andrade, one of three ports of entry (POE) into Mexico within Imperial County, to I-8. The Andrade POE is located within the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and mainly processes pedestrians and passenger vehicles. Only 1% of commercial/truck crossings from Imperial County into Mexico, occur at this location. However, California Department of Transportation travel forecasts show dramatic and increasing freight related border crossings at all three POEs through 2030. Project 20 is classified as a long-term project, with a construction horizon of 2025 or beyond. 2.1.17. Imperial Valley Association of Governments, San Diego-Imperial County I-8 Corridor Strategic Plan (2009) This Strategic Plan is the first phase of a planning effort to improve mobility for people and goods along the I-8 freeway corridor in both San Diego and Imperial counties. The ultimate goal is to provide direction for future phases of this planning effort that will lead to detailed implementation plans. 12 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report General findings from the study illustrate that level of service along I-8, particularly in Imperial County, are generally satisfactory. However, as congestion increases in the future, San Diego County will be impacted the most due to higher population density and traffic volumes. Recommendations from this report were therefore mainly focused on changes in that area. There was nothing specific related to the Arizona border crossing as a part of the strategic plan. 2.1.18. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)-District 11, I-8 Imperial County Transportation Concept Summary (2009) This document discusses transportation issues related to the 79-mile Imperial County portion of I-8. Serving as the primary east-west route through the county, I-8 is a four-lane facility with complete grade separation at all intersections. Not only does it serve as an interregional route for the traveling public and goods movement carriers, it also provides an interstate connection to Arizona. While short-term future growth in Imperial County is difficult to predict given the existing economic market conditions, longer-term growth due to a growing population will eventually have an impact on I-8. Additionally, the recent completion of a new hotel/casino near the Arizona border at the southwest corner of the I-8/SR 186 interchange is expected to generate approximately 8,000 average daily trips. This extra traffic will also impact SR 186 from I-8 south to the hotel/casino. Improvements to the I-8/SR 186 interchange are mentioned in this 2009 Concept Summary. 2.1.19. Caltrans, State Route 186 Transportation Concept Study (2010) SR 186 traverses a lightly populated, rural, and predominantly agricultural environment. This two-lane conventional highway is used most during winter months when “snowbird” populations migrate to desert areas from colder climates. Attractions drawing these populations to the Andrade POE are the Quechan Tribe casino on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation as well as medical services, entertainment, and shopping located across the border in Algodones, Mexico. Safety is the primary reason to improve the Andrade POE. Due to the high volume of pedestrians, many of which are elderly with limited mobility, pedestrian access is not only unsafe, but the number of people walking around the area also impedes vehicle circulation and hinders vehicle inspection efficiency. 2.1.20. Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program: Yellow-billed Cuckoo Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use on the Lower Colorado River and Tributaries, 2010 Annual Report (2011) With a focus on the distribution of the yellow-billed cuckoo, as well as its abundance and habitat use on the Lower Colorado, this report addresses the Yuma West Wetlands (YUWW) City Park which is located adjacent to the east bank of the Colorado River between Avenues A and B in Yuma. According to the 2010 Annual Report, this area has been restored, and consists of a variety of trees including the Freemont cottonwood, Goodding’s willow, and mesquite. Tree heights at the site range from 18 to 36 feet with an estimated 30% canopy cover. Smaller, 13 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report understory plants such as the arrowweed, saltbrush, seep willow mesquite, and tamarisk, as well as young naturally regenerating willow and cottonwood, are also found in this area. The Colorado River borders the northern edge of the site and residential areas border the southern, eastern, and western edges. During the 2010 survey, one cuckoo was observed in the YUWW. This area was subsequently identified as transient territory for the yellow-billed cuckoo. 2.1.21. Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Study (bqAZ) (2010) This transportation planning framework study (bqAZ) was prepared by ADOT in 2010. The bqAZ study received input from communities throughout the state regarding the statewide long range plan. As a part of the Yuma Focus Area in bqAZ, Yuma Expressway was included from the projected intersection of I-8 and Avenue D, south along Avenue D to County 14th Street, then east along County 14th Street to Avenue 15E, once at Avenue 15E the Yuma Expressway would turn north along Avenue 15E and return to I-8. The Yuma Expressway corridor study area further analyzes the western portion of the alignment presented in bqAZ. 2.1.22. Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy (2003) According to this report, the Yuma Expressway corridor study area is located within the Historical Distribution Boundary for the flat-tailed horned lizard. Two sites within close proximity to the study area were flagged due to the presence of this species of lizard. Near the intersection of County 14th Street and Avenue C, flat-tailed horned lizards were known to exist between 1950 and 1989. Prior to 1950, these lizards were also known to exist just south of I-8 and along the Colorado River near the 4th Avenue intersection. 2.2. Existing Socio-economic Conditions 2.2.1. Land Use As shown in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1 within the study area, 37.2% of land is used for agriculture and 30.4% is residential. Agriculture uses are located on the western part of the study area, west of Avenue A. Other land uses found within the study area include industrial and military areas, particularly portions of the Barry M. Goldwater Range and of the MCAS-Yuma. Even though the MCAS-Yuma is designated as military land use, part of the base is dedicated to residential use as detailed in Section 2.2.4. The Yuma International Airport is a military facility also used for civilian aviation activities. The study area also includes parts of the Cocopah and Fort Yuma Indian Reservations. 14 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 2-1: Land Use within the Study Area Land Use Agriculture Residential Industrial Military Tribal Land Open Space Public / Quasi Public Commercial Total Area (sq mile) 13.0 10.6 4.0 4.5 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.1 Percent of Study Area 37.2% 30.4% 11.5% 12.9% 3.4% 3.4% 0.9% 0.3% 34.9 100.0% Source: Yuma County, 2011 2.2.2. Land Ownership With the land uses being mainly residential and agricultural, most of the land within the study area (81.1%) is privately owned. As shown in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-2, other landowners include the military, the Cocopah Indian Tribe, the Quechan Indian Tribe, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the State Trust. Table 2-2: Land Ownership within the Study Area Land Ownership Private Land Military Tribal Land Bureau of Reclamation BLM State Trust Land Total Area (sq mile) 28.3 4.5 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 Percent of Study Area 81.1% 12.9% 3.4% 1.1% 1.4% 0.2% 34.9 100.0% Source: Arizona State Land Department, 2008 15 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-1: Existing Land Use Source: Yuma County, 2011 16 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-2: Land Ownership Source: Arizona State Land Department, 2008 17 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.2.3. Population and Demographics Population Number and Density Yuma County as a whole has experienced periods of rapid population growth over the past decade. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the population of Yuma County is 195,751 residents, which represents a 22% increase from the 2000 Census. The City of Somerton, located southwest and adjacent to the study area, is the fastest-growing community in Yuma County. As shown in Table 2-3, between 2000 and 2010 the population of the City of Somerton increased by 97%. Total population increased by 20% within the City of Yuma. Both Indian reservations experienced a decrease in the number of residents. Table 2-3: Percent Change in Population 2000-2010 by Jurisdiction Total Population Percent Change in Total Population 2000 - 2010 2000 Census 2010 Census City of Somerton 7,266 14,287 City of Yuma 77,515 93,064 Cocopah Indian Reservation 1,025 817 Fort Yuma Indian Reservation 2,376 2,197 Decrease -7.5% Unincorporated areas 54,693 56,999 Increase +4.2% Yuma County 160,026 195,751 Increase +22.3% Jurisdiction Increase +96.6% Increase +20.1% Decrease -20.3% Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 2010 In Yuma County, the highest population densities are found in downtown areas of the Cities of Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis. Figure 2-3 illustrates the population density in the study area. Within the Yuma Expressway study area the population density is generally lower than 500 residents per square mile, except in the western area of downtown Yuma between 1st Street and 32nd Street where population densities can be higher than 8,000 residents per square mile. As shown in Table 2-4, 8.5% of Yuma County’s population is located within the Yuma Expressway study area. The 16,574 residents living within the study area are primarily located in the western portion of downtown Yuma (55.2%), as well as within unincorporated areas (42.2%). Several areas within the study area remain uninhabited. 18 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 2-4: Population in the Study Area Jurisdiction Population in Study Area City of Somerton City of Yuma Cocopah Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Unincorporated Area 133 9,155 298 5 6,988 Percent of Study Area’s Population 0.8% 55.2% 1.8% 0.03% 42.2% All Jurisdictions 16,574 100.0% 14,287 93,064 817 2,197 59,196 Percent of Jurisdiction’s Population 0.9% 9.8% 36.5% 0.2% 11.8% 195,751 * 8.5% Population in Jurisdiction * Population in Yuma County Source: 2010 U.S. Census Dwelling Units As shown in Table 2-5, there are 5,704 housing units located within the Yuma Expressway study area. The majority of those housing units are within the City of Yuma (49.1%) and unincorporated areas (41.0%). As illustrated by Figure 2-4, housing units within the study area are generally located in the northern portion of the study area, west of downtown Yuma. In Yuma County, there are 87,850 housing units of which only 26.3% are occupied. The Greater Yuma Area is generally a destination for seasonal visitors and workers and 70.7% of this vacancy is due to migratory workers, or seasonal and recreational users. However, less than 15% of housing units are vacant within the study area. It can be noted that 69.1% of the Cocopah Indian Reservation’s housing units are located within the study area and of those tribal dwelling units, 70.8% are vacant. Table 2-5: Housing Occupancy Status within the Study Area Jurisdiction City of Somerton City of Yuma Cocopah Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Unincorporated Area All Jurisdictions Housing in Study Area 46 2,802 520 5 2,336 5,704 Total Housing Units Percent of Percent of Total Jurisdiction's Study Area’s Housing Housing 1.1% 0.8% 7.3% 49.1% 69.1% 9.1% 0.6% 0.1% 6.5% 41.0% 6.5%* 100.0% Vacant Housing Vacant Percent of in Study Vacant Area Housing 4 8.7% 202 7.2% 368 70.8% 0 0.0% 248 10.6% 822 14.4% * Compared to Housing in Yuma County Source: 2010 U.S. Census 19 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-3: Population Density Source: 2010 U.S. Census – By Census Blocks 20 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-4: Housing Density Source: 2010 U.S. Census – By Census Blocks 21 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.2.4. Employment and Activity Centers The majority of employment and activities in Yuma County are located in the southwestern portion of the county, specifically in the Cities of Yuma, San Luis, and Somerton. Activities and employment sectors are quite diverse in the vicinity of the study area. However, some characteristics such as the climate, topographic relief, and rural land use specific to southwestern Yuma County make this region particularly suitable for certain industries such as agriculture, tourism, and military activities. Main Industries in the Vicinity of the Study Area Southwestern Yuma County is a winter destination for an estimated 90,000 seasonal residents and visitors. Therefore, the tourism industry has a significant seasonal impact on the Greater Yuma area, particularly in the hospitality and food services sectors. Local streets are impacted as well, not only because of increased traffic, but also because many of these temporary residents drive large, heavy recreational vehicles (RVs) often with companion vehicles being towed behind. Yuma County’s agriculture industry is primarily dedicated to citrus, lettuce, and winter vegetable crops, along with meat and dairy production. Several major growers have plants and processing facilities in the region. In addition to tourism and agricultural activities, two military bases (the MCAS-Yuma and the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground) are among the county's principal employment centers. Part of the MCAS-Yuma is located within the study area, in the City of Yuma. The total number of people working on the MCAS-Yuma base is 6,599. Including families and dependents, there are 14,248 people living on the base. This facility hosts military flight training and temporary military events, and throughout the year nearly 15,500 military personnel arrive in Yuma for an average three week stay to train. MCAS-Yuma has expressed concerns with development along the future Yuma Expressway east of SR 195. Although this is outside of the study area it is important to note that development along the future Yuma Expressway could result in encroachment upon the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Within the Yuma Expressway study area MCAS-Yuma has concerns with development in the area of Avenue A and County 14th Street. There are several airfield safety surfaces located off the end of the MCAS-Yuma runway that need to be considered during the alternative analysis and planning for any future commercial/residential development. Tertiary Activities Tertiary employment activities are also present in the study area, and due to the influx of elderly residents during the winter months, these activities are often geared towards this demographic group. They include healthcare, retail, real estate, administrative services, senior services, as well as food and hospitality. Public administration and education represent additional tertiary activities in the area. As shown in Figure 2-5 these services are primarily located in the downtowns of Yuma and Somerton. 22 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Significant commercial developments have also occurred over the past decades in these cities. Numerous car dealerships and retail centers are located along 32nd Street in the City of Yuma. Supermarkets and various small shopping and business centers can be found along 4th Avenue. In response to residential development, several neighborhood commercial centers have been built in these urbanized areas. The two newest commercial developments are the Yuma Palms regional shopping center located near I-8 and US 95 and the Cielo Verde commercial center located at Avenue 8E and 32nd Street. Major Employment Locations in the Study Area Table 2-6 identifies the largest employers that have one main employment site in the vicinity of the study area, based on the number of employees. The two major employers in the vicinity of the study area are the MCAS-Yuma and the Yuma Regional Medical Center. Table 2-6: Major Employers in the Vicinity of the Study Area Employer - With More than 300 Employees MCAS-Yuma Yuma Regional Medical Center City of Yuma Yuma County US Border Patrol Quechan Paradise Casino Arizona State Prison Complex Yuma Arizona Western College Datepac Skyview Cooling Company Wal-Mart - Avenue B Shaw Industries Wal-Mart - Pacific Avenue Wal-Mart - Foothills Wal-Mart - San Luis Cocopah Bingo & Casino Grower's Company Employees 6,599 1 2,080 2 1,388 2 1,350 2 920 2 800 3 755 3 350 full-time; 657 part-time and student workers 4 500 3 500 3 404 3 358 3 350 3 300 3 300 3 300 3 260-300 3 Activity Military HealthCare Government Government Government Casino Government Education Agribusiness Agribusiness Retail Manufacturing Retail Retail Retail Casino Agribusiness Sources: 1. City of Yuma 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; MCAS-Yuma Website 2. Yuma County Chamber of Commerce 3. Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation 4. Arizona Western College Activity Locations within the Study Area As illustrated in Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6, there are limited numbers of employment locations within the study area, and the employment density is generally less than 50 jobs per square mile. Higher employment densities can be found in downtown Yuma, at the Yuma desalting 23 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report plant, and at the Arizona Public Service (APS) Yucca plant, as well as south of County 14th Street, between Avenue B and Avenue 1E. The only businesses, health facilities and schools within the study area are located in the City of Yuma. They include:  2 restaurants,  2 gas stations,  3 health facilities or care homes, and  7 schools. Portions of the MCAS-Yuma and Yuma International Airport are also located within the study area. Other major employment sites are located in close vicinity of the study area, including the Cocopah Casino and the Yuma desalting plant. 24 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-5: Main Employment Sites, Schools, Businesses, and Health Facilities Source: YMPO, 2010 and Table 2-6 Sources 25 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-6: Employment Densities Source: 2010 RTP Model – By TAZ 26 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.2.5. Commuting to Work According to the 2010 U.S. Census data, within the study area, as well as within Yuma County, the primary transportation mode used for commuting is driving alone in a car, van, or truck. Within the study area, 76.2% of employed people drive alone to get to work, while 12.7% of those with a job carpool with others to get to their workplace. The third most used transportation mode within the study area is walking, with 4.1% of people walking to work. About the same percentage of people within the Yuma Expressway study area work at home (3.8%). The remaining workers use public transit or other transportation means such as taxicabs. 2.3. Existing Topographic Features and Utilities 2.3.1. Topography The study area is located in the Yuma Valley. This region has relatively flat topography making it suitable for military, aviation, and agricultural activities. Elevations generally range between 110-ft and 210-ft. Along Avenue D elevations decrease from north to south and along County 14th Street elevations increase from west to east. However, southwestern Yuma County is surrounded by several mountain ranges, such as:  The Gila Mountains, located east of the study area in Yuma County and crossing Fortuna Foothills. This 26-mile long mountain range has its highest point at 3,156 feet.  The Laguna Mountain Range, located north of Fortuna Foothills in Yuma County. The highest point in these mountains is Boot Peak at 1,080 feet.  The Chocolate Mountains, located north of the study area in California. The highest point along this 60-mile long mountain range is Mount Barrow at 2,475 feet.  The Cargo Muchacho Mountains, located northwest of the study area in California. The highest point has been measured at 827 feet. Pilot Knob rises to an elevation of 876-ft and is the nearest mountain to the study area. It is connected to the Cargo Muchacho Mountains located in Imperial County, at the border corner between Arizona, California, and Mexico. The Barry M. Goldwater Range is located in the Yuma Desert region, south of the City of Yuma. Several sand hills and dunes are located in the Yuma Desert region, as well as in Imperial County. 2.3.2. Hydrology Rivers The study area is located in the Colorado River basin, which extends from Wyoming to Mexico. As illustrated in Figure 1-2 and Figure 2-7, the Colorado River runs through the northern region of the study area and crosses the Yuma Expressway study area along the border between California and Yuma County. East of the study area, the Gila River is confluent with the Colorado River. No washes are present in the study area. 27 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Irrigation Facilities In order to sustain the year-round agricultural activities of Imperial County and Yuma County, irrigation infrastructure diverts the Colorado River’s flow, though the use of dams, as it runs from Colorado to the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez). Imperial Dam, located about 18 miles northeast of the study area, diverts most of the Colorado River’s flow into two irrigation canals: the All-American Canal irrigating the Imperial Valley in California and the Gila Gravity Main Canal irrigating southwestern Arizona. A system of canals was developed to provide irrigation in southwestern Yuma County, which is shown in a map of hydrology features of southwestern Yuma County in Appendix A. Several canals run through the Yuma Expressway study area, shown in Figure 2-7. As shown in Figure 2-7 and in Appendix A, they include the Yuma Main Canal that diverges into the West Main Canal and the East Main Canal, which both flow south. Secondary canals such as the A Canal and the Central Canal also run through the study area. Several drains and laterals also support the irrigation system in the study area. In addition to the various canals and irrigation facilities, there is an eight inch diameter USBR pipeline that carries sludge from the USBR Desalting Plant to a facility south of the study area. The pipeline is located underneath the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street from County 10th Street to approximately Avenue B ½ . Wells As illustrated in Figure 2-7, 1,089 wells are located within the Yuma Expressway study area. Their geographic distribution is relatively spread throughout the study area. However, data received from the Arizona Department of Water Resources does not distinguish between active or inactive wells. Floodplains Several portions of the study area are subject to flooding as illustrated in Figure 2-7. Potential flood areas are located along the Colorado River and the Gila River, as well as along the East and West Main Canals. Less than 1% of the Yuma Expressway study area lies within a flood hazard zone. 28 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-7: Hydrology and Irrigation Features Source: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2012 29 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.3.3. Utilities and Drainage The Yuma Expressway study area is located within urban residential areas, as well as military and airport facilities. These urban developments require the establishment of utilities and drainage infrastructures. Domestic Water Distribution System The Colorado River is the primary source of water for the study area. Its water is diverted to the study area through several facilities, such as the All American Canal and Yuma County Water Users Association facilities, including the Yuma Main Canal. Domestic water to be distributed throughout the study area is transported to the Yuma Main Street Water Treatment Plant in downtown Yuma. This facility is located northeast of the study area, on 1st Street and Main Street. Along the Yuma Expressway study area, the demand for domestic water is primarily driven by residential use, which represents 60% of the demand in the City of Yuma and 93% of the demand in the City of Somerton. In the City of Somerton, groundwater is pumped from three wells and the City is not interconnected to any other systems, as confirmed by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (May 2012). There are no major tribal water utilities on the Cocopah Indian Reservation. The Bureau of Reclamation's Yuma desalting plant is located west of the Yuma Expressway study area, north of Avenue E. This facility was constructed to desalt and salvage drainage water for inclusion in water deliveries to Mexico, in the event of a water shortage from the Colorado River. As stated by the Bureau of Reclamation (May 2012), the plant has not operated due to surplus in the normal water supply conditions of the Colorado River. Within the Yuma Expressway study area there are no major domestic water distribution features, with the exception of a portion of the Yuma desalting plant, and transmission lines in downtown Yuma, as shown on Figure 2-8. In the City of Yuma1, within the study area, most domestic water distribution utilities are designed to serve residential neighborhoods with typical pipe diameters of 6” to 12”. There is a 12” diameter PVC water distribution line within Avenue D, from 32nd Street to 24th Street. No data was found concerning the domestic water distribution system located on County 14th Street. 1 The only detailed information concerning utilities and drainages available for this study are those managed by the City of Yuma. The utilities and drainage features described below are based on the 2005 Water, Sewer & Storm Atlas from the City of Yuma Department of Public Works. 30 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-8: City of Yuma Domestic Water Distribution Facilities Source: City of Yuma 2012 General Plan 31 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Sanitary Sewer Collection System A number of wastewater treatment plants treat sewage in the Greater Yuma area. The largest is the Figueroa Avenue Water Pollution Control Facility, located northeast of the study area, near 1st Street and Figueroa Avenue. Additionally, a number of smaller treatment plants have been built to meet individual development needs in the County. As illustrated in Figure 2-9, there are no major sanitary sewer collection facilities within the Yuma Expressway study area. Within the City of Yuma, most of these utilities serve neighborhoods. Typical pipe diameters range from 8” to 42” along the study area. To face the rapid development of the Greater Yuma area, private sewer facilities have also been installed in certain neighborhoods. Near downtown Yuma, those systems are generally connected to the network operated by the City of Yuma. There are no sanitary sewer collection features on Avenue D within the study area, and no data was found regarding the sanitary sewer collection system located on County 14th Street. Storm Water Collection System In the Greater Yuma area, storm water control is accomplished through a network of basins providing temporary holding of water for discharge into the Colorado River. Discharge into the Colorado River can be through direct storm sewer outfalls or indirectly to a canal or drain, such as the West Main Canal, with eventual discharge into the Colorado River. As illustrated on Figure 2-10, three major basins are located within the Yuma Expressway study area:  The Sierra Sunset No. 5 Basin (#1),  The Cibola Heights 1 Basin (#2), and  The Valle Serreno Basin (#5). The primary mode for discharge of storm water within the Yuma Valley system is the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Yuma Mesa Conduit. This 7-mile, 66-inch pipeline is located primarily along Avenue B½ and transports water pumped from groundwater wells for discharge to the Colorado River. As stated in the City of Yuma 2012 General Plan, three other pipelines in the Yuma Valley provide storm water conveyance to the Colorado River. These are located within the alignments of 19th Avenue, 17th Avenue and Avenue C. Within the Yuma Expressway study area, catch basins and other collection infrastructure exists on some roadways such as Avenue C, as well as on certain segments of 8th Street or 16th Street. However, there are generally no storm water collection features installed within the Yuma Expressway study area. 32 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-9: City of Yuma Waste Water Facilities Source: City of Yuma 2012 General Plan 33 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-10: City of Yuma Storm Water Facilities Source: City of Yuma 2012 General Plan 34 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Private Utilities In Yuma County, private utility companies provide electricity, telephone service, cable access, satellite television, internet service, and natural gas. Arizona Public Service (APS) provides power, including solar power technology to most areas of the southwestern County. Two APS substations are located east of the Yuma Expressway study area, near 1st Street and Avenue C and near 16th Street and Avenue C, as shown in Figure 2-11. APS also operates the natural gas-fueled Yucca Power Plant located east of the study area, on Somerton Avenue. The plant provides power on an as needed basis, particularly during the summer months (APS 2007). As stated in the City of Yuma 2012 General Plan, in the future this power plant will require additional natural gas pipeline infrastructure from outside the immediate area. The Yuma Expressway study area crosses the El Paso natural gas line that runs along the Colorado River, north of the study area, as well as the Southwest Gas natural gas line that runs on Avenue 3E. Several communication trunk lines are located in the vicinity of the Yuma Expressway study area as shown in Figure 2-11. Some of those run along Avenue C and are located within the study area or along its northeastern boundary. One cellular tower is located within the Yuma Expressway study area at the intersection of Avenue D and 8th Street. 35 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-11: Private Utilities Source: City of Yuma 2012 General Plan 36 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.4. Existing Transportation Infrastructure 2.4.1. Roadway Network Functional Classification As illustrated in Figure 2-12, the roadway network in the study area is mainly comprised of rural major collectors, rural minor collectors and local roads. Other functional classifications found in the study area include:  A rural principal arterial, US 95 connecting the City of Yuma with the Cities of San Luis, Somerton, and extending north to Las Vegas, Nevada,  Rural or urban minor arterials, such as 8th Street and Avenue 3E, and  An urban collector, on a segment of Avenue A. Some important roadways are located along the edges of the study area. They include the rural interstate I-8, connecting Yuma County with Imperial County in California, and the rural minor arterial SR 195, connecting the City of San Luis to I-8 in the City of Yuma. Avenue D and County 14th Street, which constitute the main axes for the Yuma Expressway, are both rural minor collectors throughout most of the study area. County 14th Street is classified as a rural major collector between Avenue 5E and SR 195. The northern area of the study area, located north of 8th Street is only serviced by local streets. Table 2-7 details the roadway functional classification and mileage within the Yuma Expressway study area. Table 2-7: Functional Classification and Mileage within the Study Area Functional Classification Urban Interstate Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Rural Interstate Rural Principal Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Local Road Total Mileage in the Study Area 3.0 1.2 2.0 4.0 8.4 20.1 134.2 172.9 Note: Roadways located on the boundary of the study area were not included. Source: 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Model 37 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-12: Functional Roadway Classifications Source: 2010 RTP Model 38 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Roadway Lane Configuration Figure 2-13 illustrates the number of lanes on each road in the study area. Within the study area, most roadways have 2 lanes, except some segments of 16th Street, 32nd Street, and US 95. In the vicinity of the study area, highways, principal arterials, minor arterials and some major collectors have 4 lanes. Some roadway segments have 5 or 6 lanes, such as 32nd Street between 4th Avenue and Avenue 3E, and Avenue 3E between 32nd Street and the MCASYuma entrance. Most of the local streets not included in the transportation model used for this analysis have 2 lanes. Speed Limits In the vicinity of the study area, posted speed limits range from 20 miles per hour (mph) to 65 mph. Urban speeds lower than 35 mph are mainly found in the core areas of downtown Yuma and downtown Somerton. Highways and arterials such as US 95, I-8, SR 195, and 32nd Street have the highest speed limits. Within the Yuma Expressway study area, rural major and minor collectors generally have posted speeds equal to 50 mph. Other speed limits found within the study area are 40 mph or less in downtown Yuma and 55 mph on US 95. Figure 2-14 illustrates posted speed limits in the study area. 39 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-13: Number of Lanes Source: 2010 RTP Model 40 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-14: Speed Limits Source: 2010 RTP Model 41 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Right-of-Way Table 2-8 presents typical Right-of-Way (ROW) widths for each roadway functional classification within the Yuma Expressway study area. The higher classified roads generally have more ROW available than the lower classified roads. On Avenue D and County 14th Street, typical ROW width measured within the study area range from 33 feet to 88 feet. Table 2-8: Right of Way Available for Typical Roadways within the Study Area Functional Classification Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Rural Principal Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Local Street ROW Width 66 ft – 135 ft 66 ft – 100 ft 100 ft – 130 ft 66 ft – 82 ft 66 ft – 82 ft 33 ft – 100 ft 20 ft – 66 ft Source: Field Review, 2011 Access Management Conditions Within the study area, most roadway segments are 2-lane facilities without a median. Center two-way left turn lanes are provided for on US 95 and County 11th Street between Avenue D and Avenue C. All the major cross roads are connected with at-grade intersections. No specific access management such as right-in and right-out are implemented within the Yuma Expressway study area. Traffic Control Within the Yuma Expressway study area, the main traffic control types encountered are stop signs. Those stop signs are either two-way stops or four-way stops. As shown in Figure 2-15, there are 4 signalized intersections within the study area. Traffic signals are located on County 14th Street, at the intersections with US 95, Avenue A, Avenue 3E, and SR195. Table 2-9 presents traffic control types at major intersections within the study area. 42 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 2-9: Traffic Control Type for Major Intersections within the Study Area Route Avenue D Avenue D Avenue D Avenue D County 14th Street County 14th Street County 14th Street County 14th Street County 14th Street County 14th Street County 14th Street County 14th Street Cross Road 8th Street 16th Street 24th Street 32nd Street Avenue D Avenue C US 95 Avenue A Avenue 3E Avenue 4E Avenue 5E SR 195 Control Type Stop Sign on Avenue D Stop Sign on 16th Street Stop Sign on Avenue D Stop Sign on Avenue D Four-way Stop Control Stop Sign on Avenue C Signal Signal Signal Stop Sign on Avenue 4E Stop Sign on Avenue 5E Signal Source: Field Review, 2011 2.4.2. Traffic Counts Traffic volumes along Avenue D and County 14th Street as well as the cross roads within the study area were obtained from the YMPO 2011 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and ADOT 2011 AADT archived in the Traffic Data Management System (TDMS). Table 2-10 summarizes the range of two-way average annual daily traffic volumes for the roadway sections within the study area. The daily traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 2-15. As shown in Table 2-10, Avenue D carries relatively low traffic volumes, 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day. The cross roads located east of Avenue D between 8th Street and 32nd Street exhibit higher traffic volumes compared to intersections on Avenue D. Avenue C north of 32nd Street carries 7,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day. The segment between 24th Street and 16th Street shows higher daily traffic at 12,000 to 13,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes on County 14th Street range from 5,000 to 5,500 vehicles per day for most sections between US 95 and SR 195. SR 195 carries 2,500 to 3,500 vehicles per day where it crosses County 14th Street. As the principal arterial, US 95 carries heavy traffic with 12,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day crossing County 14th Street. Avenue A north of County 14th Street also shows high traffic volumes with approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. The AADT volume for the northern section of Avenue 3E, between County 14th Street and County 13th Street is approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. South of County 14th Street, the AADT volumes on Avenue 3E range from 6,000 to 6,500 vehicles per day. 43 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 2-10: Existing AADT Volumes in the Study Area Route Section Avenue. D 8th Street 16th Street 24th Street 32nd Street 32nd Street Avenue C Avenue C Avenue C Avenue C US 95 Avenue A Avenue 3E Avenue 3E County 14th Street County 14th Street County 14th Street County 14th Street 8th Street – 40th Street East of Avenue D East of Avenue D East of Avenue D East of Avenue D West of Avenue D South of 8th Street North of 24th Street South of 24th Street South of 32nd Street County 13th Street - County 15th Street North of County 14th Street North of County 14th Street South of County 14th Street Avenue C – Avenue B Avenue B – Avenue A Avenue A – Avenue 1E Avenue 5E – SR 195 2011 AADT (in Vehicles per Day) 2,000-3,000 7,000 9,000-9,500 4,000-4,500 6,500-7,000 3,500-4,000 6,000-6,500 12,000-13,000 7,500-8,000 2,500-3,000 12,000-14,000 10,000 10,500-11,000 6,000-6,500 5,000-5,500 3,000-3,500 5,000-5,500 5,000-5,500 Source: YMPO 2011 Counts 44 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-15: Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Signalized Intersections 45 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.4.3. Crash History Crash data for Avenue D and County 14th Street within the study area, between November 1st, 2006 and November 30th, 2011, was provided by ADOT Multimodal Planning Division. The crash locations and year of occurrence are summarized in Table 2-11 and illustrated in Figure 2-17. A total of 216 crashes were reported on the main axes of the study area from 2007 to 2011. On average, about 43 crashes were reported on these streets each year. However, it can be noted that the number of crashes has generally diminished over the years. Along Avenue D, data show a total of 70 reported crashes over the five-year period. 11 to 13 crashes were reported each year, except in 2007. Over the 5-year period, twice as many crashes where reported on County 14th Street, compared to Avenue D. Along County 14th Street, 146 crashes were reported within the study area from 2007 to 2011. 2008 shows the highest number of crashes on County 14th Street for the reported time period with 45 crashes. As shown in Figure 2-17, the safety at the intersection of County 14th Street and Avenue 3E is critical as 30 crashes of low severity occurred between 2007 and 2011. Other intersections with a high number of crashes between 2007 and 2011 include County 14th Street and Avenue A, County 14th Street and US 95, County 14th Street and Avenue D, Avenue D and 40th Street, Avenue D and 32nd Street, Avenue D and 16th Street, and Avenue D and 8th Street. Table 2-11: Number of Crashes by Year in the Study Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Avenue D County 14th Street 23 35 11 45 11 22 12 27 13 17 Total Over 5 Years 70 146 Total 58 56 33 39 30 216 Route Source: ADOT Multimodal Planning Division, 2012 Figure 2-16 shows the number of crashes and their severity on Avenue D and County 14th Street between 2007 and 2011. The majority of crashes (63.0%) were non-injury crashes. Over the 5 years, there were 76 crashes with different levels of injury. 4 fatal crashes were reported, which represents 1.9% of all crashes. As shown in Figure 2-17, most crashes with fatal and incapacitating injuries occurred on Avenue D, County 14th Street, and County 15th Street within the study area. Figure 2-16: Crash Summary by Injury Severity for Avenue D and County 14th Street Fatal 4; 2% Incapacitating Injury 11; 5% Non Incapacitating Injury 36; 17% No Injury 136; 63% Possible Injury 29; 13% Source: ADOT Multimodal Planning Division, 2012 46 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-17: Crash History – 2007 to 2011 Source: ADOT Multimodal Planning Division, 2012 47 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report On Avenue D and County 14th Street, there were 137 day time crashes and 79 night time crashes between 2007 and 2011. Figure 2-18 summarizes the manner of collision for crashes reported between 2007 and 2011 on Avenue D and County 14th Street. The majority of crashes were angle hit collisions (front to side), single vehicle collisions, and rear end collisions. Figure 2-18: Crash Summary by Manner of Collision for Avenue D and County 14th Street Unknown 1% Sideswipe: Same Direction 5% Single Vehicle 26% Angle: Front to Side 33% Sideswipe: Opposite Direction 3% Head On 2% Rear End 15% Rear To Side 2% Other 4% Left Turn 9% Source: ADOT Multimodal Planning Division, 2012 2.4.4. Alternative Transportation Modes Transit System The Yuma County Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (YCIPTA) provides fixed route and demand responsive bus services throughout Yuma County, as well as in Winterhaven and the portion of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation located in California. As of January 2013, the fixed route transit system in Yuma County has 11 main bus routes, as well as a holiday service and a night service. Most bus routes serve the City of Yuma and meet at the Del Sol Hotel at Gila Street and 3rd Street, which is the main transfer hub. A second transfer hub is located at Wal-Mart on 26th Street and Avenue B in the City of Yuma. The Purple Route 6/6A is the main bus service provided within the Yuma Expressway study area. This Purple Route primarily serves the Cocopah Indian Reservation. It connects the Cocopah North Indian Reservation with the City of Yuma, the Cocopah Casino, the City of Somerton, and the Cocopah East and West Indian Reservations. The Purple Route 6 service is only provided during weekdays and runs along Riverside Drive, Avenue C, and US 95, within 48 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report the study area. On Saturdays, the Purple Route 6A service is provided. It runs as a loop, going east on 8th Street and south on Avenue D, within the study area. The Yellow Route 95 also runs through the Yuma Expressway study area. This route mainly operates on US 95 and connects the Cities of Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis. Two other routes operate along the boundaries of the study area, on Avenue C and SR 195. The Green Route 4 is a loop exclusively serving downtown Yuma. It runs adjacent to the study area on Avenue C, between 16th Street and 24th Street. The Silver Route 9 runs along SR 195 connecting the City of San Luis with the Arizona Western College. A map of the bus network operated by YCIPTA is provided in Appendix B. Rail Network As shown in Figure 2-19, the Yuma Expressway study area crosses what used to be the Yuma Valley Railroad, but is now owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. These tracks are an inactive facility running from west to east in the northwestern portion of the study area. The Bureau of Reclamation tracks were originally constructed in the early 1900s to aid in the construction of the levees along the Colorado River. The railroad tracks were last used as a tourist railroad to transport winter visitors from downtown Yuma to an area west of the City of Somerton and back. Although the tracks are inactive the Bureau of Reclamation has not formally abandoned them. It is anticipated that any future Yuma Expressway Corridor will have to address the crossing of the Bureau of Reclamation tracks. Other rail facilities are located in the vicinity of the study area as described below.  A main railroad owned and operated by Union Pacific (UP). This UP mainline connects California to southern Arizona. The UP railroad runs parallel to I-8 and does not cross the Yuma Expressway study area.  Several UP railroad spur lines are located near the study area. They include the facility serving the MCAS-Yuma. The facility serving MCAS-Yuma is currently discontinuous at 32nd Street. The 32nd Street crossing would have to be re-established, as would the Avenue 3E crossing further south, for the spur line to function. An Amtrak station served by the UP mainline is located in the City of Yuma, on Gila Street. Ports of Entry (POE) There are three land POEs within relative close proximity to the study area: San Luis I and San Luis II in Arizona and Andrade in California. Regional road access to San Luis I is provided by US 95. This land POE only processes non-commercial vehicles and pedestrians. San Luis II, located five miles east of San Luis I and accessed via the ASH (SR 195), was recently completed and has taken over all commercial border operations in the area. Andrade is located in the southeast corner of California within the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation near the Arizona border. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians constitute the majority of current traffic at this POE, which is connected to I-8 by SR 186. 49 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There are a limited number of bicycle facilities in Yuma County. There are no bikeways or other bicycle facilities in the study area. All buses are equipped with front bike racks to allow bicyclists to use public transit. Pedestrian facilities are limited throughout the Yuma Expressway study area. For instance, there are no sidewalks along some segments of Avenue D. Pedestrian-friendly facilities such as sidewalks, traffic lights, and crosswalks are generally provided only in urbanized residential areas. 50 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-19: Rail Facilities Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2011 51 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 2.5. Preliminary Environmental Review 2.5.1. Title VI and Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes ensure that individuals are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, and disability. Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” directs that programs, policies, and activities identify and address as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Population characteristics within the study area were analyzed to identify any high concentrations of racial or ethnic minority, low-income, elderly, or disabled populations. Racial and Ethnic Minorities Race and ethnicity are separate and distinct. Racial minority statistics are a total of the number of people who identify themselves as any race other than white: Black or African American, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, Other, and Two or More Races. The U.S. Census asks about ‘Hispanic or Latino’ origin as a separate ethnicity-related question. Thus, U.S. Census respondents not only choose the race or races with which they most closely identify, they are also categorized by membership in one of two ethnicities: ‘Hispanic or Latino; and ‘Not Hispanic or Latino’. As shown in Table 2-12 through Table 2-14, the population in the study area has an overall racial and ethnic composition similar to that of Yuma County. None of the jurisdictions included in the analysis have a significantly higher ethnic or racial minority population than the county. Figure 2-20 illustrates the distribution and percentage of minority populations in the area (by U.S. Census Block). On average, ethnic and racial minority populations comprise less than 30% of the total population of the study area. However, there are two areas with relatively higher concentrations of residents identifying themselves as minorities: part of the North Cocopah Indian Reservation to the north near the Colorado River and a neighborhood west of the intersection at Avenue D and County 14th Street. The City of Somerton and unincorporated areas throughout the County have much larger populations of Hispanic or Latino residents than the rest of the County. However, within the study area the proportion of residents with Hispanic or Latino ethnic origins is comparable to the proportion found in Yuma County. Figure 2-21 illustrates this distribution. 52 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 2-12: Racial Minorities Jurisdiction City of Somerton City of Yuma Cocopah Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Unincorporated Area All Jurisdictions Study Area 23.3% 30.5% 28.5% <1% 31.2% 30.7%1 Yuma County 35.6% 31.2% 70.1% 77.4% 32.6% 29.6%2 1 Percentage of non white residents within the study area Percentage of non white residents in Yuma County Source: 2010 U.S. Census 2 Table 2-13: Racial Demographics and Hispanic Origins in the Study Area Jurisdiction White City of Somerton City of Yuma Cocopah Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Unincorporated Area Study Area 75.9% 69.5% 77.5% 80.0% 68.7% 69.3% Black or African American <1% 1.9% <1% <1% 1.1% 1.5% Native American Asian Pacific Islander Other 2.3% <1% 21.8% <1% 1.2% 1.4% <1% 2.8% <1% <1% <1% 1.8% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 16.5% 21.3% 4.4% 20.0% 23.4% 21.8% Two or More Races 4.5% 3.4% 2.3% <1% 4.6% 3.9% Hispanic Origin 60.2% 64.7% 8.1% 20.0% 62.4% 62.7% Source: 2010 U.S. Census Table 2-14: Racial Demographics and Hispanic Origins in Yuma County Jurisdictions Jurisdiction City of Somerton City of Yuma Cocopah Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Unincorporated Area Yuma County White 64.4% 68.8% 29.9% 22.6% 67.4% 70.4% Black or African American <1% 3.2% <1% 1.5% <1% 2.0% Native American Asian Pacific Islander Other <1% 1.8% 63.6% 61.3% <1% 1.6% <1% 1.9% <1% <1% <1% 1.2% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 31.1% 19.6% 3.5% 7.6% 27.1% 20.8% Two or More Races 2.4% 4.5% 2.3% 6.4% 3.4% 3.8% Hispanic Origin 95.9% 54.8% 11.5% 32.0% 75.6% 59.7% Source: 2010 U.S. Census 53 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-20: Minority Populations Source: 2010 U.S. Census – by Census Block 54 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-21: Populations with Hispanic Origins Source: 2010 U.S. Census– by Census Block 55 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Low-Income Population Following the Office of Management and Budget’s Directive 14, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to identify low-income persons. If the total income for a household falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the household is classified as being “below the poverty level”. According to the U.S. Census 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 15.7% of the population within the Yuma Expressway study area is identified as being lowincome. This is less than Yuma County’s average, where approximately 20% of the County’s population was identified as low-income in 2010. As shown on Figure 2-22, the largest low-income population within the study area is located east of Avenue D and north of 16th Street. The Indian Tribes have a particularly high proportion of low-income residents compared to the rest of the County. It can be noted that the neighborhood of downtown Yuma east, and adjacent to the study area between Avenue C and Avenue A, have more than 40% of low-income residents. Disabled The Americans with Disabilities Act defines disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity”. The 2010 U.S. Census was reformatted and changes in overall content meant that questions regarding disability status were no longer included. Therefore, this information is only available from the 2000 Census. Due to the outdated nature of this information, we have only considered data at the county, city and Indian Reservation levels. Table 2-15 shows disabled population distribution throughout Yuma County. Percentages of disabled populations throughout Yuma County jurisdictions are not disproportionately high compared to county statistics. Unincorporated areas of Yuma County have a disabled population percentage of 33.5%, which is slightly more than then entire Yuma County (20.8%) as a whole. Table 2-15: Disabled Populations Jurisdiction City of Somerton City of Yuma Cocopah Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Unincorporated Area Yuma County Percent of Disabled Population 15.8% 20.4% 26.3% 25.8% 33.5% 20.8% Note: Data was not available in a format that would allow analysis to be done on the percentage of disabled residents within the study area. Source: 2000 U.S. Census 56 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Elderly Elderly residents are defined as age 60 and older. Overall, the study area has a considerably lower percentage of elderly residents than Yuma County, as shown in Table 2-16 and Figure 2-23. However, those portions of Somerton and the Cocopah Indian Reservation within the study area boundaries have larger elderly populations than the jurisdictions as a whole. Areas where elderly residents are prevalent are located in small, disjointed pockets throughout the study area. Table 2-16: Elderly Populations Jurisdiction City of Somerton City of Yuma Cocopah Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Unincorporated Area All Jurisdictions Study Area 17.3% 8.5% 67.24% 0.0% 17.0% 13.2%1 Yuma County 9.4% 16.9% 33.0% 17.0% 33.5% 55.7%2 1 Percentage of elderly residents within the study area Percentage of elderly residents in Yuma County Source: 2010 U.S. Census 2 57 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-22: Low-Income Populations Source: 2010 U.S. Census 5-year Estimates – by Census Tracts 58 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 2-23: Populations Aged 60 or Older Source: 2010 U.S. Census – by Census Tracts 59 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Compliance with Title VI and Environmental Justice Requirements The assessment of demographic characteristics of the population within the Yuma Expressway study area and its vicinity showed that certain areas have higher numbers of residents identified as minorities and/or low-income. The largest of these areas are detailed in Table 2-17. Table 2-17: Main Areas With Populations Sensitive to Environmental Justice Area Within the Yuma Expressway Study Area North Cocopah Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation County 14th Street between Avenue E and Avenue D Downtown Yuma – East of Avenue D from 24th Street to 8th Street East of Avenue D, north of 8th Street High Percentage of Population From Racial With Hispanic Below Poverty Minorities Origins Level X X X X X X X X X X X X Source: 2010 U.S. Census In order to comply with Title VI and Environmental Justice requirements, recommendations made by this study will ensure that impacts from alternatives developed do not have disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental impacts on these populations. 2.5.2. Endangered Species and Protected Habitats As shown in Table 2-18, according to the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Heritage Data Management System, eight special status species were listed as potentially occurring within or near the proposed project location. The Western Burrowing Owl, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, and Yuma Hispid Cotton rat are all listed as “species of concern” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This informal term refers to species within a specific region that are thought to be in need of concentrated conservation actions. These actions may vary depending on the health of the populations and degree and types of threats they face. The Western Burrowing Owl is also listed as a sensitive species by the BLM. Both the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and the Yuma Clapper Rail are “Listed Endangered” by the USFWS. This classification is given to any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 60 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 2-18: Special Status Species Potentially Occurring within Study Area Name Ardea alba Athene cunicularia hypugaea Coccyzus americanus Egretta thula Empidonax traillii extimus Phrynosoma mcallii Rallus longirostris yumanensis Sigmodon hispidus eremicus Common Name U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Great Egret Western Burrowing Owl Yellow-billed Cuckoo Snowy Egret Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Yuma Clapper Rail Yuma Hispid Cotton Rat SC PS:C Status Bureau of Land State Management WSC Migratory Bird Treaty Act X S WSC X WSC X LE WSC SC WSC LE WSC X SC SC = Species of Concern; PS:C = Partial Status: Candidate; LE = Listed Endangered; S = Sensitive Species; WSC = Wildlife of Special Concern Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department (Heritage Data Management System), Online Migratory Bird Treaty Act (List of Protected Species), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Online County Search) The Yellow-billed Cuckoo was designated a “Partial Status: Candidate” by the USFWS. Candidate species are those for which the USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals of listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. However, proposed rules have not yet been issued because such actions are precluded at present by other listing activity. Six of the eight species (Great Egret, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Snowy Egret, Southwestern-willow Flycatcher, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, and the Yuma Clapper Rail) are listed as “wildlife of special concern” by the State of Arizona. This listing is given to those species whose occurrence in Arizona is, or may be in jeopardy, or species with known or perceived threats or population declines. In addition, the Great Egret, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Snowy Egret and Yuma Clapper Rail are also listed as birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Most of the identified species of concern such as the Great Egret, Snowy Egret, SouthwesternWillow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Yuma Clapper Rail, and the Yuma Hispid Cotton Rat utilize riparian and wetland habitat that is commonly found along the Colorado River and is within close proximity to the study area. The Western Burrowing Owl has adapted to live in urban and agricultural areas and will likely be found within close proximity to most of the study area and the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard is found east of SR 195, as well as north and south of County 14th Street. 2.5.3. Prime and Unique Farmlands Important farmlands consist of prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide or local importance. Prime farmland, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is land that 61 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for these uses. The land must have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed (including water management) according to acceptable farming methods. Unique farmland is defined as land other than prime farmland used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. Examples of such crops include citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits and vegetables. The Farmland Protection Policy Act regulates Federal actions that have the potential to convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. Data obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Services Online Web Soil Survey, indicate that a majority of the Yuma Expressway study area traverses lands that, if not already developed, would be considered prime and/or unique farmland. These classifications include:  Gadsden clay, Holtville clay, and Indio silt loam which are considered prime farmland “if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium”;  Kofa clay and Ripley silt loam which are both prime farmland “if irrigated”; and  Rositas sand and Superstition sand which are both identified as “farmland of unique importance”. 2.5.4. Potential Environmental Challenges of Crossing the Colorado River Several environmental challenges would be encountered to connect the Yuma Expressway to I8, by crossing the Colorado River. The Colorado River is considered a jurisdictional water of the United States, as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 404 Permit would need to be obtained from the USACE regarding a new bridge crossing the river. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would need to be addressed due to the fact that the proposed northern terminus of the project at I-8 would occur in California. 62 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 3. Future Conditions This chapter presents the future conditions of the region, including a forecast of future land use and socio-economic conditions, planned transportation infrastructure, and summaries of current studies in Section 3.1. The anticipated traffic operations within and around the Yuma Expressway study area is discussed in Section 3.2. This analysis assumes there are no improvements made to the overall transportation network other than those already programmed and is based upon Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) travel forecasts, which in turn are dependent upon regional population and employment forecasts. 3.1. Forecast of Future Conditions The assessment of future conditions forms the basis for analyzing the need of the Yuma Expressway. Future land use and development plans, projected population and employment data, as well as forecasted travel demand in Yuma County, are summarized in the following sections. 3.1.1. Future Land Use and Development As described in Chapter 2, Current Conditions, the Yuma Expressway study area includes portions of the City of Yuma, the City of Somerton, Cocopah Indian Reservation, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and Unincorporated Yuma County. An analysis of future land use and development for each jurisdiction was conducted and documented below. This analysis primarily consisted of inventorying adopted General and Comprehensive Plans. Directly south of the Yuma Expressway study area is the City of San Luis. While the City of San Luis is not included within the study area, population and employment growth close to the Mexico border may still impact the study area. Therefore, the City of San Luis was also included in this analysis. City of Yuma The updated City of Yuma 2012 General Plan identifies several subareas within the planning area for extensive evaluation, planning, and redevelopment. These zones are mainly located in and around downtown Yuma bordered to the west by Avenue B, to the south by 40th Street, and to the east and north by I-8 (Figure 3-1). None of the redevelopment areas occur within the Yuma Expressway study area. The City of Yuma 2012 General Plan also identifies several future commercial and residential developments. Two of the newest are the Yuma Palms Regional Center located near I-8 and US 95, and the Cielo Verde Commercial Center at Avenue 8E and 32nd Street, as shown in Figure 3-2. It is anticipated that the City will continue to be the retail and employment center for the region. 63 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Two mixed-use, master-planned communities are also planned:   The Laurel Development located south of 24th Street in the South Gila Valley, near the Araby Road and I-8 interchange. This community will incorporate a mix of land uses including over 1,000 dwelling units, as well as some retail, a business park, a hotel, and a farm on approximately 240 acres. The Estancia Development located on the South Mesa, west of Avenue 4E, east of Avenue A, south of County 15½ Street and north of County 19th Street. This community is intended to include nearly 4,000 acres of agricultural land, shops, services, parks, schools, and utilities. About 20,000 new homes are anticipated to serve a future population of 50,000. However, initial stages are not expected to begin for 10 to 15 years. According to the City of Yuma 2012 General Plan, the two fastest growing residential areas are the South Yuma Valley and East Mesa. In addition, five existing Growth Areas and one future Growth Area were identified within the planning boundaries of the City of Yuma but outside of the Yuma Expressway study area, as shown in Figure 3-3. Of the six, three are large expanses of undeveloped land representing emerging development areas and are designated on the Land Use Element map as having a wide variety of land uses surrounding a major commercial corridor:    The Crossroads of Avenue B and 32nd Street; Araby Road from 24th Street to 32nd Street in the East Mesa; and Pacific Avenue and 8th Street north of Yuma Palms. The Crossroads is closest to the study area. A mix of land uses is planned along the south side of 32nd Street, and the remainder of the area is dedicated to low-density residential uses. Two other areas, the North End and 16th Street from 4th Avenue to Redondo Center Drive, are underdeveloped with a mix of commercial, cultural, governmental, and residential uses. These areas, targeted as infill Growth Areas, are located in the Yuma city center. Not only is a significant amount of infrastructure already in place, but the City believes these areas are ideal locations for high-density residential development. Figure 3-3 also shows the Estancia Future Growth Area, which is the same mixed-use development mentioned above as a master-planned community. The Growth Area Element of the City of Yuma 2012 General Plan also mentions two major expressway corridors that the City of Yuma is considering. The first is the Yuma Expressway, which this report addresses. The other is a continuation of SR 195 north to US 95, listing several alternative alignments. 64 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-1: Redevelopment Areas Map for the City of Yuma Source: City of Yuma 2012 General Plan, 2012 65 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-2: Land Use Element: Focus Area Map for the City of Yuma YUMA PALMS REGIONAL CENTER st 1 St th 8 St th 16 St th 24 St 32 nd St th 40 St CIELO VERDE th COMMERCIAL Co 13 St CENTER th Co 14 St th Co 15 St z th Co 16 St YUMA EXPRESSWAY th Co 17 St STUDY AREA Ave 9E Ave 8E Ave 7E Ave 6E Ave 5E Ave 4E Ave 3E Ave 2E th 4 Ave Ave A Ave B Ave D Ave E Ave C BOUNDARY th Co 18 St Source: City of Yuma 2012 General Plan, 2012 66 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-3: Growth Area Element: Growth Areas Map for the City of Yuma YUMA EXPRESSWAY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Source: City of Yuma 2012 General Plan, 2012 67 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Arizona Public Service (APS) Transmission Line The North Gila to TS-8 to Yucca 230kV Transmission Line Siting Study was recently completed, ending with approval of a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility by the Arizona Corporation Commission on February 2, 2012. This project determined a route for a new 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, which will be completed in two phases, as illustrated in Figure 3-4. The first phase, with a completion date of 2015, is approximately 13 miles in length. It would begin at the existing North Gila Substation northeast of the City of Yuma near the Laguna Mountains at East County 6th Street and Avenue 8E. A future TS-8 Substation would be constructed to the southwest of the City near County 14½ Street, between Avenue A and Avenue 1E. According to APS’ website, the first phase of this transmission line project would terminate at this new Substation, located within the Yuma Expressway study area. “The second phase of the project is approximately 19 miles in length, with a “To Be Determined” in-service date as that phase of the project is currently beyond APS’ ten-year planning horizon.” This phase would connect the TS-8 Substation to the Yucca Power Plant Switchyard in the northwest quadrant of the Yuma Area just east of where the California, Mexico and Arizona borders converge. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)-Yuma Main Gate Relocation As previously mentioned in Section 2.1.13, the main gate/entrance for MCAS-Yuma is programmed to be moved in Fiscal Year 2014. Currently access is along the east side of the facility from Avenue 3E. The 2007 MCAS-Yuma Master Plan indicates the new entrance would connect south to County 14th Street. 68 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-4: North Gila to TS-8 to Yucca 230kV Transmission Line Project (APS) YUMA EXPRESSWAY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Note: This map does not accurately depict the MCAS-Yuma property extending south to County 14th Street. Source: APS website http://www.aps.com/general_info/siting/siting_37.html 69 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report City of Somerton Over the last decade, the City of Somerton has experienced significant growth that strained existing community services, as well as the transportation network. In response, the City identified and implemented many of the most important infrastructure projects. Growth rates in the immediate future are expected to slow to more historic levels, placing greater importance on maintaining the area’s quality of life through prioritizing future community needs. Based on feedback during development of the City of Somerton 2010 General Plan, residents prefer the City remain a predominantly rural- and agricultural-based community. Accounting for this preference, while still accommodating growth and diversifying the local economy, is a significant challenge for the future. To reflect current residents’ desire to maintain the City of Somerton’s small-town feel, the City has identified a downtown growth area, roughly between County 15th Street and County 17th Street and between Avenue E and the Central Canal. The City of Somerton will focus its development in this area over the next 10 to 20 years as the population grows. Operations of the MCAS-Yuma, and the resulting High Noise or Accident Potential Zone (HNAPZ) which extends partially over the City of Somerton, creates an abundance of land that is unsuitable for residential development but is available for commercial and employment uses as shown in Figure 3-5. A challenge mentioned in the Community Vision chapter of the General Plan, was the City’s unique location in the “South West County”, between two much larger communities: Yuma the economic hub of the region; and the City of San Luis, a growing border town located adjacent to Mexico. In relation to the overall area transportation network, the City of Somerton is in a less than optimal location, with no rail connection, no easy access to I-8, as well as no direct connection to the newly built SR 195 (ASH Highway) or the newly constructed commercial port of entry (POE) in San Luis. 70 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-5: City of Somerton Land Use Map YUMA EXPRESSWAY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Source: City of Somerton 2010 General Plan, 2010 71 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report City of San Luis During the last decade, the City of San Luis was one of the fastest-growing communities in Yuma County. The City is expected to experience further residential, commercial, and industrial growth. This growth will generally be directed along two primary transportation corridors: north along US 95 towards Gadsden and east along Juan Sanchez Boulevard, also referred to as the ASH. As identified in the City of San Luis 2010 General Plan, short-term growth is predicted to occur around the San Luis I and San Luis II POEs at the Mexican border, as well as within the city center of San Luis. San Luis I is a full-service U.S. POE and San Luis II, which only processes commercial vehicles, is a new POE built east of the city. Prior to the construction of the San Luis II POE, San Luis I had experienced a dramatic increase in traffic volumes including commercial traffic, privately owned vehicles, and pedestrians. While facility expansion was necessary to keep up with demand, existing city infrastructure prevented this from occurring. San Luis II was constructed to take over commercial traffic inspections, thereby increasing the capacity of San Luis I to process pedestrians and privately owned vehicles, while also eliminating congestion in the city center. New commercial/business development will largely be centered in the vicinity of the new POE, San Luis II; along the ASH between Avenue E and Avenue A; and along Avenue B from the ASH to the planning area boundary, as identified in Figure 3-6 from the San Luis General Plan. Corridors such as Avenue J, Avenue E, and Avenue B are identified as activity and business centers because they are continuations of the POEs and also provide access to agricultural production areas and to the communities of Somerton and Yuma. More intense land uses, including higher density residential and mixed-use development, are generally planned at key intersections and along these corridors. According to the City of San Luis 2010 General Plan, Yuma County exports the most agricultural products of any other county in Arizona. “Because agriculture is historically important to the area for economic and employment reasons, it is critical that these areas be protected and maintained.” This goal is shared by the City of Yuma, whose General Plan includes similar sentiments as one of seven overriding goals for the entire plan, stating that “by promoting concentrated urban development, the resulting urban pattern minimizes encroachment on the prime agricultural lands in the Gila and Yuma Valleys.” Agricultural land use accounts for a large portion of the study area, particularly west of Avenue D (Figure 3-6); therefore protection of these lands should be considered when alternatives for the Yuma Expressway are being considered. 72 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-6: City of San Luis Future Land Use Plan Source: City of San Luis General Plan, 2011 73 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Cocopah Indian Reservation The Cocopah Indian Tribe created an independent organization called the Cocopah Indian Housing and Development (CIHAD) in 2006, to help increase the amount of home ownership throughout the reservation. Funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), bank loans, among others, has made it possible for CIHAD to introduce new housing development to all three sections of the Reservation: North, West, and East. Most recently, a 24-unit multi-family low-income apartment complex was completed with the help of USDA, and another 40 units are in the development process using HUD’s Section 184 Mortgage Guarantee Program. Yuma County The Yuma County 2020 Comprehensive Plan, completed in 2012, acknowledges the uncertainty of future population and housing growth due to the current unstable economy. However, the plan does identify a series of planning areas where future development may occur. Unincorporated land uses within the study area are defined within three of these designated planning areas: Yuma Mesa, Yuma Valley, and Northwest (NW) Yuma, as shown in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8. Lands above County 18th Street, including those within the Yuma Expressway study area, are almost entirely privately held land with the most prevalent uses including Agricultural/Rural Preservation, Rural Density Residential, Agriculture/Industrial, and Low Density Residential. Avenue D is almost completely surrounded by the land use designation Agricultural/Rural Preservation. Land uses east of Avenue D, between County 12th Street and the Colorado River include both Low Density and Estate Density Residential (Figure 3-8). There are a few older, higher density subdivisions located in this planning area; however future development trends are expected to maintain the rural character that currently dominates the local housing market. Agriculture/Industrial land uses are concentrated along County 14th Street, directly south of the MCAS-Yuma. The majority of Rural Density Residential is located on either side of County 14th Street, towards the Barry M. Goldwater Range, between Avenue 3E and SR 195 (Figure 3-7). The close proximity of the MCAS-Yuma airfield and the boundary of the Barry M. Goldwater Range both limit the amount of development that can occur within the Noise Exposure and Compatibility Overlay. 74 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-7: Yuma County: Yuma Mesa Planning Area Land Use Map YUMA EXPRESSWAY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Source: Yuma County 2020 Comprehensive Plan 75 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-8: Yuma County: Yuma Valley & NW Yuma Planning Areas Land Use Map YUMA EXPRESSWAY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Source: Yuma County 2020 Comprehensive Plan 76 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Imperial County According to the Land Use Element of the Imperial County General Plan, population in the unincorporated areas of Imperial County tends to concentrate in agricultural areas and in recreation/retirement communities such as Winterhaven. Winterhaven is a Census Designated Place (CDP), located in the southeastern corner of the county, where I-8 crosses over the Colorado River and into Arizona. The Imperial County Land Use Map designates nearly the entire surrounding area as agricultural. During the winter months, this community experiences a significant population increase, as visitors, often referred to as ‘snowbirds’, converge to the area to avoid cold, wet winters in other parts of the country. 3.1.2. Current Ongoing Studies In addition to the general plans produced by each jurisdiction, there are various other ongoing studies that may impact the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study. All of the studies listed below are in the initial stages of examining current conditions and future conditions. There is minimal information that can be incorporated in the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study. Yuma County Rail Corridor Study The overall purpose of the Yuma County Rail Corridor Study currently being conducted is “to evaluate if there is any interest and supporting economic benefit for a rail and commodity logistics center in the Yuma Region.” Recently momentum for this type of transportation has been generated from discussions on a potential deep sea port at Punta Colonet, Baja California, Mexico. This study will evaluate potential based on both short- and long-term opportunities. Short-term opportunities look into identifying economic drivers that could sustain short-rail options with expansion capabilities in the future. Long-term opportunities look at the logistics and cost/benefits of creating a major rail line with an inland port option. Arizona-Sonora Border Master Plan In 2010, more than 23 million people were processed through Arizona’s six border crossings. At each port of entry, heavy congestion and security issues affect daily pedestrian, commercial, and vehicular traffic traveling across the border. In response, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are collaborating with the State of Sonora, Mexico, the Ministry of Communications and Transport (Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes) and several other local, state and federal agencies to develop the Arizona-Sonora Border Master Plan, an integrated transportation master plan aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness at the border crossings. Avenue E: SR 195 to County 18th Street Design Concept Report (South County Connection) Yuma County is in the early stages of assembling information for the Avenue E Design Concept Report (DCR) to provide access from County 18th Street and Avenue D to County 23rd Street and Avenue E. It is anticipated that the study will provide an environmental document as well as 30% plans in the final deliverable. At this time there are no plans or ongoing studies in place to connect the Avenue E DCR to the Yuma Expressway. 77 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Binational San Luis Transportation Study ADOT is currently conducting the Binational San Luis Transportation Study. The study area covers Ambos San Luis and incorporated portions of San Luis, Arizona and San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico. Both the San Luis I and San Luis II POE are within the study area. Major routes include U.S. 95 and SR 195 in the U.S., as well as Federal 2 and Sonora 40 and 3 in Mexico. The purpose of this study is to “develop an integrated Long-Range Multi-Modal Transportation Plan, which includes evaluating and identifying infrastructure and improvements at San Luis POE I.” To date, existing and future conditions have been documented, and an Origin-Destination Survey was completed to better understand the daily travel characteristics and patterns between the two cities, to surrounding communities (i.e. Somerton and Yuma), and even to the region (i.e. Phoenix). Imperial County Draft 2012 Long Range Transportation Plan Update Imperial County is in the process of updating the 2007 Imperial County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to account for changes in population, housing, trade as well as changes in land use developments. The Draft version of the LRTP was available for comment in January of 2013, comments were due January 25,2013 and anticipated approval in February of 2013. A complete update to Imperial County’s LRTP is scheduled for FY 2013-14. The improvements to the I-8/SR 86 Transportation Interchange (TI) are expected to be included in the Imperial County LRTP. East Cocopah Reservation Circulation Plan The Cocopah Tribe and ADOT are conducting a study to develop a Circulation Plan for the East Cocopah Reservation in Yuma County. The Circulation Plan will include multimodal recommendations for bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, public transportation and roadway projects. The final report will recommend multimodal transportation improvement projects for the East Cocopah Reservation. City of Somerton Road Diet Evaluation The City of Somerton is currently conducting a study to evaluate the conditions of the existing roadways along with the changes that will be needed for the future within the city limits. The information will be used to help update the YMPO Regional Transportation Plan. 3.1.3. Future Socio-Economic Conditions This section documents the socio-economic assumptions of the 2010-2033 YMPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and provides updated population details based on the 2010 Census. Future socio-economic conditions in YMPO planning area were assessed by analyzing population and employment projections for the years 2010 and 2033 based on the growth rate utilized in the RTP. These socio-economic projections provide the basis for the following chapter which addresses future traffic conditions and the deficiencies in the network which may justify the proposed Yuma Expressway. 78 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Due to recent fluctuations in development and growth, the assumed regional population and employment in the future year will be provided as threshold values identifying when improvements may be justified. This approach allows for correction. Should the actual growth rate be different from that assumed in the model (detailed below), the recommended improvements may be needed earlier or later than the projected year. Future Demographic Conditions The most recent RTP model was developed prior to the publication of the 2010 Census information. Therefore, it is important to update the future socio-economic conditions reflecting any changes in population and employment. Table 3-1 documents the model’s estimated 2009 population, the model’s estimated 2010 population, and the actual 2010 population. Table 3-1: Existing Population Data Area City of San Luis City of Somerton City of Yuma Other Incorporated Areas within YMPO Planning Area4 Unincorporated Areas within YMPO Planning Area Total YMPO Planning Area 20091 (Model) 27,387 10,236 100,703 Population 20102 (Model) 28,322 10,532 102,286 20103 (Census) 25,505 14,287 93,064 2010 Percent Difference 4,595 4,652 5,896 21.1% 59,241 60,254 56,999 -5.7% 202,162 206,154 195,751 -5.3% -11.0% 26.3% -9.9% 1 2010-2033 YMPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2 Calculated 3 2010 U.S. Census 4 Includes: Town of Wellton, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, and Cocopah Indian Reservation Source: 2010 U.S. Census, RTP As detailed in this table, there are slight discrepancies in the projected versus actual 2010. In order to normalize the future data for this study, the growth rate from the model is applied to the actual 2010 population in order to calculate the future population. Table 3-2, shows estimated 2033 population and the annual growth rate from the 2010-2033 YMPO Regional Transportation Plan. 79 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 3-2: Annual Population Projections and Growth Rates Area City of San Luis City of Somerton City of Yuma Other Incorporated Areas within YMPO Planning Area4 Unincorporated Areas within YMPO Planning Area Total YMPO Planning Area Population 2010 20332 25,505 55,209 14,287 27,552 93,064 133,227 1 Annual GR3 3.4% 2.9% 1.6% Percent Increase 116% 93% 43% 5,896 7,844 1.2% 33% 56,999 84,200 1.7% 48% 195,751 306,937 1.9% 57% 1 2010 U.S. Census 2 Calculated using 2010-2033 YMPO (RTP) Growth Rate and 2010 U.S. Census Population Data 3 2010-2033 YMPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 4 Includes: Town of Wellton, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, and Cocopah Indian Reservation Source: 2010 U.S. Census, RTP By 2033, the population of Yuma County is projected to grow to over 300,000 people, a 57.0% increase from 2010. A large portion of projected growth will occur in the cities of San Luis and Somerton. The City of San Luis’s population is projected to increase the most by more than 115%; the City of Somerton’s by nearly 93%. Because Yuma County is a popular winter destination for ‘snowbirds,’ or people who migrate to desert areas from colder climates, local population counts fluctuate seasonally. Significantly higher populations are found throughout this area during the winter months than the summer months. Calculations in Table 3-2 account for these higher populations. In addition, ‘snowbirds’ are predominantly elderly, and therefore it will be necessary for jurisdictions to continue to provide supporting infrastructure and services relating to heath care, education, and recreation in the future. Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 illustrate the population densities, by 2010 U.S. Census Block, for 2010 and 2033, respectively. Growth is concentrated in the city centers of San Luis, Somerton and Yuma. In all three locations, the number of census blocks predicted to exceed 8,000 residents per square mile increases. According to the 2010 Census, this population density is much higher than the averages for all three jurisdictions:    Yuma  773.7 persons per square mile Somerton  1,959.8 persons per square mile San Luis  796.3 persons per square mile It is important to note that there is a linear limitation to this model. By using a growth rate to extrapolate population growth, areas throughout Yuma County with no recorded residents as of 2010 will remain empty through the calculation; therefore “new-growth” census blocks are not accounted for. 80 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-9: 2010 Population Densities (in Persons per Square Mile) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010; Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2008; US Census 2010 81 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-10: 2033 Population Densities (in Persons per Square Mile) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010; ASLD, 2008; US Census 2010 82 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Future Employment Conditions The YMPO planning area employment estimates for the year 2033 were extrapolated based on the 2009 and 2033 employment data from the RTP. Table 3-3 presents employment projections for 2033, as well as 2009 employment data from the RTP model. Table 3-3: Employment Projections and Growth Rates Area City of San Luis City of Somerton City of Yuma Other Incorporated Areas in the YMPO Planning Area Unincorporated Areas in the YMPO Planning Area Total YMPO Planning Area Employment 20091 20331 4,857 9,488 1,984 3,949 46,050 68,316 Annual GR2 2.83% 2.91% 1.66% 2,186 3,581 2.08% 14,465 32,917 3.49% 69,542 118,252 2.24% Percent Increase 95.3% 99.0% 48.4% 63.8% 127.6% 70.0% 1 2010-2033 YMPO Regional Transportation Plan Final Report 2 Calculated Source: RTP Employment projections in San Luis and Somerton show a percent increase of greater than 90% by 2033. This growth is the highest by a large margin compared to the City of Yuma and other incorporated areas in the YMPO planning area as shown in Table 3-3. Figure 3-11 and Figure 3-12 illustrate employment densities by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for the years 2009 and 2033, respectively. Employment densities are clustered in the cities of Yuma, San Luis and Somerton. As additional employment opportunities are created within this region, the subsequent economic growth will continue to occur in these three areas. 83 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-11: 2009 Employment Density (per Square Mile) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010; ASLD, 2008; YMPO, 2011 84 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-12: 2033 Employment Density (per Square Mile) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010; ASLD, 2008; YMPO, 2011 85 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 3.1.4. Future Transportation Infrastructure Future Roadway Functional Classification The future 2033 roadway functional classifications in the adopted 2010 RTP were compared to the existing roadway functional classifications to determine any significant changes that may affect this study. The functional classifications for the majority of both Avenue D and County 14th Street within the study area change from Rural Minor Collector to Rural Major Collector. Several other Rural Minor Collectors become Rural Major Collectors as well, including portions of Avenue C and County 12th Street. Local streets, closer to downtown Yuma, show a change to Urban Collectors or Rural Minor Arterials. Figure 3-13 illustrates the 2033 roadway functional classification as established in the 2010 RTP model. Future Roadway Speed Limits In the 2033 network model, the speed limits within the study area and its vicinity are similar to existing conditions. The speed limit for the majority of both County 14th Street and Avenue D within the study area is 50 miles per hour (MPH). This speed limit matches current conditions. Figure 3-14 illustrates the 2033 roadway speed limits as established in the 2010 RTP model. Future Roadway Lane Configuration The number of roadway lanes programmed in the 2010 RTP model for 2033 is forecast to generally remain the same within the study area, except in the close vicinity of downtown Yuma where some roadways will be widened. As depicted in Figure 3-15, the future number of lanes on 16th Street, 24th Street, and 32nd Street will increase from two to three lanes in each direction. It is assumed that Avenue D and County 14th Street will still have a total of two lanes in 2033. 86 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-13: 2033 Functional Roadway Classifications Source: 2010 RTP Model, 2005 MRP 87 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-14: 2033 Future Speed Limits Source: 2010 RTP Model, 2005 MRP 88 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-15: 2033 Future Number of Lanes Source: 2010 RTP Model, 2005 MRP 89 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 3.2. Future Traffic and Deficiencies 3.2.1. Traffic Conditions Level of Service (LOS), for existing (2009) and future (2033) traffic, was calculated using extrapolation based on the 2010 YMPO Average Annual Traffic Data, as well as the 2033 traffic projections from the 2010 YMPO model. Figure 3-16 and Figure 3-17 present the LOS for 2009 and 2033, respectively. An assessment of the future roadway conditions allows a determination of when the roadways within the study area begin to have a reduced LOS, indicating additional roadway improvements may be justified. As indicated in Figure 3-16, most roadway segments in the Yuma area currently experience a LOS A. With the population and employment growth projected in the 2010 RTP, which is based on local adopted plans, the overall roadway system in Yuma area will show a slight decrease in operating conditions by 2033; however the conditions will still remain at an acceptable LOS C or better. Within the study area, the 2033 LOS along Avenue D is projected to operate at LOS B for most segments south of 40th Street, with approximately 7,200 vehicles per day. County 14th Street is projected to operate at LOS B for most segments within the study area. 3.2.2. Deficiencies Generally, when a roadway is at LOS D or worse, roadway capacity improvements may be warranted. In this case, the additional capacity may be accommodated with improvements on the failing segments, or on parallel facilities serving the same travel demand. Based on the assessment of traffic conditions in 2033, the roadways within the study area for this project will perform at a LOS B or better. Therefore, given the current adopted land use plans and corresponding future socio-economic conditions, significant roadway capacity improvements are not warranted. Changes in land use assumptions may yield increases in the population and employment projections, thus potentially increasing the demand for significant roadway improvements within the study area. Therefore, the regional population was projected to indicate when the current roadway capacity may deteriorate to warrant an additional facility. Figure 3-18 presents the growth of traffic volumes on Avenue D and County 14th Street versus the population growth for the entire YMPO region. The regional population data shown in Table 3-1, along with the 2009 and 2033 traffic data, are used to plot the growth before the year 2033. The traffic and population growth after 2033 are extrapolated using the same growth rate. Figure 3-18 shows that the rural two-lane Avenue D and County 14th Street can serve the community well past 2033. When the population for the Yuma region attains 367,400, County 90 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 14th Street will require a capacity improvement, while the LOS for Avenue D will not fail until the population reaches 418,300. Once the population for the YMPO region reaches these levels it will require County 14th Street and Avenue D to either be upgraded or possibly another roadway constructed parallel to County 14th Street and Avenue D. 91 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-16: 2009 Existing LOS Source: Adjusted based on 2010 RTP YMPO Existing Model 92 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-17: 2033 Future LOS Source: Adjusted based on 2033 RTP YMPO Existing Model, 2005 MPR 93 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 3-18: Daily Traffic Growth on Avenue D and County 14th Street vs. YMPO Regional Population Population Ave D County 14th Street 2 lane Urban Connector Capacity (90% of) 560 20 18 480 400 16 14 367.4 12 320 10 240 8 196 Daily Traffic Volumes (,000) Population for Entire Yuma County (,000) 418.3 6 160 4 80 2 0 0 2010 2030 2050 Year 94 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4. Corridor Alternatives This chapter presents the various alternatives and the method of evaluation for the preferred alternative. The alternatives consist of combinations of multiple typical sections/roadway types, discussed in Section 4.1, and various corridors, discussed in Section 4.2. The alternatives were evaluated in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 and presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to ensure consensus with the methodology used to identify a preferred alternative. 4.1. Preliminary Typical Sections In order to present multiple alternatives for analysis, five typical sections are evaluated. Each typical section contains its own set of requirements including roadway width, right-of-way width, access limits, intersection spacing, and frontage road requirements. The existing Rural Two Lane (No-build) typical section is presented for the use of comparison to the remaining four typical sections. 4.1.1. Existing Rural Two Lane Figure 4-1: Rural Two Lane Roadway Typical Section Pavement Configuration The existing pavement is approximately 24-feet wide with unpaved shoulders. The pavement material is a combination of asphaltic concrete and chip seal. The lane configuration is typically one 12-foot lane in each direction with no median. At a few of the major intersections there are left turn lanes. Figure 4-1 shows the typical section of the Rural Two Lane roadway. Design Speed According to the 2011 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the design speed of a Local Rural Road on level terrain similar to the study area varies between 30 miles per hour (mph) and 50 mph. The majority of the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street roadways are posted at 50 mph. 95 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Traffic Control Rural Two Lane roadways typically have intersections that are controlled by stop signs. These intersections can be either 2-way or 4-way stop configurations. There are some locations within the study area that the existing County 14th Street roadway uses signal-controlled intersections. Currently there are traffic signals installed at Avenue B (US 95), Avenue A, Avenue 3E, Avenue 5E and State Route (SR) 195. Right-of-Way The standard right-of-way width for a Rural Two Lane roadway is 66 feet. Additional right-of-way is typically required at the intersections when additional lanes are added. Access Requirements Access to adjacent residences, businesses, and agriculture is typically not restricted on a Rural Two Lane roadway. This allows traffic from the adjacent land along the roadway to enter and exit the roadway at any location. Frontage roads are not required for a Rural Two Lane roadway due to the low volume of traffic and high accessibility of the roadway type. Rural Two Lane roadways typically have major road crossings at one-mile intervals. As land use changes over time the roadways may experience additional intersections based upon increased development. 4.1.2. Rural Freeway Figure 4-2: Rural Four Lane Freeway Typical Section Pavement Configuration The typical section for a Rural Four Lane Freeway from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Roadway Design Guidelines consists of two 38-foot wide roadways with an open median. The pavement is approximately 38-feet wide with paved shoulders on both sides. The pavement material can be either asphaltic concrete or portland cement concrete (typically in rural applications asphaltic concrete is preferred). The lane configuration is typically two 12-foot lanes in each direction with a 10-foot outside shoulder and a 4-foot inside shoulder. Figure 4-2 shows the typical section of the Rural Four Lane Freeway. 96 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Design Speed According to most recent version of the ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, the design speed of a Controlled Access Highway on level terrain similar to the study area should be 75 mph. Traffic Control Rural Four Lane Freeways typically do not have intersections located at grade. Major road crossings will be grade-separated with or without interchanges. Right-of-Way The standard right-of-way width for a Rural Four Lane Freeway is approximately 308 feet. Additional right-of-way is typically required at the grade-separated crossings when space is required for entrance and exit ramps along with provisions for the grade-separated crossing. Access Requirements Access to adjacent residences, businesses, and agriculture is restricted on a Rural Four Lane Freeway. Traffic can only enter and exit the facility at the grade separated crossings. In order to maintain access to the land adjacent to the facility, frontage roads may be required in certain situations. Under other circumstances the existing Rural Two Lane roads can remain and serve as local access. Rural Four Lane Freeways typically have major road crossings at two mile intervals. 4.1.3. Expressway Figure 4-3: Expressway Typical Section Pavement Configuration The typical section for an Expressway is defined in the City of Yuma standards and consists of a 110-foot wide roadway with raised median. The Expressway will have a minimum of four travel lanes (two in each direction). The ultimate section consists of six travel lanes (three in each direction). The interior travel lanes are 12-feet wide and the outside travel lanes are 14 feet wide. The outside shoulders shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide. Figure 4-3 shows the typical section of the Expressway. 97 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Design Speed The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan establishes the design speed of an Expressway between 45 mph and 55 mph Traffic Control Expressways may have signal-controlled intersections or intersections controlled by stop signs (yield signs for channelized right-turns) on the intersecting roads. Major road crossings may be grade-separated with or without interchanges. Right-of-Way The standard right-of-way width for an Expressway is approximately 160 feet. Additional rightof-way is typically required at the intersections. If the Expressway requires a frontage road system extra right-of-way width will be necessary. Access Requirements Access to adjacent residences, businesses, and agriculture is restricted on an Expressway. It is the intention of an Expressway to only allow traffic to enter and exit the facility at the major intersections. In order to maintain access to the land adjacent to the facility, frontage roads may be required in some situations. In other conditions the existing Rural Two Lane roads can remain and serve as local access. Expressways typically have major road crossings, at one mile intervals. 4.1.4. Principal Arterial Figure 4-4: Principal Arterial Typical Section Pavement Configuration The typical section for a Principal Arterial is defined in the City of Yuma standards and consists of a 105-foot wide roadway, measured from face of curb to face of curb, with an 18-foot raised median. The Principal Arterial will have a minimum of six travel lanes (three in each direction). The travel lanes are 12 feet wide with a 6-foot bike lane located on the outside. In addition, the Principal Arterial requires installation of an 8-foot sidewalk. Figure 4-4 shows the typical section of the Principal Arterial. 98 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Design Speed The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan establishes the design speed of a Principal Arterial at 45 mph in most situations. Traffic Control Principal Arterials may have signal-controlled intersections or intersections controlled by stop signs (yield signs for channelized right-turns) at intersecting roads. Right-of-Way The standard right-of-way width for a Principal Arterial is approximately 124 feet. Additional right-of-way is typically required at the intersections. Access Requirements Principal Arterials shall be median-divided. Median breaks will be provided only at roadway intersections at approximately ¼ mile intervals. Median openings will not be permitted for local roads or driveways, and no more than one driveway will be allowed on a Principal Arterial from a given property or from adjacent properties under common or related ownership, development or subdivision. No new residential driveways will be permitted on Principal Arterials. 4.1.5. Minor Arterial Figure 4-5: Minor Arterial Typical Section Pavement Configuration The typical section outlined for use for a Minor Arterial is defined in the City of Yuma standards and consists of an 81-foot wide roadway, measured from face of curb to face of curb, with an 18-foot raised median. The Minor Arterial will have a minimum of four travel lanes (two in each direction). The travel lanes are 12 feet wide with a 6-foot bike lane located on the outside. In addition, the Minor Arterial requires installation of an 8-foot sidewalk. Figure 4-5 shows the typical section of the Minor Arterial. Design Speed The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan establishes the design speed of a Minor Arterial between 35 mph and 45 mph in most situations 99 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Traffic Control Minor Arterials may have signal-controlled intersections or intersections controlled by stop signs (yield signs for channelized right-turns) on the intersecting roads. Right-of-Way The standard right-of-way width for a Minor Arterial is approximately 100 feet. Additional rightof-way is typically required at the intersections. Access Requirements Minor Arterials shall be median-divided and median breaks will be provided only at roadway intersections at approximately ¼ mile intervals. Median openings may or may not be permitted for local roads. Median openings will not be permitted for driveways, and no more than one driveway will be allowed on a Minor Arterial from a given property or from adjacent properties under common or related ownership, development or subdivision. 100 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4.2. Preliminary Corridors To supplement the four new typical sections presented earlier, three potential corridors within the study area are presented. Each corridor is shown as a swath approximately 600 feet wide. The additional width will allow future planning to work around existing and future constraints as the study area changes in the years to come. 4.2.1. Corridor No. 1 (Along Existing Ave D and County 14th Street) General Description Corridor No. 1 generally follows the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street alignments. Corridor No. 1 connects with Interstate-8 (I-8) in California near the Avenue D alignment, then travel towards the south over the Colorado River for approximately 1 mile where it crosses the Main Outlet Drain Extension (MODE) and the south levee of the Colorado River. Then, the Corridor shifts slightly to the west and lines up on the existing Avenue D alignment. Once on the Avenue D alignment, the Corridor runs due south approximately 6.5 miles to County 14th Street. At County 14th Street the Corridor turns to the east along existing County 14th Street and runs approximately 9.5 miles east to SR 195. Figure 4-6 shows Corridor No. 1. Figure 4-6: Corridor No. 1 Alignment 101 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Segment Details In order to further discuss the various constraints and issues of Corridor No. 1, it has been broken into three sections. 1. Connection to I-8 and Colorado River Crossing 2. Avenue D (Colorado River to County 14th Street) 3. County 14th Street (Avenue D to SR 195) Each segment of Corridor No. 1 is discussed below. Connection to I-8 and Colorado River Crossing Corridor No. 1 will require the construction of a new transportation interchange at the future intersection of the Yuma Expressway and I-8. The specific interchange layout will be determined in future studies. The design and construction of the new transportation interchange will have to meet California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requirements. Caltrans Highway Design Manual requires that “The minimum interchange spacing shall be 1.5km in urban areas, and 3.0km in rural areas.” Possible interchange layouts may include a conventional diamond or a fully directional interchange. The site is approximately 2 miles west of the existing Winterhaven Drive Transportation Interchange (TI). With the construction of a new connection to I-8, a new crossing of the Colorado River will have to be constructed to provide a connection between Arizona and California. Several environmental challenges will be encountered to cross the Colorado River. Corridor No. 1 crosses the Colorado River between the Cocopah Indian Reservation and the Yuma West Wetlands Park (former City of Yuma landfill). There are various endangered species and habitats located along the Colorado River that may be impacted by a new bridge crossing. A 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers will be required. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil maps, most of the soil within the study area adjacent to the Colorado River is classified as a silt-loam. Although this type of soil is not optimum for bridge construction, this soil type still allows for bridge construction. According to the soil maps the existing 4th Avenue bridge is constructed in similar soils and has been in existence for 50 plus years. In addition, it is understood that there may be residual materials from the Arizona watershed flooding of 1993 that fed to the Colorado River, resulting in an estimated 5 million cubic yards of river-borne deposits of various nature that may impact bridge construction. Avenue D (Colorado River to County 14th Street) Corridor No. 1 is centered on the existing Avenue D alignment. Corridor No. 1 will pass alongside various residential developments between 8th Street and 32nd Street. Some of the residential developments located along Avenue D include Valley Citrus Estates, Cibola Five, Sierra Sunset, and Barkley Ranch. In addition to the residential developments, Corridor No. 1 is located alongside existing prime agriculture fields. The level of impact to the adjacent residential 102 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report areas and agriculture areas are discussed in the evaluation of alternatives sections of the report, Sections 4.3 and 4.4. County 14th Street (Avenue D to SR 195) Similar to the Avenue D portion of this Corridor, Corridor No. 1 is centered on the existing County 14th Street alignment. Corridor No. 1 will pass alongside various residential developments between Avenue D and SR 195. Some of the residential developments located along County 14th Street include Collins Country Manor, Sunglow Ranchettes, Sun Leisure Estates, Tierra Mesa Estates, Riebe Ranchetts and Mesa Dunes Estates. Corridor No. 1 is located alongside existing prime agriculture fields in the Yuma Valley from Avenue D to approximately Avenue A. As the Corridor approaches Avenue A, it rises up onto the Yuma Mesa near the south end of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)/Yuma Airport runway. As Corridor No. 1 extends east, along County 14th Street, the Corridor will be adjacent to the MCAS property to the north, between Avenue A and Avenue 3E. In addition to the proximity to the MCAS property, Corridor No. 1 is adjacent to the Barry M. Goldwater Range, between Ave 5E and SR 195. Having an Expressway immediately adjacent to or near to MCAS and Barry M. Goldwater Range can provide an effective buffer against intense residential development occurring at the boundaries of these military sites. 4.2.2. Corridor No. 2 (¼ Mile East of Avenue D and ¼ Mile North of County 14th Street) General Description Corridor No. 2 is similar to Corridor No. 1 except the alignment of Corridor No. 2 is to be located off of the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street roadways. This will allow the existing roadways to continue to function as local access. Corridor No. 2 will be offset from Corridor No. 1 about ¼ mile to the east and north. The Corridor will generally parallel the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street alignments. Corridor No. 2 will connect with I-8 in California near the Avenue D alignment. Then Corridor No. 2 travels south (approximately 7.5 miles) to ¼ mile north of County 14th Street. Just short of County 14th Street Corridor No. 2 turns to the east and runs roughly 9.5 miles to SR 195. Figure 4-7 shows Corridor No. 2. 103 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 4-7: Corridor No. 2 Alignment Segment Details In order to further discuss the various constraints and issues of Corridor No. 2, it has been broken into three sections. 1. Connection to I-8 and Colorado River Crossing 2. ¼ Mile East of Avenue D (Colorado River to County 14th Street) 3. ¼ Mile North of County 14th Street (Avenue D to SR 195) Each segment of Corridor No. 2 is discussed below. Connection to I-8 and Colorado River Crossing Corridor No. 2 will also require the construction of a new transportation interchange at the future intersection of the Yuma Expressway and I-8. The specific layout will have to be determined in future studies. The design and construction of the new transportation interchange will have to meet Caltrans requirements. Caltrans Highway Design Manual requires that “The minimum 104 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report interchange spacing shall be 1.5km in urban areas, and 3.0km in rural areas.” Possible interchange layouts may include a conventional diamond, or possibly a fully directional interchange. The site is approximately 1¾ miles west of the existing Winterhaven TI. With the construction of a new connection to I-8, a new crossing of the Colorado River will have to be constructed to provide a connection between Arizona and California. Several environmental challenges will be encountered to cross the Colorado River. Similar to Corridor No. 1, Corridor No. 2 crosses the Colorado River between the Cocopah Indian Reservation and the Yuma West Wetlands Park (former City of Yuma landfill). There are various endangered species and habitats located along the Colorado River that may be impacted by a new bridge crossing. A 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers will be required. According to the USDA soil maps, most of the soil within the study area adjacent to the Colorado River is classified as a silt-loam. Although this type of soil is not optimum for bridge construction, this soil type still allows for bridge construction. According to the soil maps the existing 4th Avenue bridge is constructed in similar soils and has been in existence for 50 plus years. In addition, it is understood that there may be residual materials from the Arizona watershed flooding of 1993 that fed to the Colorado River, resulting in an estimated 5 million cubic yards of river-borne deposits of various nature that may impact bridge construction. ¼ Mile East of Avenue D (Colorado River to County 14th Street) Corridor No. 2 is parallel to the existing Avenue D alignment, and will pass through various residential developments between 8th Street and 32nd Street. Some of the residential developments located within Corridor No. 2 include Valley Citrus Estates, Donovan Estates, Verde Valley Acres, Chantal Estates, Cibola Five, Sierra Sunset, Falls Ranch, and Barkley Ranch. In addition to the impacts on some of the existing residential developments, Corridor No. 2 will pass through portions of prime agriculture. The level of impact to the adjacent residential areas and agriculture areas will be discussed in the evaluation of alternatives sections of the report in Chapter 4. ¼ Mile North of County 14th Street (Avenue D to SR 195) Similar to the Avenue D leg of this Corridor, Corridor No. 2 is parallel to the existing County 14th Street alignment. Corridor No. 2 will conflict with the MCAS between Avenue A and Avenue 3E. In addition it will pass through various residential developments located on the north side of County 14th Street between Avenue 3E and SR 195. Some of the residential developments located within Corridor No. 2 include Tierra Mesa Estates, Tierra Bonita, King Ranch and Mesa Dunes Estates. Corridor No. 2 is located within existing prime agriculture fields in the Yuma valley from Avenue D to approximately Avenue A. As the Corridor approaches Avenue A, it rises up onto the Yuma Mesa and conflicts with the south end of the MCAS/Yuma Airport runway. Despite the impacts to the MCAS property, Corridor No. 2 avoids the Barry M. Goldwater Range between Ave 5E and SR 195. Having an Expressway immediately adjacent to or near to MCAS and the Barry M. Goldwater Range can provide an effective buffer against intense residential development occurring at the boundaries of these military sites. However the impacts to MCAS will outweigh any benefits that the buffering affect may create. 105 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4.2.3. Corridor No. 3 – Meandering (¼ Mile off of Avenue D and County 14th) General Description Corridor No. 3 is located off of the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street roadways, allowing the existing roadways to continue to function as local access. Corridor No. 3 will be offset about ¼ mile from the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street. The Corridor will generally parallel the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street alignments. The intent of Corridor No. 3 is to avoid as many existing and future constraints as possible, yet remain in the project study area. Corridor No. 3 will connect with I-8 in California, west of the Avenue D alignment. Corridor No. 3 will then travel towards the south approximately 3.5 miles, ¼ mile west of existing Avenue D roadway, past 32nd Street (County 11th Street). Once Corridor No. 3 reaches the 32nd Street (County 11th Street), the Corridor switches to the east side of Avenue D and continues another 2.5 miles to a point ¼ mile north of County 14th Street. At this point Corridor No. 3 heads southeast for 2 miles to switch to the south side of County 14th Street. Once on the south side of County 14th Street, between Avenue A and Avenue B, the Corridor continues east for 5.5 miles. As Corridor No. 3 approaches Avenue 4E, it crosses back to the north of County 14th Street and continues east to intersect with SR 195. Figure 4-8 shows Corridor No. 3. Figure 4-8: Corridor No. 3 Alignment 106 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Segment Details In order to further discuss the various constraints and issues of Corridor No. 3, it has been broken into four sections. 1. 2. 3. 4. Connection to I-8 and Colorado River Crossing ¼ Mile West of Avenue D (Colorado River to 32nd Street) ¼ Mile East of Avenue D (32nd Street to County 14th Street) ¼ Mile South of County 14th Street (Avenue D to SR 195) Each segment of Corridor No. 3 is discussed below. Connection to I-8 and Colorado River Crossing Corridor No. 3 will require the construction of a new transportation interchange at the future intersection of the Yuma Expressway and I-8. The specific layout will be determined in future studies. The design and construction of the new transportation interchange will have to meet Caltrans requirements. Caltrans Highway Design Manual requires that “The minimum interchange spacing shall be 1.5km in urban areas, and 3.0km in rural areas.” Possible interchange layouts may include a conventional diamond, or possibly a fully directional interchange. The site is approximately 2 miles west of the existing Winterhaven TI. With the construction of a new connection to I-8 a new crossing of the Colorado River will have to be constructed to provide a connection between Arizona and California. Several environmental challenges will be encountered to cross the Colorado River. Similar to Corridor No. 1 and Corridor No. 2, Corridor No. 3 crosses the Colorado River between the Cocopah Indian Reservation and Yuma West Wetlands Park (former City of Yuma landfill). There are various endangered species and habitats located along the Colorado River that may be impacted by a new bridge crossing. A 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers will be required. According to the USDA soil maps, most of the soil within the study area adjacent to the Colorado River is classified as a silt-loam. Although this type of soil is not optimum for bridge construction, this soil type still allows for bridge construction. According to the soil maps the existing 4th Avenue bridge is constructed in similar soils and has been in existence for 50 plus years. In addition, it is understood that there may be residual materials from the Arizona watershed flooding of 1993 that fed to the Colorado River, resulting in an estimated 5 million cubic yards of river-borne deposits of various nature that may impact bridge construction. ¼ Mile West of Avenue D (Colorado River to 32nd Street) Between the Colorado River and 32nd Street Corridor No. 3 is ¼ mile west of the existing Avenue D alignment. Corridor No. 3 will pass through the Valley Citrus Estates residential development between 8th Street and 16th Street. In addition to the impacts on Valley Citrus Estates, Corridor No. 3 will also pass through portions of prime agriculture. The level of impact to the adjacent residential and agriculture areas will depend on the various combinations of typical sections and corridors discussed in the evaluation of alternatives sections of the report. 107 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report ¼ Mile East of Avenue D (32nd Street to ¼ Mile North of County 14th Street) Between 32nd Street and a ¼ mile north of County 14th Street, Corridor No. 3 is located ¼ mile west of the existing Avenue D alignment. Corridor No. 3 will pass through prime agriculture land. Once Corridor No. 3 has reached County 14th Street, it will turn east-southeast for 2 miles to avoid Collins Country Manor, and Sunglow Ranchettes and eventually head east, parallel to County 14th Street, between Avenue B and Avenue A. ¼ Mile South of County 14th Street (Avenue A to SR 195) Between Avenue A and Avenue 4E, Corridor No. 3 is south of and parallel to the existing County 14th Street roadway. Corridor No. 3 will pass through or near the residential developments of Sun Leisure Estates, Riebe Ranchettes and Goldwater Range. As Corridor No. 3 continues east past Avenue 4E, it switches back to the north of existing County 14th Street, before connecting to SR 195. 4.3. Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives Using the four proposed typical sections presented in Section 4.1 (Rural Freeway, Expressway, Principal Arterial, and Minor Arterial) and the three proposed corridors presented in Section 4.2, 12 preliminary alternatives are evaluated using various criteria. In addition to the 12 preliminary alternatives, the no-build alternative is included in this preliminary round of alternative evaluation. 4.3.1. Proposed Alternatives Table 4-1 shows how the alternatives will be presented. The Rural Two Lane (No Build) typical section will be carried throughout the alternative analysis. Table 4-1 graphically depicts the three corridor alternatives. Table 4-1: Proposed Alternatives by Corridor RURAL TWO LANE (EXIST) RURAL FREEWAY EXPRESSWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL CORRIDOR NO. 1 EXISTING AVE D & CO. 14th STREET NO BUILD 1A 1B 1C 1D CORRIDOR NO. 2 ¼ MILE OFFSET EAST AND NORTH CORRIDOR NO. 3 ¼ MILE OFFSET 2A 2B 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 108 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4.3.2. Preliminary Alternative Matrix/Evaluation The goal of the Preliminary Alternative Matrix, provided in Table 4-2, is to reduce the number of alternatives presented so that a few feasible alternatives can be analyzed further into the Secondary Evaluation of Alternatives. Below is a summary of the criteria used to evaluate and compare the 12 Alternatives and No Build presented in Section 4.1.  Impacts to Future Traffic Capacity  Impacts to Existing Residences  Impacts to Existing Agriculture  Impacts to MCAS-Yuma Airport  Access/Frontage Roads/Duplication of Facility Type  Environmental Impacts Each alternative was evaluated against each criteria item and was given a score between one and three. A score of one represents a positive evaluation for the alternative while a score of three represents a negative evaluation for that criteria item. In addition to the score a corresponding description was given. A “Major” was given three points, a “Moderate” was given two points, and a “Minimal” was given one point. All points will be added and the alternatives with the lowest score will be carried forward. In addition to the alternatives with the lowest score, the No Build alternative will be carried forward into the Secondary Evaluation of Alternatives. 109 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 4-9: Preliminary Corridors: 1, 2 and 3 Impacts to Future Traffic Capacity Each alternative was evaluated to determine the additional traffic capacity in the future and the potential for congestion when the area becomes fully developed in the distant future. The type of facility/typical section has the largest influence on the future traffic capacity, while the locations of the actual corridors within the study area have much smaller effect on the capacity of the alternative. The alternatives that cannot move large volumes of vehicles were given a rating of “Major” while the alternatives that can provide large capacity increases over the existing were rated “Minimal”. For alternatives that use Corridor No. 1 and access controlled typical sections (Rural Freeway/Expressway) it is assumed that a frontage road system would be constructed with the facility. Impacts to Existing Residences Each alternative was evaluated to determine the level of impact to the existing residences that would fall within the corridor. The corridor and typical section combinations that cut directly through highly populated neighborhoods were given a “Major” impact rating, while corridor and typical section combinations that avoided the existing residential areas were given a “Minimal” rating. 110 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Based on the information in Table 4-2, the only alternative that has a “Minimal” impact on the existing residences is Alternative 1D. This alternative is simply an upgrade of the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street to a minor arterial. Alternatives 1C, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D, had a “Moderate” effect on the existing residences. Impacts to Existing Agriculture Each alternative was evaluated to determine the level of impact to the existing agriculture that would fall within the corridor. The corridor and typical section combinations that cut directly through agriculture areas were given a “Major” impact rating, while corridor and typical section combinations that avoided the existing agriculture areas were given a “Minimal” rating. The only alternative that has a “Minimal” impact on the existing agriculture was Alternative 1D. Alternatives 2A, 2B, 1C, 2C, and 2D had a “Moderate” impact to agriculture, because they typically were located in residential areas. Impacts to MCAS-Yuma Airport Each alternative was evaluated to determine the level of impact to the existing MCAS and the future plans of MCAS. The corridor and typical section combinations that cut directly through the MCAS were given a “Major” impact rating, while corridor and typical section combinations that avoided the MCAS were given a “Minimal” rating. Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D were given a “Minimal” rating because they all avoid MCAS. Access/Frontage Roads/Duplication of Facility Type Each alternative was evaluated against the need to maintain access to the adjacent properties, the need for frontage roads, and to verify that the proposed alternative does not result in a duplication of similar roadway types within close proximity. The study area is located in an area of Yuma County where approximately 81% of the property is privately owned. Therefore access must be maintained to all parcels. Currently Avenue D and County 14th Street serve as direct access to and from all agriculture lands and many residences. Alternatives that either provide direct access or maintain the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street access were given a “Minimal” evaluation. Alternatives that require frontage roads or grade separated crossings were given a “Moderate” evaluation. In addition, alternatives that result in duplicate roadways with similar access characteristics were given a “Moderate” evaluation. Alternatives 1C, 1D, 2B and 3B were given a “Minimal” rating because they either allowed direct access to the new roadway or Avenue D and County 14th Street remained to in place. Environmental Impacts Each alternative was evaluated to determine the level of impact to the existing environmental justice populations, species of concern, prime and unique farmland, Colorado River crossing and air quality. With the exception of impacts to air quality and prime farmland, all the alternatives had a “Minimal” impact. Environmental Justice Populations Low-income and disabled populations in the study area are similar to the County and surrounding jurisdictions; therefore, the corridor alternatives will have minimal to no adverse 111 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report impacts on low-income populations. While there are small areas (census blocks) where elderly and racial/ethnic minorities constitute a majority of the population, any impacts from the three corridor alternatives will be minimal due to the low-density population distribution found throughout the study area. Endangered Species Potential riparian and wetland habitat for five special status species exists along the banks of the Colorado River. These species, shown in Figure 4-10 and listed below, could potentially be impacted by the proposed river crossing for each corridor alternative. Federal Species of Concern  Yuma Hispid Cotton Tat  Yellow-billed Cuckoo Arizona Wildlife of Special Concern  Great Egret  Snowy Egret  Southwestern Willow Flycatcher  Yuma Clapper Rail Two other Species of Concern, the Western Burrowing Owl and the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, are known to exist throughout the study area; therefore impacts to these species are also possible. It is important to note that foreseeable impacts to any of these species could be reduced, or even avoided with appropriate mitigation measures. East of the project study area (east of SR 195) Arizona Game and Fish expressed concerns about the possible impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard habitat north and south of County 14th Street. During the DCR phase of the project the impacts will need to be documented before selecting the final corridor east of SR 195. Figure 4-10: Yuma Clapper Rail, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, Yellow-billed Cuckoo Prime and Unique Farmland Prime and unique farmland is located throughout the study area; therefore, some degree of impact will occur with each of the corridor alternatives. “Minimal” impacts are assumed with Corridor No. 1 because it is located in the more urban portion of the study, east of Avenue D 112 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report and north of County 14th Street. “Moderate” impacts are assumed for the other two corridors, which are located further west and south through existing farmland. Air Quality The City of Yuma and surrounding jurisdictions are classified as a Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) Nonattainment Area by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The term particulate matter includes both solid particles and liquid droplets found in air. Particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) tend to pose the greatest health concern because they can be inhaled and accumulate in the respiratory system. Whether the existing roads (Avenue D and County 14th Street) are widened, or a new alignment is chosen for the Yuma Expressway, certain segments of the new roadway will end up closer to receptors such as homes and businesses. The decreased buffer distance could cause localized levels of increased emissions relative to the No Build option; however this would most likely be offset due to increases in traffic speeds and an overall reduction in congestion. Therefore, the proposed expressway is predicted to have a neutral overall impact on air quality in the Yuma area, neither elevating nor alleviating the PM10 Nonattainment classification. An appropriate level of environmental documentation will be needed during the next phase of project development to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The latter compliance would be needed due to the proposed connection to I-8 in California. 4.3.3. Alternatives for Secondary Evaluation As a result of the Alternative Matrix presented in Table 4-2, various alternatives were either eliminated or retained for further analysis. Alternatives 1C, 1D, 3A, and 3B received the lowest scores in the preliminary evaluation. Therefore, these four alternatives, along with the No Build option, were carried forward into the secondary evaluation of alternatives. Each of these secondary alternatives are reviewed and further analyzed in Section 4.4 (Table 4-3). The alternatives that required the use of Corridor No. 2 were eliminated from further evaluation, due to the large impacts to MCAS-Yuma Airport. 113 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 114 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 4-2: Preliminary Alternative Analysis Matrix CORRIDOR #1 EVALUATION CRITERIA NO BUILD Impacts to Future Traffic Capacity  No Change Impacts to Existing Residences  None Impacts to Existing Agriculture  None ALTERNATIVE 1A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 1B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 1C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL CORRIDOR #2 ALTERNATIVE 1D MINOR ARTERIAL ALTERNATIVE 2A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 2B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 2C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL CORRIDOR #3 ALTERNATIVE 2D MINOR ARTERIAL  Major  Moderate  Minimal  Minimal  Moderate  Major  Minimal  Minimal Score (+3) Score (+2) Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+2) Score (+3) Score (+1) Score (+1) A Minor A Principal A Freeway An A Principal A Minor A Freeway An Arterial will Arterial will facility has the Expressway Arterial will Arterial will facility has the Expressway experience operate at an capacity to facility has the operate at an experience capacity to facility has the congestion as acceptable move large capacity to acceptable congestion as move large capacity to the region LOS for a volumes of move large LOS for a the region volumes of move large fully develops majority of the vehicles volumes of majority of the fully develops vehicles volumes of day vehicles day vehicles  Minimal  Moderate  Major  Major  Major  Major  Major  Major Score (+1) Score (+2) Score (+3) Score (+3) Score (+3) Score (+3) Score (+3) Score (+3) Partial Partial Impacts many Impacts many Impacts many Impacts many Impacts many Impacts many acquisition of acquisition of existing existing existing existing existing existing a few existing various residential residential residential residential residential residential residential existing properties properties development development development development properties residential located located located within located within located within located within located properties adjacent to adjacent to Corridor #2 Corridor #2 Corridor #2 Corridor #2 adjacent to located existing existing existing Avenue D and adjacent to Avenue D and Avenue D and existing Co. 14th St. Co. 14th St. Co. 14th St. Avenue D and Co. 14th St.  Major  Moderate  Minimal  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate  Major Score (+3) Score (+2) Score (+1) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+3) An additional An additional An Additional Impacts the Impacts the Impacts the Impacts the The Avenue 100 foot of 58 foot of 34 foot of least amount least amount least amount least amount D and Co R/W is R/W is R/W is of agriculture of agriculture of agriculture of agriculture 14th St. required required required lands of the 3 lands of the 3 lands of the 3 lands of the 3 existing 66 Corridors Corridors Corridors Corridors foot R/W will be far short of the required 308 foot R/W ALTERNATIVE 3A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 3C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ALTERNATIVE 3D MINOR ARTERIAL  Minimal  Minimal  Moderate  Major Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+2) Score (+3) A Freeway An A Principal A Minor facility has the Expressway Arterial will Arterial will capacity to facility has the operate at an experience move large capacity to acceptable congestion as volumes of move large LOS for a the region vehicles volumes of majority of the fully develops vehicles day  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Impacts a fair Impacts a fair Impacts a fair Impacts a fair amount of amount of amount of amount of existing existing existing existing residential residential residential residential development development development development located within located within located within located within Corridor #3 Corridor #3 Corridor #3 Corridor #3  Major Score (+3) Impacts the largest amount of Agriculture Lands  Major Score (+3) Impacts the largest amount of Agriculture Lands  Major Score (+3) Impacts the largest amount of Agriculture Lands  Major Score (+3) Impacts the largest amount of Agriculture Lands 115 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 4-2: Preliminary Alternative Analysis Matrix (continued) CORRIDOR #1 EVALUATION CRITERIA NO BUILD Impacts to MCASYuma Airport  None Access/Frontage Roads/Duplication of Facility Type  None Environmental Impacts*  No Impacts to prime farmland  Moderate Impacts to Air Quality (localized, if any) Total Preliminary Evaluation Score (Lowest 4 Scores and No Build to Secondary Eval.)  N/A ALTERNATIVE 1A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 1B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 1C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL CORRIDOR #2 ALTERNATIVE 1D MINOR ARTERIAL ALTERNATIVE 2A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 2B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 2C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL CORRIDOR #3 ALTERNATIVE 2D MINOR ARTERIAL ALTERNATIVE 3A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 3C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ALTERNATIVE 3D MINOR ARTERIAL  Major  Minimal Score (+3) Score (+1) Corridor #2 Corridor #3 is cuts across located south the existing of Co 14th St MCAS runway and the planned improvements on the south side of the airbase  Minimal Score (+1) Corridor #3 is located south of Co 14th St  Minimal Score (+1) Corridor #3 is located south of Co 14th St  Minimal Score (+1) Corridor #3 is located south of Co 14th St  Minimal  Minimal  Moderate  Major  Major  Major  Moderate Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+2) Score (+3) Score (+3) Score (+3) Score (+2) Future plans Future plans Future plans Corridor #2 Corridor #2 Corridor #2 Future plans of MCAS of MCAS of MCAS cuts across cuts across cuts across of MCAS show show show the existing the existing the existing show improvements improvements improvements MCAS MCAS MCAS improvements extending to extending to extending to runway and runway and runway and extending to Co. 14th St., Co. 14th St., Co. 14th St., the planned the planned the planned Co. 14th St., Construction Construction while a 160 improvements improvements improvements while a 300 of a Minor of a Principal foot corridor on the south on the south on the south foot corridor Arterial on Co Arterial on Co may impact side of the side of the side of the may impact 14th St will 14th St will planned airbase airbase airbase planned mesh with mesh with improvements improvements MCAS MCAS improvements improvements  Minimal  Minimal  Moderate  Moderate  Minimal  Moderate  Major Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+1) Score (+2) Score (+3) Direct access Direct access Frontage Freeway Avenue D and Avenue D and Freeway to roadway to roadway roads may be typical section Co. 14th St. Co. 14th St. typical section will be will be required to requires remain as remain as requires maintained. maintained. maintain grade local access local access grade right in-right right in-right existing separated However, two separated out out access crossings. parallel crossings. Avenue D and roadways Frontage Co. 14th St. located within roads may be remain as a ¼ mile with required to local access high maintain accessibility existing may be access unreasonable  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate  Minimal  Minimal  Minimal  Minimal Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+1) Impacts to Impacts to Impacts to Impacts to Impacts to Impacts to Impacts to Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland  No Impacts to  No Impacts to  No Impacts to  No Impacts to  No Impacts to  No Impacts to  No Impacts to Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality (localized, if (localized, if (localized, if (localized, if (localized, if (localized, if (localized, if any) any) any) any) any) any) any)  Minimal  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate Score (+1) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Avenue D and Avenue D and Freeway Avenue D and Avenue D and Co. 14th St. Co 14th St typical section Co. 14th St. Co 14th St remain as remain as requires remain as remain as local access local access grade local access local access However, two separated However, two However, two parallel crossings. parallel parallel roadways Avenue D and roadways roadways located within Co. 14th St. located within located within a ¼ mile with remain as a ¼ mile with a ¼ mile with high local access high high accessibility accessibility accessibility may be may be may be unreasonable unreasonable unreasonable  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Score (+2) Impacts to Impacts to Impacts to Impacts to Impacts to Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland  No Impacts to  No Impacts to  No Impacts to  No Impacts to  No Impacts to Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality (localized, if (localized, if (localized, if (localized, if (localized, if any) any) any) any) any)  Score (13)  Score (15)  Score (12)  Score (9)  Score (8)  Score (13)  Score (12)  Score (14)  Score (11)  Score (10)  Score (12)  Score (13) *In addition to the environmental impacts listed above, the alternatives were evaluated for potential impacts to environmental justice populations, special status species, and impacts associated with the Colorado River crossing. Each alternative was found to have a “minimal impact”.Therefore, these results were deemed not significant enough to be presented in this table at this level of analysis. 116 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4.4. Secondary Evaluation of Alternatives The No Build option, as well as Alternatives 1C, 1D, 3A, and 3B, are further analyzed using the following criteria: safety, cost, consistency with previous planning, implementation, right-of-way, cross region travel times, and the Colorado River constraints 4.4.1. Secondary Alternative Matrix/Evaluation Below is a summary of the criteria used to evaluate and compare the four alternatives and No Build first screened in Section 4.3. The goal of the Secondary Alternative Matrix is to evaluate the remaining alternatives so that the study team can recommend a preferred alternative.  Benefits to Safety  Cost  Consistency with City of Yuma Approved Plans  Implementation  Right of Way Impacts  Benefits to Cross Region Travel Times  Colorado River Constraints A qualitative ranking was provided to each Secondary Alternative in Table 4-3. For the safety, and benefits to cross region travel times an evaluation of low, medium, and high is given to each alternative. The cost, implementation, right-of-way, and Colorado River constraints evaluation criteria uses an evaluation of minimal, moderate, and major. And finally, a simple “Yes” or “No” evaluation criterion is used for the consistency with the City of Yuma approved plans. In addition to the qualitative ranking, Alternatives 1C, 1D, 3A, 3B, and the No Build are evaluated against the criteria presented above and given a score between one and three. Similar to the preliminary evaluation of alternatives in Section 4.3, a score of one represents a positive evaluation for the alternative while a score of three represents a negative evaluation for that criteria item. Once the scores for each alternative are added up, the low score represents the preferred alternative. Safety Each of the secondary alternatives were evaluated to determine the safety benefits. The alternatives that have open access points in many locations were given “Low” safety evaluations while alternatives that have limited access and low pedestrian interaction were given “High” safety evaluations. In general, as the number of conflict points (intersections/driveways) increases, the safety typically decreases. Therefore, alternatives 3A and 3B which have a limited number of conflict points were given “High” evaluation 117 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Cost As a part of the cost evaluation process, four planning level estimates were prepared for each of the remaining alternatives. The planning level estimates will need to be refined further in future studies. The four secondary alternatives were broken down into items that can be unit priced. The cost of right or way is extremely variable due to the changing economic conditions and changing land values. These alternatives range in costs from $127 million dollars to $538 million dollars. The preliminary cost estimates are shown in Appendix C through Appendix F. Alternatives that had a very high cost per mile were given a “Major” evaluation while alternatives that had virtually no cost, such as the No Build alternative was given a “Minor” evaluation. Consistency with City of Yuma General Plans All of the secondary alternatives were evaluated against the previously approved City of Yuma planning documents. The recently released 2012 City of Yuma General Plan and the 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identify Avenue D and County 14th Street as future expressways. All of the alternatives that do not include the Expressway typical section were given an evaluation of “No” while the alternative that did include the Expressway typical section was given an evaluation of “Yes”. Implementation Given the wide variety of roadway types presented in the secondary analysis of the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study, each of the remaining alternatives will require diverse Implementation strategies. The implementation of a new rural freeway will require large portions (approximately 2 miles) of the ultimate roadway to be constructed at a time, while a minor arterial may only require a half street improvement to be constructed during development. Alternatives that require large portions of the facility to be completed at a time were given an evaluation of “Major”, while alternatives that allow small portions of the facility to be constructed at a time were given a “Minimal” evaluation. Given the future land use plans provided in Chapter 3, Future Conditions, it is understood that there is limited development planned for the future in the study area. However, it is anticipated that if any growth occurs in the study area, it will occur along the County 14th Street alignment first. Implementation of the preferred alternative is discussed further in Section 4.6. Right-of-Way Impacts Each of the remaining alternatives was evaluated based upon the typical right-of-way width required. The 100-foot right-of-way width required for the minor arterial typical section was given an evaluation of “Minimal” while the 308-foot width required by the Rural Freeway typical section was given an evaluation of “Major”. Colorado River Constraints Each alternative was evaluated against the soil conditions near the Colorado River crossings. In addition, the complexity of construction with year round water flow and possible environmental mitigation measures may affect bridge design and type. With the exception of the No Build alternative all of the alternatives impact the Colorado River. A “Moderate” impact was given to alternatives 1C, 1D, 3A, and 3B. Environmental constraints were not addressed at this level of 118 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report analysis because the impacts for each alternative were essentially the same and would not assist in the selection of a preferred alternative. 4.4.2. Selection of Preferred Alternative The City of Yuma and ADOT, with input from the TAC and Technical Team identified Alternative 3B as the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative was selected based upon the process documented in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 and the evaluation matrices shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3. At this time there is no immediate need for the Yuma Expressway, however if and when the land use plan changes from agriculture and low density residential, the timing and the need for Yuma Expressway will need to be studied further. It is recommended that the preferred alternative along with the secondary alternatives be carried forward into those future studies as land use changes, growth occurs, and traffic within the region increases. Below is a list of the rationale regarding the selection of Alternative 3B as the preferred alternative.  The general alignment of the preferred corridor stays within the study area and avoids as much existing development as possible.  The use of the Expressway typical section and roadway type will provide additional capacity to the existing roadway network, possibly relieving some of the existing congestion on the arterials within the City of Yuma.  The alternative has little impact on the existing and future plans of the MCAS-Yuma Airport. The construction of the Yuma Expressway will help facilitate the increased traffic generated by the MCAS expansion plans and the relocation of the main gate to the south side of MCAS.  The previously approved City of Yuma planning documents correspond with the Expressway roadway type.  Avenue D and County 14th Street will remain thus allowing the Alternative 3B to be built in segments with limited impact to the existing roadways. 119 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 120 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 4-3: Secondary Alternative Analysis Matrix EVALUATION CRITERIA Benefits to Safety Cost Consistency with City of Yuma Approved Plans Implementation CORRIDOR #1 ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 1C 1D PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL  Medium (+2)  Low (+3)  Low (+3)  Driveway and intersection conflicts will  Driveway and intersection conflicts will  Driveway and exist exist intersection conflicts will  Closed median will restrict left turn  Closed median will restrict left turn exist movements movements  Open median will allow  Conflicts with pedestrians possible  Congestion will add to accidents left turn conflicts  Conflicts with pedestrians possible  Congestion will add to accidents  No provisions for pedestrians  Moderate (+2)  Minimal (+1)  Moderate (+2)  Roadway $2,837,000 per mile (excluding  The facility is currently  Roadway $3,167,000 per mile (excluding right-of-way and major bridges) (including in place the only costs right-of-way and major bridges) (including roadway construction and interchanges) necessary are to roadway construction and interchanges)  100 foot right-of-way through agriculture maintain the existing  124 foot right-of-way through agriculture  100 foot right-of-way through residential Avenue D and County  124 foot right-of-way through residential  One interchange (I-8) 14th Street  Two interchanges (I-8 & SR 195)  Colorado River Bridge  Colorado River Bridge NO BUILD  No (+2)  The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways  The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways  Minimal (+1)  No implementation needed. Avenue D and County 14th Street are existing.  No (+2)  The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways.  The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways  No (+2)  The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways.  The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways  Minimal (+1)  Future development adjacent to Co. 14th St and Avenue D to construct half street improvements.  Once fully developed or traffic demands require improvements, local agencies will complete roadway improvements along undeveloped lands.  Minimal (+1)  Future development adjacent to Co. 14th St and Avenue D to construct half street improvements.  Once fully developed or traffic demands require improvements, local agencies will complete roadway improvements along undeveloped lands. CORRIDOR #3 ALTERNATIVE 3A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B EXPRESSWAY  High (+1)  Access control and grade separated interchanges reduce conflict points between vehicles  Virtually eliminates conflicts with pedestrians  High (+1)  Limited access points reduce conflict points between vehicles  Vehicle pedestrian interaction is reduced  Major (+3)  Roadway $15,174,000 per mile (excluding right-of-way and major bridges) (including roadway construction and interchanges)  308 foot right-of-way through agriculture  308 foot right-of-way through residential  Five interchanges  Two directional interchanges  Two Colorado River Bridges  No (+2)  The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways.  The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways  Moderate (+2)  Roadway $4,002,000 per mile (excluding right-of-way and major bridges) (including roadway construction and interchanges)  160 foot right-of-way through agriculture  160 foot right-of-way through residential  Two Interchanges (I-8 & SR 195)  Colorado River Bridge  Major (+3)  Freeway would have to be built in large (2 mile min) phases/segments.  State agencies would be required to construct the facility.  Moderate (+2)  Expressway would have to be built in small phases/segments (1 mile or less).  Local agencies would be required to construct facility  Yes (+1)  The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways.  The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways 121 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Table 4-3: Secondary Alternative Analysis Matrix (continued) CORRIDOR #1 EVALUATION CRITERIA NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL CORRIDOR #3 ALTERNATIVE 1D MINOR ARTERIAL  Minimal (+1)  The 100 foot right-of-way width would require additional land on either side of Avenue D and County 14th St.  However, if the land is developed in the distant future, the community could require developers to set aside the necessary right-of-way for the half street improvement Right-of-Way Impacts  Minimal (+1)  No right-of-way required. Avenue D and County 14th Street are existing  Moderate (+2)  The 124 foot right-of-way width would require additional land on either side of Avenue D and County 14th St.  However, if the land is developed in the distant future, the community could require developers to dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the half street improvement Benefit to Cross Region Travel Times  Low (+3)  There are no additional benefits to the region for east/west and north/south transportation  Low (+3)  Medium (+2)  With two through lanes in each direction,  With three through lanes in each conflicting turn movements, and direct direction, conflicting turn movements, and access from adjacent development. The direct access from adjacent development. cross region travel times within the study The cross region travel time within the area will significantly increase as study area will increase as additional additional development occurs development occurs Colorado River Constraints  Minimal (+1)  There will not be any impacts to Colorado River Total Secondary Evaluation Score (Low Score is Preferred)  Score (12)  Moderate (+2)  The soils in the Colorado River near the Avenue D alignment are typically a silt loam  The Colorado River has water flow year round therefore construction could be affected  Environmental concerns may affect bridge design and type  Score (13)  Moderate (+2)  The soils in the Colorado River near the Avenue D alignment are typically a silt loam  The Colorado River has water flow year round therefore construction could be affected  Environmental concerns may affect bridge design and type  Score (14) ALTERNATIVE 3A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B EXPRESSWAY  Major (+3)  The 300 foot right-of-way width requirement would create a large footprint through existing agriculture lands and possible future development  However, as the land use/development changes in the distant future, the local community could begin preserving/acquiring the required right of way, in a variety of ways depending upon the parcel sizes, types of development, and negotiations  Any dedication requirements should be justified by the impacts of the development  High (+1)  With two lanes in each direction, controlled access, high speed design, and the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street remaining. The cross region travel times will remain low long into the future  Moderate (+2)  The 160 foot right-of-way width requirement would create a large footprint through existing agriculture lands  However, as the land use/development changes in the distant future, the local community could begin preserving/acquiring the required right of way, in a variety of ways depending upon the parcel sizes, types of development, and negotiations  Any dedication requirements should be justified by the impacts of the development  High (+1)  With three lanes in each direction, limited access, and the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street remaining. The cross region travel times will remain low long into the future  Moderate (+2)  The soils in the Colorado River near the Avenue D alignment are typically a silt loam  The Colorado River has water flow year round therefore construction could be affected  Environmental concerns may affect bridge design and type  Score (15)  Moderate (+2)  The soils in the Colorado River near the Avenue D alignment are typically a silt loam  The Colorado River has water flow year round therefore construction could be affected  Environmental concerns may affect bridge design and type  Score (11) 122 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4.5. Alternative Connections to I-8/Colorado River Crossing As a result of the public outreach and the comments received, various people have requested alternate connections to I-8 and the Colorado River. Two alternate connections are evaluated. Algodones Road Connection (Figure 4-11) connects the Yuma Expressway to Algodones Road approximately one mile south of I-8. The Winterhaven Interchange Connection (Figure 4-12) connects the Yuma Expressway to the existing I-8 Winterhaven Interchange. Each of the alternate connections to I-8 can be combined with all of the alternatives presented in Table 4-3. 4.5.1. Algodones Road Connection The Algodones Road Connection utilizes the existing Algodones Road Transportation Interchange with I-8. See Figure 4-11 for a plan view. Two alternatives are considered; the first alternative would connect to the existing Algodones Road and upgrade the existing road northward as well as the I-8 interchange. The connection would then travel over the Colorado River in a southeastern direction. Once on the Arizona side of the Colorado River, the Algodones Road Connection will cross between the Arizona Public Service (APS) Power Plant and the Bureau of Reclamation Desalting plant to intersect Corridor No. 1, Corridor No. 2, or Corridor No. 3 as presented in Figure 4-11. The second alternative would connect to the existing Algondones Road and upgrade the existing road northward as well as the I-8 interchange. The connection would then traverse east-west along the north side of the existing levee and connect to the Corridor No. 1, Corridor No. 2 or Corridor No. 3. The first alternative for the Algodones Road Connection has some limitations. The impacts to the Bureau of Reclamation Desalting plant and APS Power Plant are major constraints. The existing Algodones Road (SR 186) is one lane in each direction and would require substantial improvements to the existing roadway, the I-8 interchange and the existing crossing of the All American Canal. The second alternative looks briefly at sweeping the Algodones Road Connection to the north of the Bureau of Reclamation Desalting plant. Although the geometry of the roadway might be improved, it would impact portions of the Cocopah Indian Reservation and the roadway would be on the Colorado River side of the levee, running parallel to the levee for approximately one mile. Both alternatives for the Algodones Road Connection would require that provisions be made for a new port of entry (POE) between Arizona and California. The POE would require additional width for inspection and weigh stations. At this time there are no plans by Caltrans to widen SR 186 (Algodones Road). The Imperial County Long Range Transportation Plan identifies planned improvements to the existing SR 186/I-8 transportation interchange. These improvements will not add any travel lanes or capacity to the interchange. 123 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 4-11: Algodones Road Connection 124 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4.5.2. Winterhaven Interchange Connection The Winterhaven Interchange Connection utilizes the existing Winterhaven Drive Transportation Interchange with I-8; see Figure 4-12 for a plan view. The connection will then travel over the Colorado River heading towards the Arizona levee. Once on the Arizona side of the Colorado River the Winterhaven Interchange Connection will turn to the southwest and intersect Corridor No. 1, Corridor No. 2, or Corridor No. 3 as presented in Figure 4-12. The Winterhaven Interchange Connection has several limitations. The crossing of the Colorado River near the Avenue B alignment could result in some impacts to Joe Henry Memorial Park near 23rd Avenue and Colorado Street. In addition the West Wetland Park is located slightly east of the Winterhaven Interchange Connection between 23rd Avenue and 12th Avenue adjacent to the Colorado River. The close proximity to these two parks along with addition environmental concerns will need to be studied and documented in further detail if the Winterhaven Interchange Connection is studied further. Similar to the Algodones Connection, there are some major constraints that the Winterhaven Interchange Connection would need to take into consideration and avoid if future study takes place on this alternate connection. The Shaw Industries Yarn Manufacturing Plant is located just west of Joe Henry Memorial Park. A natural gas power plant operated by Yuma Cogeneration Associates is located north of 1st street on 27th Drive. There are various substation sites associated with the power plant that need to be considered as well. Finally the Figueroa Water Pollution Control Facility is located at approximately Ave C and the south levee of the Colorado River. In addition to the environmental and existing infrastructure concerns identified above there are some physical constraints that would need to be further studied. The existing Winterhaven Drive/I-8 interchange has only one lane in each direction and no left turn capacity. Any traffic traveling from South Yuma County to Westbound I-8 would have about a 2 mile jog to the east. There are no plans by Caltrans to make any improvements to the Winterhaven Drive Interchange. 125 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Figure 4-12: Winterhaven Interchange Connection 126 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4.6. Implementation/Funding Strategies for Preferred Alternative The Future Traffic Conditions and Deficiencies, Section 3.2, determined that Avenue D and County 14th Street will operate at an acceptable level of service well into the future, as long as the current land use remains primarily agriculture and low density residential. If the future land use plans change to increase commercial and residential development along the study area, or development outside of the study area, increased traffic volumes on the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street will be unable to carry the larger traffic volumes. Therefore, the implementation of the Yuma Expressway is contingent upon a change in land use for the study area and will be impacted by such changes in land use from communities to the south and west. 4.6.1. Implementation for the Preferred Alternative Various implementation strategies can be used for the Yuma Expressway. Based on input received from the public at the September 2012 meeting, it would be prudent to initiate right-ofway identification activities in the near future, before development creates physical obstructions that would be difficult and expensive to overcome and to have the construction of the Yuma Expressway be concurrent with or be driven by transportation needs and warrants resulting from the future development. At present, traffic demand is not projected to warrant the construction of the Yuma Expressway until between 2045 and 2050. Construction of the Yuma Expressway prior to development of the land will most likely be unpopular with the local community as it may be seen as unnecessary. Below is a list of implementation activities that could be conducted as the project moves towards construction. 1. Design Concept Report (DCR): Using the information presented in this document (Yuma Expressway Corridor Study) a Design Concept Report and Environmental document, prepared in accordance with NEPA/FHWA criteria, could be drafted to evaluate the physical constraints, environmental constraints and potential roadway alignments. The DCR and Environmental document will be used to define the preferred location. The likely owner of the DCR would be the City of Yuma and/or Yuma County. 2. Incorporation into the YMPO Long Range Transportation Plan: YMPO serves as the regional planning authority. The City of Yuma and/or Yuma County could request that the preferred location as a result of the DCR and Environmental document be incorporated into YMPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan. 3. Right-of-Way Preservation: The DCR would provide the footprint for the new facility. As the area develops, the first phase of implementation for the project will be simply as right-of-way preservation. This footprint would also provide the development community with the finalized transportation corridor configuration around which it could then begin to lay out development plans. Any right-of-way preservation prior to an approved NEPA document would be done at risk of being ineligible for federal aid. Additionally, the preferred alternative identified in this long-range study could change during the NEPA study process. 127 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 4. Phased Construction: The construction of the Yuma Expressway could be implemented in phases. It is anticipated that the segments located along Avenue D in the Yuma Valley will develop many years after the portion of the study area located on the Yuma Mesa along County 14th Street. MCAS has announced plans to expand facilities, and relocate the main gate to County 14th Street. Therefore, it is anticipated that the portion of the Yuma Expressway between Avenue B and SR 195 will show an increased traffic need long before other portions of the study area. 5. Improvements to Existing Avenue D and County 14th Street: As development generated congestion increases along the study area, but prior to completion of Yuma Expressway, the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street roadways will require improvements. These improvements may be required as a part of development; however it is important to note the dedication and improvement requirements need to be justified by the impact of the proposed development. 6. Colorado River Crossing: It is envisioned that the proposed crossing of the Colorado River and establishment of the I-8 Interchange would be one of the final phases in the implementation of the Yuma Expressway. The large costs of a Colorado River bridge and freeway Interchange, along with a small traffic demand from South Yuma County to westbound I-8, would delay implementation. The Yuma Expressway Colorado River crossing would be needed once the existing 4th Avenue and I-8 crossing reaches capacity. 4.6.2. Funding There is presently no funding set aside for the Yuma Expressway construction, design, or rightof-way. Possible funding sources may include local development fees collected for planned developments, traditional roadway funding (i.e., federal, state, and local), a future regional sales tax, tolling of users, or possibly of a public-private partnership. Although the tolling of users or public-private partnerships may be possible revenue sources, it is unlikely that there will be a large enough travel benefit for users to pay a toll. In addition the logistics of collecting tolls on an Expressway facility, that has access points on approximately one mile intervals, would also reduce the feasibility. Currently, the need for the Yuma Expressway has not been identified. As the Yuma Expressway is studied further, the funding sources should be examined more closely. 128 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 5. Public Outreach Two public meetings were conducted to provide information to the public and gather input on the study. Refer to Appendix G and Appendix H for full summaries of the public open house meetings. 129 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 6. Conclusions The Yuma Expressway Corridor Study is broken into three analyses Current Conditions, Future Conditions and Corridor Alternatives. The Current Conditions looked at the existing land use and relevant studies that affect the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study. The Future Conditions analyzed the planned improvements and development in the study area. And finally the Corridor Alternatives analysis examined multiple alternatives and corridors. Chapter 2, Current Conditions, found that most of the land in the Yuma Expressway study area is privately owned and dedicated to agricultural or residential uses. Other important ownerships include the Cocopah Indian Tribe, the Quechan Indian Tribe, and the military. Accordingly, with these land uses, the employment densities within the study area are relatively low, as well as population densities and housing densities. Several areas within the study area remain uninhabited. The study area has relatively flat topography and low elevation. Several hydrographic features run through the study area, including the Colorado River and various irrigation canals. Private and public utilities exist within the study area and there are few major facilities, such as storm basins, gas lines, and a cellular tower. Within the Yuma Expressway corridor study area, the roadway network includes diverse functional classifications, speed limits, and roadway geometries. Most roadways have 2 lanes, with the exception of highways US 95, I-8, and SR 195. Avenue D and County 14th Street carry low traffic volumes within the study area. The highest volumes reported are found on US 95. The preliminary environmental review provided information showing the environmental characteristics within the Yuma Expressway study area. Racial and ethnic minority populations live within the study area, as well as low-income populations. In addition, several special status animal species have been found to occur within the study area, and various environmental challenges would be encountered to cross the Colorado River and connect the Yuma Expressway with I-8. Chapter 3, Future Conditions, showed the general consensus amongst the local planning agencies for this area to remain dedicated to agricultural and military uses. The general plans of all agencies do not reflect large commercial or residential growth along either Avenue D or County 14th Street. One significant planned change occurring within the study area is the relocation of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)-Yuma entrance gate south of the facility, connecting to County 14th Street Currently there are several other planning studies going on that may impact the outcome of the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study. The Yuma County Rail Corridor Study is currently developing rail alternatives for presentation to the public. The Arizona-Sonora Border Master Plan is developing a master plan aimed at improving efficiency at the border crossings. The South Yuma County Connector Study is examining a connection between San Luis and the 130 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Corridor. The Binational San Luis Transportation Study is developing a transportation plan for San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico and San Luis, Arizona. The future conditions indicate that the overall Yuma area would continue to grow in the future; however, with the exception of the MCAS-Yuma expansion, the Yuma Expressway study area would experience little growth in the near future. According to the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) Travel Demand Model, future transportation infrastructure would also remain largely unchanged. Avenue D and County 14th Street would have a total of two lanes in 2033. Using the YMPO Travel Demand Model, the existing roadway network within the Yuma Expressway study area would operate at a level of service (LOS) B until 2033. Chapter 4, Corridor Alternatives, presented four types of roadways, along with three corridors, to create 12 alternatives. These alternatives were evaluated using impacts to existing residences, impacts to existing agriculture, impacts to MCAS/Yuma Airport, and environmental impacts. With input from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), these alternatives were screened against quantitative and qualitative criterion, and the preferred alternative was selected. The preferred alternative is Alternative 3B, an expressway in Corridor No. 3, which meanders about a quarter-mile off of Avenue D and County 14th Street. At this time the current forecast does not identify an immediate need for the Yuma Expressway, further studies will be needed as land use changes to allow commercial and residential development. Future studies should further examine the alternative connections to the I-8 and identify funding sources. The Yuma Expressway Corridor Study is one of the first steps required to allow the Yuma Expressway to come to realization. Long range transportation planning is required for communities that experience large population growth. There are existing roadways within the City of Yuma that are severely congested during certain times of the year due to limited right-ofway and urban development over many years. The Yuma Expressway Corridor Study provides the groundwork for subsequent studies and eventually construction of a new transportation facility. Below is a list of the various steps that the Yuma Expressway project will have to go through prior to becoming an operational transportation facility. 1. Planning Phase (Yuma Expressway Corridor Study)  Complete with this study 2. Design Concept Report (DCR)  Refining the Corridors presented in the Planning Phase into alignments  Environmental Overview  Preliminary Project Plans 3. Right of Way Preservation and Acquisition 4. Environmental Documentation 5. Final Design 6. Construction 131 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 132 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report 7. Appendices Appendix A - Hydrology in Southwestern Yuma County ........................................................... A-1 Appendix B - YCAT Transit System: City of Yuma Local Bus Routes ...................................... A-2 Appendix C - Alternative 1C Cost Estimate .............................................................................. A-3 Appendix D - Alternative 1D Cost Estimate .............................................................................. A-4 Appendix E - Alternative 3A Cost Estimate ............................................................................... A-5 Appendix F - Alternative 3B Cost Estimate ............................................................................... A-6 Appendix G - Public Open House #1 Meeting Summary .......................................................... A-7 Appendix H - Public Open House #2 Meeting Summary .......................................................... A-8 Appendix I – Planning and Environmental Linkages Checklist ................................................. A-9 133 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix A - Hydrology in Southwestern Yuma County Source: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2012 A-1 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix B - YCAT Transit System: City of Yuma Local Bus Routes Source: YCAT, January 2013 A-2 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix C - Alternative 1C Cost Estimate General Note: 1. It cannot be assumed that the “existing” 66-foot rights-of-way have documented dedications. Nearly all were established through a Yuma County Board of Supervisors “Declaration of Right-of-Way”, which does not ensure that right-of-way has been recorded. 2. Most lands necessary for development of the roadway were valued at $150,000/acre. It is assumed that appraisers will value the land at its “highest and best use”, not its current use. A-3 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix D - Alternative 1D Cost Estimate General Note: 1. It cannot be assumed that the “existing” 66-foot rights-of-way have documented dedications. Nearly all were established through a Yuma County Board of Supervisors “Declaration of Right-of-Way”, which does not ensure that right-of-way has been recorded. 2. Most lands necessary for development of the roadway were valued at $150,000/acre. It is assumed that appraisers will value the land at its “highest and best use”, not its current use. A-4 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix E - Alternative 3A Cost Estimate General Note: 1. It cannot be assumed that the “existing” 66-foot rights-of-way have documented dedications. Nearly all were established through a Yuma County Board of Supervisors “Declaration of Right-of-Way”, which does not ensure that right-of-way has been recorded. 2. Most lands necessary for development of the roadway were valued at $150,000/acre. It is assumed that appraisers will value the land at its “highest and best use”, not its current use. A-5 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix F - Alternative 3B Cost Estimate General Note: 1. It cannot be assumed that the “existing” 66-foot rights-of-way have documented dedications. Nearly all were established through a Yuma County Board of Supervisors “Declaration of Right-of-Way”, which does not ensure that right-of-way has been recorded. 2. Most lands necessary for development of the roadway were valued at $150,000/acre. It is assumed that appraisers will value the land at its “highest and best use”, not its current use. A-6 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix G - Public Open House #1 Meeting Summary A-7 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Public Open House #1 Meeting Summary Meeting Date/Time: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 (5:30 pm 7:30 pm) Meeting Location: Yuma County Development Services Building 2351 West 26th Street Yuma, AZ 85364 Meeting Participants: 51 community members attended Team Members: Mark Hoffman, ADOT Gabriella Kemp, ADOT Russell Reichelt, City of Yuma Doug LaMont, Parsons Brinckerhoff Greg Fly, Parsons Brinckerhoff Sarah Squires, Parsons Brinckerhoff Matt Klyszeiko, RBF Consulting Project Overview The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), in conjunction with the City of Yuma and its Transportation Consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff and Public Involvement Consultant RBF Consulting, is conducting the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study to evaluate the need and location for a proposed roadway within the south and western portions of the City of Yuma. Public Open House #1 Purpose As part of the overall corridor study process, the Study Team developed a comprehensive and interactive Public Involvement Plan to inform and include the public in the transportation planning process. The Public Involvement Plan focused on meetings with stakeholders and the public scheduled at key technical milestones in the study process. The goal of this approach is to ensure that input and feedback provided by citizens and stakeholders will be effectively integrated and considered in the development of the final study and in the conception of project recommendations. This initial Public Involvement Report outlines the public involvement effort that was performed as part of Public Meeting/Open House #1. The purpose of the first Public Open House was to provide interested residents and other project stakeholders with an overview of the current conditions, future conditions and system deficiencies of the overall transportation network within the defined study area to solicit their feedback and comment. Page 1 Public Meeting Notification The Study Team considered several methods to notify the public of the first Public Open House meeting. Given the large population of the study area and the regional nature of the proposed Yuma Expressway project, it was determined that a combination of press releases, public advertisements and posting of project fliers would be the most effective method to promote and encourage the greatest level of public participation. M e et in g En tra nc e The press release and project fact sheets were distributed via GovDelivery to generate local media interest in attending the meetings as well as to inform local municipal staff and public officials. Project fliers were placed at Yuma City Hall, Heritage Library, Main Yuma Library, Foothills Library, Yuma MVD Offices, ADOT Yuma District Offices. The City of Yuma Communications team also assisted with distribution of the press release and flier to additional project stakeholders. To notify Yuma area residents, a half page advertisement was published in the September 19th edition of the Yuma Sun newspaper that provided a brief project description and information on the Open House Pr oj ec t meeting. On September 19th, a tandem advertisement was also placed on the homepage of the Yuma Sun website. Meeting notification materials including Project Fact Sheet, Project Flier and newspaper advertisement are included in Appendix A. In fo rm at io n M a te ria l Public Meeting Overview As part of the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study, a public Open House meeting was held on Tuesday, September 25 at the Yuma County Development Services Building, Aldrich Auditorium 2351 West 26th Street, Yuma, AZ to present and gather feedback on the existing and future conditions of the defined study area. In total, an estimated 51 people attended the Open House meeting, with 43 people signing in. This included attendance by local TV and print media. A translator was also available to assist with Spanish speaking stakeholders, however no attendees required translation assistance. Meeting sign in sheets are included in Appendix B. M e di a Co ve ra ge Page 2 The meeting started promptly at 6:00 pm with Mark Hoffman, ADOT Project Manager, welcoming the group and thanking all for attending. Mr. Hoffman then introduced the project team and gave a brief description of the overall project. Following introductions, Mr. Hoffman encouraged attendees to make sure they signed in as well as collected the project information material, comment cards and identification surveys that were located at the entrance to the meeting. He also explained that all the project information that was being presented tonight is also available online at azdot.gov/yumaexpressway. After completing his opening remarks, Mr. Hoffman then introduced Doug LaMont, Project Manager with Parsons Brinckerhoff, to begin the formal PowerPoint presentation, which provided a detailed overview of the transportation Do ug L a M on t Sp ea k in g study work effort to date. Mr. LaMont began the formal presentation with a brief synopsis on the historical background of the proposed Yuma Expressway by reviewing past transportation planning efforts which initially referenced the conceptual corridor. After providing attendees with a historical background of the Expressway, Mr. LaMont presented how the current study area was established along with what it specifically represents. With the overall context of the project established, Mr. LaMont then turned the presentation over to Greg Fly, Deputy Project Manager with Parsons Brinckerhoff, to discuss the projects existing and future conditions. Mr. Fly explained to the meeting attendees that the overall reason for the study is to ensure that the transportation system is able to meet both the current and future mobility needs of residents and businesses in the Yuma region. Consequently, the study effort first examined the current conditions found in the study area by reviewing the existing socioeconomic data, topography and utilities present, transportation infrastructure status, and environmental considerations. The general inventory of the current conditions analysis found: Gre g Fl y Sp e ak i ng Several previous studies have addressed the Yuma Expressway project Primarily agricultural and low density residential within the study area City of Yuma is the population and employment hub for the southwest Yuma County region Potential environmental considerations present Page 3 Following the current condition discussion, Mr. Fly then presented the projected future conditions found within and surrounding the study area. Mr. Fly discussed the future land use and development plans for the City of Yuma, City of Somerton, City of San Luis, Yuma County, Imperial County, California and the Marine Corps Air Station Yuma. Mr. Fly went on to outline the future socioeconomic data for Yuma County as well as the status of the transportation infrastructure within the study area. The inventory of future conditions showed the following: Analysis doesn t show a need for capacity improvements along Avenue D and County 14th until Yuma County meets a population of 370,000 Consensus on the importance of agricultural and military uses preservation among local planning agencies Absence of large commercial or residential growth within the study area SW Yuma County will continue to grow, the majority of which will occur outside the study area Existing infrastructure will remain largely unchanged through the next two decades After completing his comments on future conditions, Mr. Fly then informed the attendees of the next steps of the project work effort, which included: Incorporation of feedback from September 25th public meeting Develop and refine alternative options 2nd round of public involvement Selection of a preferred alternative Final report and recommendations Following the presentation, Mr. Fly turned the meeting over to Gabriella Kemp, Senior Community Relations Officer, ADOT, who outlined the format of the question and answer session (see following section for a detailed synopsis of the question and answer discussion). Subsequent to the question and answer period the meeting then moved to an open house format. Project staff made themselves available at project boards for one on one conversations. The formal meeting presentation and display boards are included in Appendix C. Page 4 Questions Posed During the PowerPoint Presentation and Open Discussion The following is a summary of questions and responses provided by the project team during the conclusion of the PowerPoint presentation. Q: Why is the MCAS Yuma property included within the study? A: C: This study focuses on the general need and location for an expressway in the study area. The need and location for specific design elements, such as retention basins, are typically identified during future phases. What is the cost of this Study? A: Q: An expressway is typically identified as a 6 lane major arterial roadway that consists of, 3 lanes in each direction, a center median, controlled access, and at grade intersections within a 300 right of way. What about retention basins? A: Q: The Project Team understands the study area includes a large amount of Prime and Unique Farmland . Consequently, this study will consider this existing condition as the project moves forward and in the conception of project recommendations. What does an expressway look like? A: Q: Qu es t io ns & An s we rs Any future transportation project should stay on the Mesa in order to avoid impacts to the agriculture land that everyone needs in the valley. R: Q: In order to ensure all potential impacts are considered during the study process, a broad brush is used to include all elements within the study corridor. As the project moves on, certain elements are then either evaluated in more detail or eliminated based on their assessed project impacts. The cost of the this current study is $250,000 What type of development will this roadway create? A: It is difficult to determine what type of development this type of transportation corridor will create. It is recognized that this type of improvement would potentially promote more intense land uses along the corridor, however it would ultimately be Page 5 up to land owners and the governing municipalities to determine the specific type and location of future development. C: May want to look at water rights within the study area. R: Q: Have you considered downgrading the need for an expressway and developing a smaller roadway? A: Q: It is uncertain at this time if any additional roadways within the study area would need to be improved as a result of the location of a bridge to I 8 along the Ave D alignment. We see the growth in the South County and understand the need for a bridge to I 8. What must happen to create the need for this bridge? A: Q: The current study area does extend up to I 8, however it does not include a detailed analysis of the existing bridges located outside the study area. We will take your comment into consideration and discuss this issue with ADOT and the City of Yuma. If this project proposes to construct a bridge to I 8 will this cause 8th Street east of Avenue D to be widened? A: Q: Given the current findings of the existing and future conditions analysis, we will definitely look at the possibility of a phased approach to roadway improvements within the corridor. Can you expand the study area near I 8 and California to examine the bridges? A: Q: We will take your comment into consideration as the project moves forward. Typically the current bridges would need to reach capacity before an additional bridge is considered and/or built. Most of the need for this expressway is/will come from growth in the South County, so I recommend that the study consider the growth of this area over the growth of the study area. A: Yes, the traffic modeling utilized in the study to analyze the existing and future transportation system considers the growth of the entire Yuma County region. The study area information displayed in the report is predominantly provided to help understand the potential impacts to the subject area. Page 6 Q: We are limited by Mexico to the South, California to the West, and the Range to the East, so a loop system may not be practical for the Yuma Area. A: Q: Looking at the future land use areas of the Avenue D corridor, I would suggest that some areas in the northern section of the corridor are identified with a High Density designation rather than the current low density designation. A: C: Yes, the findings of the existing and future conditions suggest that a limited access expressway is not needed within the next two decades. We will take your comment into consideration as the project moves forward. A high number of agriculture vehicles utilize Avenue D, so I would suggest taking that into consideration. A: Excellent comment, we appreciate the helpful feed back and will incorporate that information in our future work. Additional meeting comment forms, comments provided via email, and Title VI identification information are included in Appendix D. The formal presentation adjourned at approximately 6:45 pm. Small group discussions continued until approximately 7:00 pm. Following the Public Open House #1 meeting, a formal comment letter was also received on 10/18/11 from the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). A copy of this letter is included in Appendix E. Page 7 Appendix A Newspaper Advertisement, Project Fact Sheet and Flyer TUDY DESCRIPTION 8 County 8th St YUMA y of Yuma. MEETING LOCATION esday, September 25, 2012 30 - 7:30 p.m. LEGEND 95 Study Area Yuma Intl Airport ARIZONA 195 County 13th St County 14th St County 15th St CONTACT INFORMATION WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU Gabriella Kemp WHAT TO EXPECT AT THE MEETING 1 Yuma Expressway Study Public Open House FACT SHEET September 2012 to evaluate the need and determine County 8th St LEGEND Study Area Yu ma Intl Airpo rt County 13th St as a basis for more detailed local project County 14th St County 15th St Public input is very important to Arizona Department of Transportation been created to provide easy access to information: Gabriella Kemp Senior Community Relations Officer Arizona Department of Transportation 12-415 FOR MORE INFORMATION: YOU ARE INVITED YUMA EXPRESSWAY PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. County 8th St LEGEND Study Area Yu ma Intl Airpo rt County 13th St County 14th St the City of Yuma. County 15th St Mark R. Hoffman Yuma link to Interstate 8 and State Route 195. Arizona Department of Transportation Phone: 602.712.7454 Input from Yuma County residents is Gabriella Kemp Senior Community Relations Officer Arizona Department of Transportation conditions and identify possible future A brief presentation about the study be on display before and after the opportunity to address the accommodation. 12-416 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Appendix B Sign In Sheets Appendix C PowerPoint Presentation and Display Boards Appendix D Comment Forms, Electronic Comments, and Title VI Klyszeiko, Matthew To: Subject: Gabriella Kemp RE: My suggestion is to put in an UNDERGROUND SUBWAY SYSTEM ( Like in NY ) From: Ezw1a@aol.com [mailto:Ezw1a@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:27 PM To: Gabriella Kemp Subject: My suggestion is to put in an UNDERGROUND SUBWAY SYSTEM ( Like in NY ) Yep, let's do it right for our WINTER VISITORS and Our SOUTHERN VISITORS from MEXICO.!!!! A bypass road system in YUMA makes about as much sense as Putting OBAMA back in office in the upcoming election. Oh, By The Way !! Where is the MONEY COMING FROM TO BUILD THIS Super Highway System with the ECONOMY in the shape it's in ?????? Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . 1 Title VI Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act regulations provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Related federal statutes and regulations requires ADOT s Title VI/Nondiscrimination Program to include nondiscrimination protection on the basis of age, sex, disability and income status in all ADOT programs or activities. A display board, brochures and survey cards were displayed and made available at the meeting regarding Title VI. Two (2) survey cards were received at this meeting and provided to ADOT s Civil Rights Office. In addition, Title VI language was included in the newspaper advertisement(s) and project flier inviting the public to attend the meeting. Appendix E Marine Corps Air Station Comment Letter Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix H - Public Open House #2 Meeting Summary A-8 Yuma Expressway Study Final Report  MeetingDate/Time::  MeetingLocation: PublicO OpenHousee#2 MeettingSummarry    Thursdayy,January17,2013(5:330pm7:30pm) CityofYumaPublicW WorksBuilddingTraininggRoom th 155Wesst14 Streett Yuma,AZ85364  MeetingParticipantss: 18comm munitymem mbersattend ed  TeamMe embers:        MarkHo offman,ADO OT PakiRico o,ADOT DustinK Krugel,ADOTT RussellR Reichelt,CityyofYuma PaulBro oobergCityo ofYuma DougLaMont,Parso onsBrinckerhhoff GregFly,ParsonsBrinckerhoff KevinKu ugler,RBFCo onsulting  ProjectO Overview TheArizo onaDepartm mentofTransportation(ADOT),incoonjunctionw withtheCityyofYumaan ndits TransporrtationConsultant–ParssonsBrincke erhoffandPublicInvolveementConsultant–RBFF Consultin ng,isconducctingtheYum maExpressw wayCorridorrStudytoevvaluatethen needand locationfforapropossedroadwayycorridorwithinthesouuthandwestternportion nsoftheCityyof Yuma.  PublicOp penHouse# #2Purpose Asparto oftheoverallcorridorstu udyprocess,,theStudyTTeamdevelo opedacomp prehensiveaand interactivvePublicInvvolvementPlantoinform mandincluddethepubliccinthetransportation planningprocess.  ThePublicInvolveme entPlanfocu usedonmee etingswithsstakeholderssandthepu ublicschedulled atkeytechnicalmilestonesinthestudyproccess.Thegoaalofthisapp proachistoensurethatt inputand dfeedbackp providedbycitizensandstakeholde rswillbeefffectivelyinteegratedand considere edinthedevelopmento ofthefinalsstudyandintheconcepttionofprojeect recomme endations.  ThisinitiaalPublicInvo olvementRe eportoutline esthepubliccinvolvementeffortthaatwas performe edaspartoffPublicMee eting/OpenH House#2.Thepurposeofthesecon ndPublicOp pen Housewastoprovideinterested dresidentsandotherproojectstakeh holderswithabriefoverview    Page1 1  oftheprojectbackgrroundinform mationprese entedatthe firstopenh houseandth henfocusup pon thecorrid doralternativesconside eredforpublicinput.Theesealternattivesconsisteedofa combinationoffive((5)roadwaytypeswithin nthreepreliiminarycorrridorsthatto ogetheryield deda combinationof13po otentialalternativesfor publicconsiiderationan ndcommentt.  PublicM MeetingNotiffication TheStudyTeamconssideredseve eralmethodsstonotifythhe publicofthefirstPub blicOpenHo ousemeetin ng.Giventhee pulationofthestudyare eaandthere egionalnatuure largepop oftheproposedYum maExpresswayproject,ittwas determin nedthataco ombinationo ofpressrele eases,publicc advertise ementsandpostingofprojectfactsheetswouldd bethem mosteffective emethodto opromotean ndencouragge thegreattestlevelofpublicparticcipation.  Thenewssreleaseandprojectfacctsheetswe eredistributeed viaGovD Deliverytoge eneratelocaalmediainte erestin attendinggthemeetin ngsaswellaastoinformlocalmuniciipal staffandpublicofficials.Moreovver,ADOT Commun nicationssen ntanewsrelleasetoallggovernment officialsintheCityoffYuma,Yum maCountyan ndWACOGaas wellasA ADOTYumaD Districtmediaandstakeholdersontthe ADOTdisstributionlisst.TonotifyYYumaarearresidents,ann advertise ementwasp publishedintheJanuary 8theditionof theYumaaSunnewsp paperthatprrovidedabrriefproject descriptionandinforrmationonttheOpenHo ousemeetingg. OnJanuaary8th,atan ndemadverttisementwaasalsoplaceed ontheho omepageoftheYumaSunwebsite.Meeting notificatiionmaterialsincludingP ProjectFactSheet,Projeect Invitation nandnewsp paperadverttisementare eincludedinn AppendixxA. Mar k Hoffman Welcoming Meeting Attendees Gre g Fly Presenting Alternatives PublicM MeetingOverrview Asparto oftheYumaExpresswayStudy,apub blicOpen Housemeetingwash heldonThursday,Januaary17,2013 at theCityo ofYumaPub blicWorksBu uildingTrain ningRoom th locatedaat155West14 Street,Yuma,AZto opresentan d gatherfe eedbackontthealternatiivesconsideredforthe YumaExp presswayCo orridor.      Titl e VI Population Information on Dis play Page2 2  Intotal,aanestimated d18peopleattendedth heOpenHouusemeeting,,with13peoplesigninggin. Thisinclu udedattendancebyprin ntmedia.Me eetingsigni nsheetsareeincludedin nAppendixB B.  Theform malpresentattionbeganp promptlyat5:45pmwitthMarkHofffman,ADOTTProject Managerr,welcominggthegroupaandthankingallforatteending.Mr.Hoffmanthenintroduceed theproje ectteamand dgaveabrie efdescriptionoftheoveerallproject.Followingintroduction ns, Mr.Hoffm manencouragedattend deestosigninaswellass helpthem mselvestop projectinform mationmate erial,commeent cardsand dsurveysthatwerelocaatedatthee entrancetotthe meeting..Healsoexp plainedthatalltheproje ectinformatiion thatwasbeingprese entedtonigh htisalsoavailableonlineeat www.azd dot.gov/yum maexpresswaay.Aftercom mpletinghiss openingremarks,Mrr.Hoffmantthenintrodu ucedDoug LaMont,ProjectMan nagerwithP ParsonsBrincckerhoff,to beginthe eformalPow werPointpre esentation.  Meeting Materials Mr.LaMo ontbeganth heformalprresentationb byrecognizi ng andthan nkingthe13agenciesontheprojectTechnical AdvisoryCommittee(TAC)whoh haveassistedinguiding theconsultants’effo ortsthrougho outthestudyprocess.H HenotedthaattheTAChaasprovidedthe principalguidancefo orthisprojecctandthattheirinvolve menthasbeeencompreh hensiveand transpare ent.  Mr.LaMo ontthenpro ovidedabrie efprojectbaackgroundanndhistoryfo orthoseatteendeeswho wereunaabletoatten ndthefirsto openhouseiinSeptembeer.Thisinclu udedabriefreviewofpaast transporttationplann ningefforts– –theI8and dUS95CorriidorStudyin n1988thatrrecommend ded th theYumaaExpresswaycorridorin ncloseproximitytoexisttingAvenueeDandCoun nty14 Street alignmen nts.Mr.LaM Montexplain nedthattheYumaExpreesswayalignmentthenccarriedoverinto the1990 02010CounttywideTransportationM MasterPlanandtheCityyofYumaGeeneralPlan.The CityofYu umaCapitalImprovementPlan(CIP))FY2012ideentifiedtheplanningph haseoftheYYuma Expressw wayasaprio orityIIIproject.Mr.LaMo ontthenrem mindedtheaattendeesoftheprojectt studyare eaandnoted dthatthisprojectbegan nin2012.  Afterpro ovidingatten ndeeswithaahistoricalbackgroundooftheYuma Expresswayy,Mr.LaMon nt thendisccussedthefaactthatthisstudyevaluatedcurrenttandfutureetrafficandlandusetrends inthestu udyarea.UtilizingYumaMetropolitaanPlanningOrganizatio on(YMPO)daata,itappeaars thatimprovementsw wouldnotbe ewarranted dtotheYum aExpresswaayfacilityun ntiltherearee approxim mately370,0 000residentssinYumaCo ounty.Thereeareapproxximately200 0,000residen ntsin YumaCo ountytoday.AccordingtoYMPOpro ojections,appopulationo of370,000w willlikelynotbe realizedu untiltheyeaar2033.Mr.LaMontund derscoredthhefactthatw whilethispo opulation threshold disnearlydoubletheexxistingpopulation,itisim mportantto oconductlon ngrange planningnow.Studie eslikethisarreneededin nordertoevvaluatetheaacquisitiono ofthenecessary rightsofwaypriorto otheapprovvalofadjace entlandusedecisionsth hatcouldmaakethe    Page3 3  acquisitio onoftherigghtofwaym muchmorecostlytotaxppayers.Henotedthatth heactual constructtionofanyEExpresswaylikefacilityw wasmanyyeears,perhap psdecadeso offintothe future.  Mr.LaMo ontthenturrnedthepresentationovvertoGregFFly,DeputyProjectMan nagerwith ParsonsB Brinckerhofff,todiscussthealternattivesconsideeredforthisproject.  Mr.Flyexplainedtothemeetinggattendeestthatthere werefive e(5)differen ntroadwayttypes(includ dingtheno buildopttion)thatwe ereconsiderredbytheprrojectteam. Thesefivveroadwayttypesare:  ¾ Existin ngRuralTwo oLaneRoad(nobuild) ¾ RuralFreeway Dou g LaMont Speaking with Local ¾ Expressway Media ¾ PrincipalArterial ¾ MinorrArterial  Mr.Flyth henexplaine edwhatatyypicalroadwaycrosssecctionwouldcconsistoffo oreachroadw way type.Hediscussedacccessandrigghtofwayccharacteristi csforeachrroadwaytyp pe.Eachroad dway crosssecctionwasillu ustratedinthePowerPo ointpresentaation.PleaseeseeAppend dixCforthee PowerPo ointpresentaationforaviiewofthefivveroadwaycrosssectio ons.  Mr.Flyth henidentifie edandexplaainedthreed differentroaadwaycorrid dorsthatweereevaluated d andappliedtoeachroadwaytyp pe.Corridor#1represenntsthecurreentAvenueD DandCounty 14thalign nments.Corrridor#2issh hiftednorthofandeastoftheexistiingCounty1 14thandAveenue Dalignments.Corridor#2attemptedtoacco ountforacceessrequirem mentsforhigghdensity residentiallandusesplannedinttheareaasw wellasfuturreexpansion nplansofth heMCAS. Corridor#3consistsofahybridb betweenCorrridor#1anddCorridor##2inthatitaattemptsto avoidexiistingresidentiallandussesalongAve enueDand8thStreetan ndzigzagsttoavoidthe Goldwate erRange.PleaseseeAp ppendixCforthePowerrPointpresen ntationforaaviewofthee threecorrridoralignm ments.  Mr.Flyexplainedthaatthecombiinationoffivveroadwayttypesandth hreecorridorscreateda combinationof13po ossibleroadwaytypesfo orfurthercoonsideration nandevaluation.Mr.Flyy notedthataprelimin naryevaluattionwasperfformedforeeachofthe113combinattionswithth he objective eofreducinggthosedowntofour(4))alternative sthatwould dberevieweedingreaterr detail.Th hepreliminaryevaluatio oncriteriaussedincludes :  ¾ Impactstofuture etrafficcapaacity ngresidence es ¾ Impactstoexistin ngagriculturre ¾ Impactstoexistin ¾ ImpactstoMCASSYumaAirpo ort    Page4 4  ¾ Accesss/frontageroads/dupliccationoffaccilitytype ¾ Environmentalim mpacts  Mr.Flysaaidthatafte ertheprelim minaryanalyssis,Alternatiive’s1C,1D,3A,3BandtheNoBuild d alternativvecarriedfo orwardintotthesecondaaryevaluatioon.Thesealtternativesarredescribed das follows:  ¾ NoBu uild–leavee existingfacilityinplace. ¾ 1C–P Principalarte erialbuilton nexistingAvvenueDandCounty14thhStreet alignm ment. ¾ 1D–M MinorarteriaalbuiltonexxistingAvennueDandCo ounty14thSttreetalignment. ¾ 3AR Ruralfreewayyconstructe edoncorridoor#3. ¾ 3B–EExpresswaycconstructedoncorridor#3.  Mr.Flyth hendescribe edthesecon ndaryevaluaationcriteriaaused.Theseeare:  ¾ Beneffitstosafetyy ¾ Cost ¾ ConsisstencywithCityofYumaaapprovedplans ¾ Implementation ¾ Rightofwayimpaacts ¾ Beneffitstocrossrregiontraveltimes ¾ ColoraadoRiverco onstraints  Mr.FlysaaidthatAlte ernative3Bh hadthebesttscoreforfuutureconcerrns.Alternattive3Bscoreed thehighe estprimarilyybecauseithasthelowe estimpacttooexistingdeevelopment,,includingth he MCASan ndYumaAirp port,itproviidesaddition nalcapacitytotheexistiingroadwayynetworkan nd AvenueD DandCountty14thStreettremaininp place.  Mr.Flyth hentransitio onedtodiscu usspotentiaalalternativeesconsidereedforconnectiontoI8. Threealtternativealiggnmentswe ereevaluated dinconjuncctionwithtw wopotentialalignments– theAlgod donesConne ectionandtheWinterhaavenConnecction.PleaseeseeAppendixCforthee PowerPo ointpresentaationforaviiewofthese epotentialcoorridoralign nments.Mr.Flynotedth hat thereare emanychallengestoaC ColoradoRivvercrossingaandaddition nalstudiesw werenecessaary, butthe““red”corrido oridentifiedforeachconnectionpoointwasthepreferredallignmentattthis point.  Mr.Flyth henconcludedhisprese entationbye explainingthhenextstepsintheprojject.Henoteed thatthepubliccomm mentperiodwasopenuntilJanuary24,2013an ndencourageedattendeeesto submitw writtencomm ments.Mr.FFlysaidthattthefinalrepportandreco ommendatio onswouldbe available einFebruaryy2013.Mr.LLaMontadde edthatitwoouldbeimpo ortantforth heCityofYuma andothe erstoconducctperiodiccchecks,perhapsevery5yearsorso,oflandusechanges, populatio ongrowthandconductfurtheranalysis.Hesaiddthisperiodicreviewwaasneededto o    Page5 5  ensureth hattherighttofwayneccessaryforth hefuturefaccilitycanbeobtainedeaarlyinthe processaandthusred ducethecosttothetaxp payers.  Followinggthepresen ntation,PakiRicojoinedMr.LaMonttandMr.FlyyfortheQuestionand Commen ntperiod.Subsequentto othequestio onandcomm mentperiod d,themeetin ngthenmovved toanope enhouseforrmat.Projecctstaffmade ethemselvessavailableaatprojectbo oardsforoneeon oneconvversations.TTheformalm meetingpressentationannddisplaybo oardsareinccludedin AppendixxD.  nsPosedDuringthePow werPointPre esentationaandOpenDiscussion Question Thefollowingisasum mmaryofqu uestionsand dresponsesprovidedbyytheprojecttteamduringthe onofthePow werPointpresentation. conclusio  Q: n 32nd Streettothenorthhasalotofressidentialdevvelopment,ssomecommercial…istheere anopportunityytomovethe eroadwaytothewest?  A: AttheSeeptembermeeeting,thereewasalotoffcommenttthatadvised dtheproject t teamtop placeempha asisonpreserrvingagricu ltureandthattheydidn notwanttosee anycorrid dormoveanyclosertoA AvenueEsottheykeptthhecorridorcllosertoAven nue Dbasedo onthatpubliicinput.  Q: Wh hatistheoffsetorwidth hofthecorridorsasshow wnonthem map?  A: Eachcorrid dorisnotmeeanttobepreciseinorddertomaintaainflexibilityyforfuture studies.On naverage,eachcorridorrwidthrepreesentsapprooximately¼milewide. Futurestud dieswilleva aluateinafin nergrainof detailwithrrespecttoprroperty ownershipandexisting gconstraintss,etc.  C: AsaaBarclayRanchhomeow wner,Iamcconcernedabboutthenorrth/southpo ortionofthee corrridorandacccesstoI8.N NoiseonAvenueDisacconcern,buttAvenueDm makessensee.We nee edalargerro oadgoingno orth/south… …notverymaanypeopleggoingeast/w westtogeto outof tow wn.  R: ThemodeelindicatestthatCounty14threceivesstrafficalottfasterthan nAvenueD. Thereisn notalotoftrrafficgoingttoCaliforniaa.Trafficpattternswillch hangeifyoubuild thefacilitty.Theresideentiallandu usestothew westofAvenuueDdoesno otgenerate enoughtrrafficalonettowarranta alargerfacillity.YMPOuppdatestheirrmodeleverry4 yearsand dthatshould dberevieweed.  Q: The ereisnotalo otofemployymentlandusestothew westofAven nueD.Whattisthenumber ofh homesneededtotriggertheneedfo orabiggerrroad?  A: Themodelldoesn’texa actlycaptureewheretheppopulationbbaseisperse,justthe distributionoftraffic.TThemodeld doesn’tcaptuurethatfineerdetailatth hislevelsoittis    Page6 6  difficulttosaypreciselly.  Q: Wh hyisthisroadwayevenn needed?We eneedaccessslikeBusineess8toenco ourage devvelopment.A Anexpressw waylimitsdevelopmentdduetolimiteedaccess.  A: Actuallyan nexpresswa ayfacilitatestrafficflow better,itdooesnotencourageor discourageegrowthand ddevelopmeent.Accessaandlanduseescanbecoo ordinatedina moreeffecctivemannerr.  Q:  Wh hyareweevendoingthisstudy? A: Inorderto ogettrafficaroundtow wninsteadoffthroughtow wnasdevelo opmentand d populatio onincreasesovertime.H Historically,YYuma,likem manyotherccities,widenssthe roadafterrdevelopmeenthasoccurred.Acquirringrightofwayafterdeevelopmenthas occurredleadstohigh heracquisitiioncosts.Froontyardbuiildingsetbacckscanbeveery tight,orn notallowforrthewidenin ngofaroad way.Doingthisplannowallowsforrthe opportunitytoplanaheadthereb byallowingtthecity/counntytoworkw withpropertty ownersea arlierinthedevelopmen ntprocesstooaccommoddateroadwayyfootprints beforedeevelopmenta andnotafterdevelopmeenthasoccuurred.Thism modelwillpro ovide fortheaccquisitionofrightsowayyatalesser rcost(thanppostdevelop pment)and thereforereducetheuseoftaxpa ayers’dollarssforfuturerroadwaypro ojects.  C: Ilivvesouthof3 32ndStreetandeastofA Avenue5E.TTheMCASgeeneratesalo otoftraffic, esp peciallyinmo orningandaafternoonpe eakperiods.Ifeellikeanorth/south hinterchanggeis beingdiscredite ed.AvenueBisthe#1trafficcongesstionprobleeminthecityy.The info ormationton nightisgreatbuttrafficfromthevaalleydrivingonAvenueB Band4thistthe pro oblem.Them modelisnotreflectingre eality–northh/southmovvementsareetheproblem and dtherearetoofewnorth/southrou utes.County14thcouldb beworkedonlater.  R: Yourcom mmentsareg goodandweecertainlyapppreciatethhem.Nomod delisabsolutely precise.YYourcommen ntsaregood dfortheYMPPOtohearaandtheyhap ppentobe havingap publicmeetiingnextweeekastheyreeviewanduppdatetheirm model.We encourageyoutomakeyourcom mmentshearrdatthatmeeeting.  C: Cou unty16than ndAvenueBhavethehighestaccideentratesinttown.  ntlyongoing nConceptReeport(DCR)sstudyinSom mertoncurren g R: Yes.ThereeisaDesign thatwilleexamineand dpotentiallyrecommenddanothernoorth/southcorridorfrom mthe Somerton nareatowarrdsYuma.  C: You umentioned dthatintheinformation nyouhaveg atheredthattherewasnotalotof trafffictakingAvvenueDnorrth/south.     Page7 7  R:  C: Themodeelsareshow wingaLevelo ofService(L OS)Aon4thhand8th.ALOSof“A”isthe best“scorre”,meaning gleastcongestedroadw way.But16thhandAvenueeBhaveanLOS of“D”. Buttthereisalo otoftrafficffromSanLuiisandMexiccalithatgeneratelotsofftrafficfrom mthe sou uth.TherehaasbeentalkforalongtiimeaboutaconnectionfromSomerrtonAvenueeto I8 butthatislikelyjustad dream,butw weneedanoothernorth//southroadw way.  R:  C: Understan ndyourcom mment,itisw welltaken.Ittisimportannttobeawa arethatiftheereis anintentiiontousefeederaldollarsstoconstrucctanewroaadwayfacilitty,aninsufficient LOSwillh havetobedeemonstrated dinordertojustifythenneedforaneewroadwayand theuseofffederaldollarstoconsttructthatfaccility. ThisisnothelpingSomerto on,SanLuisaandborderttrafficifwemakeeast/w westroadwaay imp provements..Weneedanothernorth h/southroaddlikewasprreviouslymeentioned.  R:  Q: Again,weeunderstand dyourconceernandyourrpointiswellltaken.TheeYMPOmod delis notshowiingademan ndforanorth/southfaciility.Asmenntionedpreviiously,perha apsit wouldbeworthwhiletoprovidetthiscommenntattheupccomingYMPOopenhousse thatissch heduledforn nextweek. Ifw webuildane expressway,willwestillbeabletoppreserveagriiculturalland dusesinthee area?  A:  C: Yes,anexxpresswayca anbecompa atiblewithaagriculturalllanduses.Offcourseasm mall amounto ofagricultureelandwould dbenecessaarytoallowffortheactua alroadway improvem ments. Yess.Wedon’tw wanttodoaanythingtorrisklosingouurcoolingsh heds.Yumaiisthe7thlarggest agrriculturalpro oducerinthe ecountry.  R:  C: Anexpresswaywillnotreplaceth hebusinessofagriculturre.Thatissu ueisalso influenced dbythemarrketandloca allanduseddecisions.Ifaagriculturerremains profitablee,itisfairtoassumetha attheagricu lturallanduuseswouldccontinueforw ward. Theroadw waytypewilllhavelittleinfluenceonnthislandusseissue. We eshouldbuildasmallerffootprintroaadway,accoomplishabalancebetweeenthetwo– n 32nd Streetdoe esagoodjob b.  R:    Yes,agreeed.Therewiillbemanysstepsalongttheway.Thissstudyisavveryprelimin nary evaluationofthecorrridortoestablishitspoteentialneedaatsomepoin ntinthefutu ure. Itisabala ancingact.FFuturestudieeswouldconnsideraclosserexaminattionofthe challengees/obstaclestoconstructtingaroadw way.Thespeecificcorridorwouldbe Page8 8  evaluated donapropeertybypropeertybasistooidentifyphyysicalconstrraintsanddeesign challengees.  Q: Doe esthestudytakeintoacccountthein nfluxofwinttervisitorsaandtheincreeasedcongeestion durringthewinttermonths??Wintervisittorstendto avoid32ndSStreet.  A: TheYMPO Oconductsttheirtrafficccountstwiceeperyear,onnceinFebru uaryandaga ainin June.TheYMPOperfo ormsamath hematicalcoomputationiinthemodelltoprovideffora blendeda averagetoaccountforth heseasonalfluctuation.  C: Wh henaroadwaaylimitsacccess,italsoliimitsthedevvelopmentp potentialofthatarea. Agrricultureland dusesareth henindirectlypromotedd.  R:  C:  Q:  Whileacccessmaybelimited,itdo oesnotlimittgrowthandddevelopmeent–infactit canpromoteitifthattisthelocallandusedeccision.Whileeaccessmayybemore limited,siignalsareseeparatedbyamilebyexxample,deveelopmentcanactuallybee encouragedbecauseofthehigheercapacityofftheroadwaaytoaccom mmodatetrafffic trips. Icaanthinkofan nexamplein n2007inMaadison,Wiscconsinwheretheywereegrowingand the eyneededahighway,bu uttherewere esomewetllandsintheway.Thereareregulatio ons use edbylocalgo overnmentsthatcanhe elppreservetherightofwayinadvaanceof devvelopment,ssodevelopm mentknowstthereisaroadwayplann ned.Zoningstipulationssand oth herlandusecontrolscan nhelpretain ntherightoffwayandsttudiesliketh hishelpiden ntify the eneedfortheroadwhichmakesite easierforloccalgovernmeentagenciesstoacquirethe righ htofwaywh henthereisanidentifiedneed.Theeaccessconttrolissuecan nalsobe han ndledbylocaalgovernme entagenciesthatcanlim mitaccess,reestrictlandu usesand oth herwiseconttrolgrowth.Thisroadwaaycaneitherrfunctionlikke32ndStreeetwithfairlyy unlimitedaccesssorcouldb beliketheAreaServiceH Highway.Th hepropertyo ownerultim mately willlmakeadeccisiononwhethertokee ephispropeertyagricultu ureorsellto oothers. Howislandn H neededforth heroadacqu uired? R: TheCityo ofYumatypiicallyacquireesthepropeertyinoneofftwoways.First,ifthereeisa developm mentproposa alwherethepropertyow wnerisseekiingzoningo orother approvalssformtheciity,thecityw wouldrequirreahalfstreeetdedicatio onofrightoff wayforth hatparticula arroad.Thesecondoptiionisfortheecitytopurcchasetheneeded property.Thisistypiccallydonethroughnegottiationswithhthepropertyowner,ussing appraisalsstodetermiinethevalueeorcanbeccondemnedtthroughtheuseofemin nent domainiffabsolutelyn necessary.  WrittenC Commentsw werecollecte edandarelo ocatedinApppendixE.     Page9 9  Theform malpresentattionadjourn nedatappro oximately7:110pm.Indivvidualandsmallgroup discussio onsbetweenmeetingatttendeesand dmembersooftheprojecctteamconttinueduntil approxim mately7:25p pm.    Page10 0  APPENDIXA    A A YOUR INPUT IS NEEDED Yuma Expressway Corridor Study | Thursday, Jan. 17 STUDY BACKGROUND MEETING INFORMATION $    \  _  ]\ ` ! $ @ _ {V   ^  $   $ {V [\ ]]^@  !  |V!@ $ \V \]_$]V!@]]]]]$_]=@ !  _  \ \]! $$ \ @ !^@  ! $  _V@+-$!"V {V   "!  ! $ ] ! \V=  ` _  $ {V [\ ]]^@  !  |V!@ ^$  @V   "  ]V!@ V\! "^ $  \V  !   `"] ! ] €V]`] \ "! ] $} ]\V= `|\= '&+' $ ]V!@  \ ]! V  ! _VV  !`]$@]]=]$!$$! _   ^ !^@  !  ] ! !] ^@ ~$\]_^$]$\  $] = ^   $^  !! ]]    ]\ ` \ !] ! $^  !} \`  !   `"] =]!  $ !!\V  "!_ $ \V= !] $! ]          $  <=        !" %&'*+'*-; !">@V[\ ]]^@ Date: $V ]!@+*'&+‚ Time: ; ‚&* ‚&\   @_{V  V= < ]„V!     +;;<]+-$|   {V†‡;‚% \ ]` ^ = "  ; -; \ $ ]V!@  ^ ] = "= =_  ! ˆ $\ ]`]^ @€V]`] V ]V‰~_$"$] _+Š%-! $  ]^$]=`] ‹Œ!] !] $=]]_    `    !    !]=@ \ ^$ €V   ]=  !` =]!  V   !]=@ ]$V!      |  |  V@ `]       %&'*+'-%*%   | !" €V]] ]$V! =!] @]\]]=]V $]$] \\ V@!! ]]$ !` a !">@V[\ ]]^@ 12-618 WE NEED YOUR INPUT! YUMA EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR STUDY STUDY DESCRIPTION  $  \ _ ]\ ` and the city of Yuma are working together on the Yuma Expressway Corridor Study. The purpose of the study is to assess the feasibility and alignment of a proposed highcapacity roadway corridor along the general alignment of County 14th and Avenue D.  $} ]\V= `|\=  2012, the study team presented current !_VV  !`]$@]]=]$! that the need for a new roadway corridor is decades away. In the past few months, the project team has been working on $^!! ]]  ]\ ` \!]!$^!}\`  !  `"]=]! $  data and input received from the public and stakeholders. WHAT TO EXPECT AT THE MEETING  {V "!!$] !\V=  `_ ${V[\ ]]^@ !  Study where you can receive a study update, "^$  \V  !  `"] !] €V]`] \ "! ] County 8th St LEGEND Avenue 3E Study Area Avenue C Avenue D YUMA Avenue E               "      $  8 Somerton Ave Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. City of Yuma Public Works Building—Training Room 155 West 14th Street Yuma, AZ 85364 95 Yuma Intl Airport ARIZONA 195 County 13th St County 14th St County 15th St STAY INFORMED Mark R. Hoffman Project Manager Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue, MD 310B Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602.712.7454 Email: MHoffman@azdot.gov Pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the   ]^$]=`] ‹Œ!] !] $=]]_    `  age, gender or disability. People who require a reasonable  !`=]!V !]=@]$V!    || V@`]   Manager, at 602.712.4676 or GSato@azdot.gov. Requests should be made as early as possible to ensure the state has an \\ V@!! ]]$ !` 12-617 FOR MORE INFORMATION: azdot.gov/yumaexpressway Open House to view concepts for the future potential Yuma Expressway Jan. 17 YUMA – The Arizona Department of Transportation, in coordination with the city of Yuma, has been working to assess the feasibility and alignment of a proposed high capacity roadway corridor along the general alignment of County 14th Street and Avenue D. At the first public meeting in September 2012, the study team presented current and future conditions. They also established that the need for a new roadway corridor is decades away. In the past few months, the project team has been working on how to address long-term transportation planning needs and define potential corridor alternatives based on technical data and input received from the public and stakeholders. The public is invited to attend the upcoming meeting to receive a study update, view the conceptual corridor alternatives, and ask questions or provide comments. Date: Thursday, January 17 Time: 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Location: City of Yuma Public Works Building—Training Room 155 West 14th Street Yuma, AZ 85364 For more information about the study, please visit www.azdot.gov/yumaexpressway or contact Community Relations Project Manager Gricel Sato at 602.712.4676 or gsato@azdot.gov. Local media should contact the ADOT Public Information Office at news@azdot.gov or 1.800.949.8057. Visit www.facebook.com/azdot or www.azdot.gov for more information about ADOT. For more information about ADOT projects and programs across Arizona see the agency's latest blog posts at http://adotblog.blogspot.com. # # # Yuma Expressway Study Public Open House FACT SHEET PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public input is very important to $]V ]]_$]V!@^\V=  ]^=$!$ V$V$ ]V!@\  ]]$ _  !]V]]_ {VV@ ]!]]V!@^=]$]] been created to provide easy access to information:  !">@V[\ ]]^@  $]V!@  V!]^  !   ! V@+-$| !"V^$\  ]~‡ $ $!|+Š;$] 8 County 8th St LEGEND Avenue 3E Study Area Avenue C Avenue D YUMA Avenue E  ${V[\ ]]^@|V!@]!! to evaluate the need and determine \ \]! `_  !^@ _ ] V V \ "]$^ \ "  `]! •   V` _   ]]$]V!@^ !`_@  ! $^V!\`@  ]V$^]{V~ ]‡$ \ \]!–{V[\ ]]^@— V! \ "!]V=]` ]]_ ]V${V V@! ]]= !  • $! ^]_ ~ ]‡$] \  ]$} ]]\$$" \"V`$@=V]! as a basis for more detailed local project !"\$_VV  STUDY AREA Somerton Ave  $@_{V = `^$$   \ _ ]\ ` ] !V `\  @]]]] !@ $_]=@_\ \]!  ! $]V$^]  \ `]_$@_{V September 2012 95 Yuma Intl Airport ARIZONA 195 County 13th St County 14th St County 15th St STAY INFORMED  __     Arizona Department of Transportation '&%|+*$"V ‚+&„$[†‡;&&* $ %&'*+'*-; $__ !" Gabriella Kemp Senior Community Relations Officer Arizona Department of Transportation ''-‚!!{V†‡;‚%; $ ‹Š'‡Œ‚+*'+%;   \ !" 12-415 FOR MORE INFORMATION:  !">@V[\ ]]^@  APPENDIXB    B B Yuma Expressway Corridor Study COMMENT FORM %              & Expressway corridor alignment. COMMENTS: \` š  !! ]]  @  $  ™[   |  †~ \! _ ] =]V=!$\  $ \`_$\V= ` ] $V  $=@Jan. 24, 2013]]! ]˜"˜V  >„™]V` +%%&;š'‡$"V|V+&&›$[†‡;&;‚œ™[ %&'-%*''&-œ  ˜˜V  =_  \`_$] _ ] \@"V @ ]\ "!!^= \ _$]V!@]! V`ž!  ]^@!`_@_ `\ "!!^= \ _$\V=    !!]]V $V]= ]!@!"!VV\ €V] 13-014 FOR MORE INFORMATION: azdot.gov/yumaexpressway Yuma Expressway Corridor Study  š™ š ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 13-014 FOR MORE INFORMATION: azdot.gov/yumaexpressway  APPENDIXC    C C Public Information Meeting January 17, 2013 1 Project Background € Current/Future Conditions € Alternatives Considered € Next Steps € Feedback: Questions/Comments € 2 € € • Deputy Project Manager • Planner/Roadway Engineer, Parsons Brinckerhoff Greg Fly • Project Manager • Senior Engineering Manager, Parsons Brinckerhoff Doug LaMont 3 € € € € € € € € € € € € € City of Yuma Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Yuma County Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) City of San Luis Cocopah Indian Tribe Quechan Indian Tribe City of Somerton Imperial County Transportation Commission (ICTC) Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) 4 5 Background € Current/Future Conditions Next Steps • Recommended Yuma Expressway corridor within close proximity of the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street alignment. • Alignment carried over into 1990-2010 Countywide Transportation Plan. I-8 and US 95 Corridor Study Alternatives Considered 6 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered • City of Yuma applied for, and ADOT granted assistance Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Background Next Steps 7 € € € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Next Steps Yuma Expressway Corridor Study begins March 27, 2012: • Yuma Expressway (planning phase) included as Priority III project. City of Yuma Capital Improvement Program FY 2012 to 2021 • Included Yuma Expressway along Avenue D and County 14th Street. City of Yuma General Plan Background 8 Background Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Next Steps 9 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Next Steps (current Yuma County population ~200,000) 370,000 residents within Yuma County. Capacity improvements for existing roadways within the study area (rural, two-lane) will be required at a population threshold of approximately: Background 10 11 Rural Freeway Expressway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial € € € € Alternatives Considered Existing Rural Two Lane (No Build) Current/Future Conditions € Background Next Steps 12 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Existing Rural Two Lane (No Build) • One lane in each direction • Unpaved shoulders • Standard right of way width is 66 feet Background Next Steps 13 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Rural Freeway • Two lanes in each direction • Controlled access (grade separated) • Standard right of way width is 308 feet Background Next Steps 14 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Expressway € Three lanes in each direction € Controlled access € Standard right of way width is 160 feet Background Next Steps 15 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Principal Arterial € Three lanes in each direction € Limited access € Standard right of way width is 124 feet Background Next Steps 16 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Minor Arterial € Two lanes in each direction € Limited access € Standard right of way width is 100 feet Background Next Steps 17 Background Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Next Steps 18 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Next Steps NO BUILD 1A 1B 1C 1D RURAL TWO LANE (EXIST) RURAL FREEWAY EXPRESSWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL CORRIDOR NO. 1 EXISTING AVE D & CO. 14th STREET 2D 2C 2B 2A CORRIDOR NO. 2 ¼ MILE OFFSET EAST AND NORTH 3D 3C 3B 3A CORRIDOR NO.3 ¼ MILE OFFSET 13 Combinations of Roadway Types and Corridors Background 19 Impacts to existing residences Impacts to existing agriculture Impacts to MCAS-Yuma Airport Access/frontage roads/duplication of facility type Environmental impacts € € € € Next Steps/ Implementation € Alternatives Considered Impacts to future traffic capacity Current/Future Conditions € Background 20 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Next Steps/ Implementation Alternatives 1C, 1D, 3A, 3B, and No Build carried into the Secondary Evaluation • No Build (leave existing facility in place) • Alternative 1C (principal arterial constructed on existing Avenue D and County 14th Street) • Alternative 1D (minor arterial constructed on existing Avenue D and County 14th Street) • Alternative 3A (rural freeway constructed on corridor 3 RED) • Alternative 3B (expressway constructed on corridor 3 RED) Background 21 Cost Consistency with COY approved plans Implementation Right of way impacts Benefits to cross region travel times Colorado River constraints € € € € € € Alternatives Considered Benefits to safety Current/Future Conditions € Background Next Steps/ Implementation 22 € Current/Future Conditions Alternatives Considered Next Steps/ Implementation Alternatives 3B had the best score for future concerns. • Avoids as much existing development as possible. • Expressway provides additional capacity to the existing roadway network, possibly relieving existing congestion within the City of Yuma. • Low impact to MCAS-Yuma Airport. • Corresponds to previously approved City of Yuma planning documents. • Avenue D and County 14th Street will remain. Background 23 Current/Future Conditions Algodones Connection Background Next Steps/ Implementation Winterhaven Connection Alternatives Considered 24 25 Yuma Expressway will warrant further analysis as the land use and population change within the region. € 26 Final Report and recommendations in February 2013. Next Steps/ Implementation € Alternatives Considered Public Comment open until January 24, 2013. Current/Future Conditions € Background 27 E-Mail: Regular Mail: Phone: 1-602-467-2200 € RBF Consulting Attn. Kevin Kugler 16605 N. 28th Avenue, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85053 € kkugler@rbf.com € 28  APPENDIXD    D D Existing Rural Two Lane Rural Freeway Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial EVALUATION CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE 1C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL x Moderate x Minimal No Change x Minimal Score (+2) Score (+1) Score (+1) A Principal Arterial An Expressway A Freeway facility will operate at an has the capacity to facility has the acceptable LOS for capacity to move move large a majority of the volumes of vehicles large volumes of day vehicles x Moderate x Major None x Major Score (+2) Score (+3) Score (+3) Partial acquisition of Impacts many Impacts many existing residential various existing existing residential Residential properties located properties located adjacent to existing adjacent to existing properties located Avenue D and Co. adjacent to existing Avenue D and Co. Avenue D and Co. 14th St. 14th St. 14th St. NO BUILD Impacts to Future Traffic x Capacity Impacts to Existing Residences x Impacts to Existing Agriculture x None x None Access/Frontage Roads/Duplication of Facility Type x Environmental Impacts* x Total Preliminary Evaluation Score (Lowest 4 Scores and No Build to Secondary Eval.) x ALTERNATIVE 1D MINOR ARTERIAL ALTERNATIVE 2B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 2A RURAL FREEWAY x Minimal x Minimal x Major Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+3) An Expressway A Minor Arterial will A Freeway facility has the capacity to facility has the experience capacity to move move large congestion as the volumes of vehicles large volumes of region fully vehicles develops x Major x Major x Minimal Score (+3) Score (+3) Score (+1) Impacts many Partial acquisition of Impacts many existing residential existing residential a few existing development development Residential located within located within properties located Corridor #2 adjacent to existing Corridor #2 Avenue D and Co. 14th St. ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 2D 2C MINOR ARTERIAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL x Major x Moderate Score (+3) Score (+2) A Principal Arterial A Minor Arterial will experience will operate at an acceptable LOS for congestion as the region fully a majority of the develops day x Major x Major Score (+3) Score (+3) Impacts many Impacts many existing residential existing residential development development located within located within Corridor #2 Corridor #2 ALTERNATIVE 3A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B EXPRESSWAY x Minimal x Minimal Score (+1) Score (+1) An Expressway A Freeway facility has the capacity to facility has the capacity to move move large volumes of vehicles large volumes of vehicles x Moderate x Moderate Score (+2) Score (+2) Impacts a fair Impacts a fair amount of existing amount of existing Residential Residential Development Development located within located within Corridor #3 Corridor #3 x Major Score (+3) Impacts the largest amount of Agriculture Lands. ALTERNATIVE 3C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL x Moderate Score (+2) A Principal Arterial will operate at an acceptable LOS for a majority of the day x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts a fair amount of existing Residential Development located within Corridor #3 ALTERNATIVE 3D MINOR ARTERIAL x Major Score (+3) A Minor Arterial will experience congestion as the region fully develops. x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts a fair amount of existing Residential Development located within Corridor #3 x Major Score (+3) Impacts the largest amount of Agriculture Lands. x Major Score (+3) Impacts the largest amount of Agriculture Lands. x Major Score (+3) The Avenue D and Co 14th St. existing 66 foot R/W will be far short of the required 300 foot R/W. x Moderate Score (+2) Future plans of MCAS show improvements extending to Co 14th St, while a 300 foot corridor may impact planned improvements x Major Score (+3) An additional 100 foot of R/W is required. x Moderate Score (+2) An additional 58 foot of R/W is required. x Minimal Score (+1) An Additional 34 foot of R/W is required. x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts the least amount of agriculture lands of the 3 Corridors. x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts the least amount of agriculture lands of the 3 Corridors. x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts the least amount of agriculture lands of the 3 Corridors. x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts the least amount of agriculture lands of the 3 Corridors. x Major Score (+3) Impacts the largest amount of Agriculture Lands. x Moderate Score (+2) Future plans of MCAS show improvements extending to Co 14th St, while a 160 foot corridor may impact planned improvements x Major Score (+3) Corridor #2 cuts across the existing MCAS runway and the planned improvements on the south side of the airbase. x Major Score (+3) Corridor #2 cuts across the existing MCAS runway and the planned improvements on the south side of the airbase. x Major Score (+3) Corridor #2 cuts across the existing MCAS runway and the planned improvements on the south side of the airbase. x Minimal x Minimal x Minimal x Minimal Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+1) Score (+1) Corridor #3 is Corridor #3 is Corridor #3 is Corridor #3 is located south of Co located south of Co located south of Co located south of Co 14th St 14th St 14th St 14th St x Major Score (+3) Freeway typical section requires grade separated crossings. Frontage roads may be required to maintain existing access x Moderate Score (+2) Frontage roads may be required to maintain existing access. x Minimal Score (+1) Future plans of MCAS show improvements extending to Co 14th St. Construction of a Minor Arterial on Co 14th St will mesh with MCAS improvements x Minimal Score (+1) Direct access to roadway will be maintained. right inright out x Major Score (+3) Corridor #2 cuts across the existing MCAS runway and the planned improvements on the south side of the airbase. None x Minimal Score (+1) Future plans of MCAS show improvements extending to Co 14th St. Construction of a Principal Arterial on Co 14th St will mesh with MCAS improvements x Minimal Score (+1) Direct access to roadway will be maintained. right inright out x Moderate Score (+2) Freeway typical section requires grade separated crossings. Avenue D and Co 14th St remain as local access x Minimal Score (+1) Avenue D and Co 14th St remain as local access x Minimal Score (+1) Avenue D and Co 14th St remain as local access x Minimal Score (+1) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Minimal Score (+1) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Minimal Score (+1) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Minimal Score (+1) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Moderate Score (+2) Avenue D and Co 14th St remain as local access, However two parallel roadways located within a ¼ mile with high accessibility may be unreasonable x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Moderate Score (+2) Freeway typical section requires grade separated crossings. Avenue D and Co 14th St remain as local access No Impacts to prime farmland Moderate Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Moderate Score (+2) Avenue D and Co 14th St remain as local access, However two parallel roadways located within a ¼ mile with high accessibility may be unreasonable x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) N/A x x x x x x x x x x Impacts to MCAS-Yuma Airport x ALTERNATIVE 1B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 1A RURAL FREEWAY Score (13) Score (12) Score (9) Score (8) Score (13) Score (12) Score (14) Score (15) Score (11) Score (10) x Moderate Score (+2) Avenue D and Co 14th St remain as local access, However two parallel roadways located within a ¼ mile with high accessibility may be unreasonable x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x Moderate Score (+2) Avenue D and Co 14th St remain as local access, However two parallel roadways located within a ¼ mile with high accessibility may be unreasonable x Moderate Score (+2) Impacts to Prime Farmland x No Impacts to Air Quality (localized if any) x x Score (12) Score (13) EVALUATION CRITERIA NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3B EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVE 3A RURAL FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE 1D MINOR ARTERIAL ALTERNATIVE 1C PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL High (+1) 9 Limited access points reduce conflict points between vehicles. 9 Vehicle pedestrian interaction is reduced. Safety Low (+3) 9 Driveway and intersection conflicts will exist. 9 Open median will allow left turn conflicts 9 Congestion will add to accidents. 9 No provisions for pedestrians Medium (+2) 9 Driveway and intersection conflicts will exist. 9 Closed median will restrict left turn movements. 9 Conflicts with pedestrians possible. Low (+3) 9 Driveway and intersection conflicts will exist. Closed median will restrict left turn movements. 9 Congestion will add to accidents. 9 Conflicts with pedestrians possible. Cost Minimal (+1) 9 The facility is currently in place the only costs necessary are to maintain the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street. Moderate (+2) 9 Roadway $3,167,000 per mile (excluding right-of-way and major bridges) (including roadway construction and interchanges) 9 124 foot right-of-way through agriculture 9 124 foot right-of-way through residential 9 Two interchanges (I-8 & SR 195) 9 Colorado River Bridge Consistent with City of Yuma Approved Plans No (+2) 9 The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways. 9 The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways No (+2) 9 The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways. 9 The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways Major (+3) 9 Roadway $15,174,000 per mile (excluding right-of-way and major bridges) (including roadway construction and interchanges) 9 300 foot right-of-way through agriculture 9 300 foot right-of-way through residential 9 Five interchanges 9 Two directional interchanges 9 Two Colorado River Bridges No (+2) No (+2) 9 The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and 9 The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways. Co. 14th as Future Expressways. 9 The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies 9 The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies th Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways Ave. D and Co. 14 as Future Expressways Implementation Minimal (+1) 9 No implementation needed. Avenue D and County 14th Street are existing. Minimal (+1) Minimal (+1) 9 Future development adjacent to Co. 14th St and Avenue D 9 Future development adjacent to Co. 14th St and Avenue D to construct half street improvements. to construct half street improvements. 9 Once fully developed or traffic demands require 9 Once fully developed or traffic demands require improvements, local agencies will complete roadway improvements, local agencies will complete roadway improvements along undeveloped Lands. improvements along undeveloped Lands. Major (+3) 9 Freeway would have to be built in large (2 Mile Min) phases/segments. 9 Then state agencies would be required to construct the facility. Moderate (+2) 9 Expressway would have to be built in small phases/segments (1 mile or less). 9 Local agencies would be required to construct facility Right-of-Way Impacts Minimal (+1) 9 No right-of-way required. Avenue D and County 14th Street are existing. Minimal (+1) Moderate (+2) 9 The 124’ foot right-of-way width requirement would require 9 The 100’ foot right-of-way width requirement would require additional land on either side of Avenue D and additional land on either side of Avenue D and County 14th County 14th St. St. 9 However if the land is developed in the distant future the 9 However if the land is developed in the distant future the community could require developers to dedicate the community could require developers to set aside the necessary right-of-way for the half street improvement. necessary right-of-way for the half street improvement. Major (+3) 9 The 300’ foot right-of-way width requirement would create a large footprint through existing agriculture lands and possible future development. 9 However as the land use/development changes in the distant future the local community could begin preserving/acquiring the required right of way, in a variety of ways depending upon the parcel sizes, types of development, and negotiations. 9 Any dedication requirements should be justified by the impacts of the development. Moderate (+2) 9 The 160’ foot right-of-way width requirement would create a large footprint through existing agriculture lands. 9 However as the land use/development changes in the distant future the local community could begin preserving/acquiring the required right of way, in a variety of ways depending upon the parcel sizes, types of development, and negotiations. 9 Any dedication requirements should be justified by the impacts of the development. Benefit to Cross Region Travel Times Low (+3) 9 There are no additional benefits to the region for east/west and north/south transportation High (+1) High (+1) 9 With two lanes in each direction, controlled access, high 9 With three lanes in each direction, limited access, and the existing Avenue D and County 14th Street remaining. speed design, and the existing Avenue D and County The cross region travel times will remain low long into the 14th Street remaining. The cross region travel times will remain low long into the future. future. Colorado River Constraints Minimal (+1) 9 There will not be any impacts to Colorado River. Low (+3) Moderate (+2) 9 With three through lanes in each direction, conflicting turn With two through lanes in each direction, conflicting turn movements, and direct access from adjacent movements, and direct access from adjacent development. The cross region travel times within the development. The cross region travel time within the study study area will significantly increase as additional area will increase as additional development occurs development occurs. Moderate (+2) Moderate (+2) The soils in the Colorado River near the Avenue D 9 The soils in the Colorado River near the Avenue D alignment are typically a silt loam. alignment are typically a silt loam. The Colorado River has water flow year round therefore 9 The Colorado River has water flow year round therefore construction could be affected. construction could be affected. 9 Environmental concerns may affect bridge design and Environmental concerns may affect bridge design and type. type. Moderate (+2) 9 The soils in the Colorado River near the Avenue D alignment are typically a silt loam. 9 The Colorado River has water flow year round therefore construction could be affected. 9 Environmental concerns may affect bridge design and type. Moderate (+2) 9 The soils in the Colorado River near the Avenue D alignment are typically a silt loam. 9 The Colorado River has water flow year round therefore construction could be affected. 9 Environmental concerns may affect bridge design and type. Total Secondary Evaluation Score (Low Score is Preferred) Score (12) Score (13) Score (15) Score (11) High (+1) 9 Access control and grade separated interchanges reduce conflict points between vehicles. 9 Virtually eliminates conflicts with pedestrians Moderate (+2) 9 Roadway $2,837,000 per mile (excluding right-of-way and major bridges) (including roadway construction and interchanges) 9 100 foot right-of-way through agriculture 9 100 foot right-of-way through residential 9 One interchange (I-8) 9 Colorado River Bridge Score (14) Moderate (+2) 9 Roadway $4,002,000 per mile (excluding right-of-way and major bridges) (including roadway construction and interchanges) 9 160 foot right-of-way through agriculture 9 160 foot right-of-way through residential 9 Two Interchanges (I-8 & SR 195) 9 Colorado River Bridge Yes (+1) 9 The 2012 City of Yuma General Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways. 9 The 2005 City of Yuma Major Roadways Plan identifies Ave. D and Co. 14th as Future Expressways  APPENDIXE    E E Yuma Expressway Study Final Report Appendix I – Planning and Environmental Linkages Checklist A-9