Final Report

Transportation
Needs for the
Foothills and
Mesa Del Sol
Areas
Yuma County, AZ

ADOT Planning Assistance for Rural Areas
ADOT Project MPD 14-11(D)

April, 2012

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

2.0

INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________________ 1-1
PROJECT OVERVIEW __________________________________________________________________ 1-1
STUDY FRAMEWORK ___________________________________________________________________ 1-1
STUDY AREA ________________________________________________________________________ 1-5
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT__________________________________________________________ 1-7

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND REPORTS __________________________________ 2-1

2.1 YMPO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, 2010-2033_________________________________________ 2-1
2.1.1 Roadway Element of the YMPO RTP ________________________________________________ 2-1
2.1.2 Transit Development Plan of the YMPO RTP __________________________________________ 2-3
2.1.3 Pedestrian Element of the YMPO RTP _______________________________________________ 2-3
2.1.4 Bicycle Element of the YMPO RTP __________________________________________________ 2-4
2.2 YUMA COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ________________________________________________ 2-4
2.3 FOOTHILLS AREA BACKGROUND STUDY ____________________________________________________ 2-5
2.4 FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP REPORT __________________________________ 2-6
2.5 CITY OF YUMA 2012 GENERAL PLAN _______________________________________________________ 2-6
2.6 JOINT LAND USE PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT ______________________________________ 2-7
2.7 CITY OF YUMA BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN _____________________________________________ 2-8
2.8 YUMA REGIONAL TRANSIT STUDY _________________________________________________________ 2-8
2.9 DRAINAGE FACILITY INVENTORY MEMO, FOOTHILLS MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE __________________ 2-9

3.0

EXISTING CONDITIONS _______________________________________________________ 3-1

3.1 EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN ___________________________________________________________ 3-1
3.2 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE ______________________________________________________ 3-5
3.2.1 Population and Housing __________________________________________________________ 3-5
3.2.2 Employment ___________________________________________________________________ 3-6
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW _____________________________________________________________ 3-8
3.3.1 Physical Conditions overview ______________________________________________________ 3-9
3.3.2 Natural Resource Overview _______________________________________________________ 3-9
3.3.3 Cultural Resource Overview ______________________________________________________ 3-17
3.3.4 Sensitive Issues and/or Features __________________________________________________ 3-17
3.4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM _____________________________________________________ 3-24
3.4.1 Yuma County Transportation Elements _____________________________________________ 3-24
3.4.2 Study Area Roadway Network ____________________________________________________ 3-28
3.4.3 Physical Roadway Elements ______________________________________________________ 3-29
3.4.4 Roadway Network Operational Assessment __________________________________________ 3-39
3.5 SAFETY ASSESSMENT_________________________________________________________________ 3-56
3.6 CROSSINGS OF FORTUNA WASH DRAINAGE NETWORK ________________________________________ 3-64
3.7 ALTERNATIVE MODAL ELEMENTS ________________________________________________________ 3-67
3.7.1 Transit Service ________________________________________________________________ 3-67
3.7.2 Pedestrian Accommodations______________________________________________________ 3-72
3.7.3 Bicycle Facilities _______________________________________________________________ 3-72
3.8 FREIGHT SERVICES ___________________________________________________________________ 3-73
3.8.1 Trucking _____________________________________________________________________ 3-73
3.8.2 Rail Freight ___________________________________________________________________ 3-73

4.0

COMMITTED AND PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ___________________ 4-1

4.1 CONTEXT ___________________________________________________________________________ 4-1
4.2 FUNDING PROGRAMS __________________________________________________________________ 4-1
4.2.1 ADOT State Transportation Improvement Program _____________________________________ 4-1
4.2.2 YMPO Transportation Improvement Program __________________________________________ 4-2

Page | i
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
4.2.3 Yuma County Transportation Capital Improvement Projects ______________________________ 4-2
4.3 BASE FUTURE ROADWAY NETWORK _______________________________________________________ 4-3

5.0

FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS ___________________________________________ 5-1

5.1 FUTURE LAND USE PATTERNS ___________________________________________________________ 5-1
5.2 AREA GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS ___________________________________________________________ 5-5
5.2.1 Travel Demand Modeling Methodolgy ________________________________________________ 5-6
5.2.2 Model Forecasting Inputs _________________________________________________________ 5-6
5.3 FUTURE ROADWAY FACILITIES __________________________________________________________ 5-12
5.3.1 Functional Classification of the Roadway Network _____________________________________ 5-12
5.3.2 Years 2020, 2030, and Buildout Existing-Plus-Committed Roadway Network ________________ 5-12
5.4 TRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION POTENTIAL __________________________________________________ 5-12
5.4.1 Forecast Demand ______________________________________________________________ 5-13
5.4.2 Proposed Service Improvements __________________________________________________ 5-13
5.5 PROPOSED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ____________________________________________ 5-15
5.5.1 Pedestrian Accommodations______________________________________________________ 5-15
5.5.2 Bicycle Accommodations ________________________________________________________ 5-15
5.6 TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________ 5-16
5.6.1 Year 2020 Traffic Forecasts & Network Performance ___________________________________ 5-16
5.6.2 Year 2030 Traffic Forecasts & Network Performance ___________________________________ 5-21
5.6.3 Buildout Traffic Forecasts & Network Performance_____________________________________ 5-25
5.7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS_______________________________________________________ 5-35

6.0

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE _______________________________________________ 6-1

6.1 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES____________________________________________________________ 6-1
6.1.1 Alternative A: Buildout Conditions – Existing + Committed (E+C) Network with
Limited Additional Network Connectivity______________________________________________ 6-5
6.1.2 Alternative B: Buildout Conditions Augmented with Proposed County Improvements __________ 6-11
6.1.3 Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 1 ___________________________________________ 6-17
6.1.4 Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 2 ___________________________________________ 6-23
6.1.5 Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 3 ___________________________________________ 6-29
6.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES__________________________________________________________ 6-35
6.2.1 Summary of Operational Statistics _________________________________________________ 6-35
6.2.2 Evaluation Framework___________________________________________________________ 6-36
6.2.3 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix _____________________________________________________ 6-36

7.0

RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS_____________________________ 7-1

7.1 ROADWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS ______________________________________________________ 7-1
7.1.1 Year 2030 Roadway Network Improvements __________________________________________ 7-1
7.1.2 Buildout Network Improvements ____________________________________________________ 7-5
7.2 PERFORMANCE OF THE YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT ROADWAY NETWORKS ___________________________ 7-9
7.2.1 Year 2030 Recommended Improvements _____________________________________________ 7-9
7.2.2 Buildout Conditions: Alternative 1 Improvements _______________________________________ 7-9
7.2.3 South Foothills Boulevard traffic signal phasing at I-8 Eastbound Off-Ramp and I-8 South
Frontage Road _________________________________________________________________ 7-9
7.3 RECOMMENDED INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS __________________________________________________ 7-20
7.3.1 Near-Term Improvements (5-Year Timeframe) ________________________________________ 7-20
7.3.2 Mid-Term Improvements (10-Year Timeframe) ________________________________________ 7-20
7.4 RECOMMENDED PUBLIC TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ____________________________________________ 7-21
7.4.1 Fixed-Route Public Transit Service _________________________________________________ 7-21
7.4.2 YCAT Short-Range Transit Plan ___________________________________________________ 7-21
7.4.3 Long-Range Transit Plan ________________________________________________________ 7-21
7.4.4 Yuma Regional Transit Study _____________________________________________________ 7-23

Page | ii
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
7.4.5 Recommended Public Transit Service Network _______________________________________ 7-24
7.5 RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ________________________________________ 7-26
7.5.1 Improvements to Pedestrian Environment ___________________________________________ 7-26
7.5.2 Bicycle Facilities _______________________________________________________________ 7-27
7.5.3 Accommodations for Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel ____________________________________ 7-29

8.0

8.1
8.2

9.0

PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ____________________ 8-1

DERIVATION OF PLANNING-LEVEL COST COMPONENTS _________________________________________ 8-1
YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS ___________________________________________ 8-1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT _______________________________________________________ 9-1

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A –

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST FOR
YUMA COUNTY

APPENDIX B –

DETAILED CRASH DATA FOR KEY ROADWAY SEGMENTS

APPENDIX C –

PROJECTED FUTURE GROWTH PATTERNS

APPENDIX D –

YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH
RECOMMENDED IMPROVMENTS

APPENDIX E –

SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

APPENDIX F –

DETAILED PPLANNNING LEVEL COST CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX G –

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT

Page | iii
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 VICINITY MAP............................................................................................................................................ 1-3
FIGURE 1.2 STUDY AREA: FOOTHILLS AND MESA DEL SOL AREAS ................................................................................ 1-6
FIGURE 2.1 YMPO RTP RECOMMENDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE STUDY AREA ......................................... 2-2
FIGURE 2.2 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: YUMA COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................................... 2-5
FIGURE 3.1 GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN ............................................................................................. 3-3
FIGURE 3.2 STUDY AREA WILDLIFE LINKAGES ............................................................................................................ 3-12
FIGURE 3.3 FLOODPLAIN AREAS ................................................................................................................................ 3-15
FIGURE 3.4 TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE & RECREATIONAL RESOURCES......................................................................... 3-19
FIGURE 3.5 LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................................... 3-22
FIGURE 3.6 STUDY AREA RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................ 3-25
FIGURE 3.7 STUDY AREA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................... 3-27
FIGURE 3.8 STUDY AREA MAJOR ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ................................................................. 3-31
FIGURE 3.9 EXISTING PRIMARY ROADWAY NETWORK TRAVEL LANES ......................................................................... 3-33
FIGURE 3.10 ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS ................................................................... 3-37
FIGURE 3.11 2009 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON SELECTED STUDY AREA ROADWAY SEGMENTS........................................... 3-41
FIGURE 3.12 PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION COUNTS AT SELECTED KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011 ................. 3-43
FIGURE 3.13 LANE GEOMETRIES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011 ..................... 3-49
FIGURE 3.14 STUDY AREA CRASHES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2010 ................................................................................. 3-57
FIGURE 3.15 STUDY AREA CRASH LOCATIONS: AUGUST 2005 THROUGH AUGUST 2010 ............................................. 3-59
FIGURE 3.16 STUDY AREA CRASH CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN 2005 AND 2010 ........................................................ 3-61
FIGURE 3.17 ROADWAY CROSSINGS OF FORTUNA WASH DRAINAGE NETWORK .......................................................... 3-65
FIGURE 3.18 ORANGE AND GOLD ROUTES, YUMA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT (YCAT) ..................................................... 3-69
FIGURE 4.1 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: YEAR 2020 NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES ................... 4-5
FIGURE 4.2 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: YEAR 2030 NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES ................... 4-6
FIGURE 4.3 EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: BUILDOUT NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES ..................... 4-7
FIGURE 5.1 PROPOSED STUDY AREA LAND USE PATTERN ........................................................................................... 5-3
FIGURE 5.2 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES AND PLANNED LAND USE ................................................................... 5-7
FIGURE 5.3 PLANNED FUTURE FOOTHILLS CIRCULATOR ROUTES ............................................................................... 5-14
FIGURE 5.4 PLANNED FUTURE MESA DEL SOL CIRCULATOR ROUTES ......................................................................... 5-14
FIGURE 5.5 STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: YEAR 2020 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................ 5-19
FIGURE 5.6 STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2020 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK .................................... 5-20
FIGURE 5.7 STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: YEAR 2030 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................ 5-23
FIGURE 5.8 STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2030 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK .................................... 5-24
FIGURE 5.9 STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK .............................................. 5-27
FIGURE 5.10 STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK .................................... 5-28
FIGURE 5.11 PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENTS: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK ......................... 5-30
FIGURE 6.1 ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL
CONNECTIVITY – NUMBER OF LANES ................................................................................................................... 6-7
FIGURE 6.2 ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL
CONNECTIVITY – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................ 6-8
FIGURE 6.3 ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL
CONNECTIVITY – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................ 6-9
FIGURE 6.4 ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – NUMBER
OF LANES......................................................................................................................................................... 6-13
FIGURE 6.5 ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – FORECAST
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................. 6-14
FIGURE 6.6 ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – ROADWAY
SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................... 6-15
FIGURE 6.7 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – NUMBER OF LANES ................................................ 6-19

Page | iv
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.8 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................... 6-20
FIGURE 6.9 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................. 6-21
FIGURE 6.10 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – NUMBER OF LANES .............................................. 6-25
FIGURE 6.11 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................... 6-26
FIGURE 6.12 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................. 6-27
FIGURE 6.13 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – NUMBER OF LANES .............................................. 6-31
FIGURE 6.14 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................... 6-32
FIGURE 6.15 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................. 6-33
FIGURE 7.1 YEAR 2030 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................. 7-3
FIGURE 7.2 RECOMMENDED BUILDOUT IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 7-7
FIGURE 7.3 LOCATION OF INTERSECTIONS SELECTED FOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT
ROADWAY NETWORKS ...................................................................................................................................... 7-10
FIGURE 7.4 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT ..... 7-11
FIGURE 7.5 RECOMMENDED SIGNAL PHASING OF I-8 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AT SOUTH
FOOTHILLS BOULEVARD ................................................................................................................................... 7-19
FIGURE 7.6 PLANNED YCAT FOOTHILLS CIRCULATOR ROUTES .................................................................................. 7-22
FIGURE 7.7 PLANNED YCAT MESA DEL SOL CIRCULATOR ROUTES ............................................................................ 7-22
FIGURE 7.8 FUTURE NEAR- TO MID-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATION ........................................................ 7-25
FIGURE 7.9 PLANNED STUDY AREA BICYCLE FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 7-28
FIGURE 7.10 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES YEAR 2030 ................................................................................... 7-31
FIGURE 7.11 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES FOR BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1 ................................ 7-32
FIGURE 7.12 ALTERNATIVE ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION 1 ........................................................................................... 7-33
FIGURE 7.13 ALTERNATIVE ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION 2 ........................................................................................... 7-33

Page | v
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 FOOTHILLS POPULATION PROFILE ............................................................................................................... 3-5
TABLE 3.2 FOOTHILLS HOUSEHOLD PROFILE................................................................................................................ 3-6
TABLE 3.3 MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................ 3-7
TABLE 3.4 MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................ 3-8
TABLE 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATION GROUPS BY CENSUS TRACT.......................................................... 3-26
TABLE 3.6 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CAPACITIES ................................................................................................. 3-47
TABLE 3.7 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS .......................................................................................... 3-47
TABLE 3.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ................................................................................. 3-48
TABLE 3.9 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ............................................................................. 3-48
TABLE 3.10 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................... 3-53
TABLE 3.11 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................... 3-55
TABLE 3.12 SUMMARY OF CRASH DATA FOR KEY ROADWAY SEGMENTS ..................................................................... 3-62
TABLE 3.13 CRASH RATES FOR KEY ROADWAY SEGMENTS ........................................................................................ 3-64
TABLE 4.1 COMMITTED AND PLANNED TRANSPORTATION-RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ......................... 4-2
TABLE 5.1 LAND USE ACREAGE IN THE FOOTHILLS SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING AREA: 2001 & DESIGNATED FUTURE
BUILDOUT .......................................................................................................................................................... 5-5
TABLE 5.2 DERIVATION OF THE ESTIMATE OF BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 5-10
TABLE 5.3 COMPARISON OF 2011, 2020, 2030, AND BUILDOUT ESTIMATES OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE
STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................... 5-11
TABLE 5.4 POPULATION GROWTH AND TRANSIT DEMAND FORECAST .......................................................................... 5-13
TABLE 5.5 NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2020..................................................................................................... 5-17
TABLE 5.6 NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2030 E+C ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................................ 5-22
TABLE 5.7 NETWORK PERFORMANCE: BUILDOUT E+C ROADWAY NETWORK .............................................................. 5-26
TABLE 5.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: BUILDOUT E+C ROADWAY NETWORK ....... 5-33
TABLE 5.9 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: BUILDOUT E+C ROADWAY NETWORK ... 5-34
TABLE 6.1 COMPARISON OF BUILDOUT IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES TO EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ...................... 6-3
TABLE 6.2 PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVES ........................................... 6-35
TABLE 6.3 EVALUATION OF BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 6-38
TABLE 7.1 ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ........................................................................................... 7-20
TABLE 8.1 DERIVATION OF PLANNING-LEVEL COST ...................................................................................................... 8-1
TABLE 8.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT COSTS................................................................................... 8-2

Page | vi
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

INTRODUCTION

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the contents of this report and the framework
within which information and data are presented.

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Transportation Needs Study (Study) is a planning effort undertaken cooperatively
by Yuma County and the Multimodal Planning Division (MPD) of the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT). It has been funded and supported through the
Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program of ADOT. The Study addresses
the needs of multiple jurisdictions, as well as the needs of neighborhoods within these
jurisdictions. It encompasses a mix of uses within developed and undeveloped zoning
areas of the Mesa Del Sol and Foothills areas, which are located as shown in
Figure 1.1.

1.2 STUDY FRAMEWORK
Based on the most recent Census data available for 2010, the study area has a
year-round population of approximately 26,000 persons. Given the large stock of
vacant homes reported in the Census, the study area population increases to 47,000
persons with the influx of seasonal residents – winter visitors – during the months of
October through April. This increase in the study area population does not account for
other winter visitors that may come for just a few days or several weeks to escape the
colder climates. The Yuma Visitors Bureau web site reports the Yuma metropolitan
area has “more than 23,000 spots in RV parks and resorts and nearly 4,000 hotel
rooms.” Therefore, the potential exists for the study area to have a resident population
(permanent and temporary) between October and April approaching or exceeding
60,000 persons.
The seasonal addition to the resident population impacts the existing road network,
study area intersections, as well as Interstate 8 (I-8) interchanges at South Fortuna
Road and South Foothills Boulevard. This report identifies potential roadway and
multimodal improvement requirements to meet the growing population and changing
land uses, improve mobility and safety, and encourage sensible and sustainable
development that supports the current and projected land uses in the General Plan.
Attention also has been given to future crossings of major drainage features and
relevant flood control measures. The principal focus of this report is to address the
most critical transportation planning needs identified by Yuma County and by the ADOT
Yuma Engineering District Office
The feasibility of funding and implementing needed improvements has been assessed
over five-, ten-, and twenty-year periods, as well as potential Buildout of the study area.
“Buildout” refers to the condition of full utilization of developable land and is considered
to be likely post-2030. Buildout conditions are defined in terms of future population and
employment expected to be located within each transportation analysis zone (TAZ),
based on planned or zoned densities. Thus, it principally is an estimate of the potential
development far into the future, and decisions may be made that change the current
planning or zoning criteria.
Page | 1-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 1-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 1.1
VICINITY MAP

Page | 1-3
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 1-4
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
This Final Report contains a refined Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan with
recommended projects to address the ultimate Buildout of the area as well as the five-,
ten-, and twenty-year planning horizons. The Plan encompasses local roads, as well as
opportunities for developing alternate modes of travel, such as transit services,
pedestrian paths, and bicycle routes.
An extensive public participation program was undertaken as part of this Study. Input
and feedback obtained through this program has allowed Yuma County and ADOT to
actively incorporate local priorities into the Plan and identify an appropriate program for
improvements. It is anticipated that extensive public participation in the planning
process will result in more support from the community for funding transportation
improvements.

1.3 STUDY AREA
The study area encompasses 20 square miles approximately 11 miles east of
downtown Yuma (Figure 1.2). It is bounded by East 28th Street/East County 10th Street
on the north (one mile north of I-8), South Avenue 15E on the east,
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street on the south (three miles south of I-8), and
South Avenue 10E on the west. South Avenue 10E is the eastern boundary of the City
of Yuma.
Between South Avenue 10E and South Foothills Boulevard, the vast majority of
development is located within one mile north and south of I-8, except for a small portion
that drops one mile below East 40th Street/East County 12th Street between
South Hunter Avenue and South Foothills Boulevard. This area includes, among
others: The Seasons RV Village, Los Amigos, Fortuna Heights, Mountain View,
Mountain Shadows, Mountain Vista Estates, Daybreak, Mesa Del Sol, Sienna at Mesa
Del Sol, Villa Chaparral, Yuma Meadows, Yuma East Estates, Oasis Del Este, The
Villas, Yuma East, Sierra Ridge Unit, and The Foothills.
The study area east of South Foothills Boulevard, extends south of I-8 three miles to
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street and one mile north of I-8 to Fortuna
Drive/East County 10th Street. This portion of the study area includes: Fortuna Hills,
Foothills North, Foothills Mountain Estates, Desert Foothills Estates, Foothills Country
Club Estates, Vista Montana, Arroyo De Fortuna, Las Barrancas, and Foothills Mobile
Estates. Fortuna Wash is an important physical feature in this portion of the study area,
running south to north, ultimately merging with the Gila River approximately four miles
north of the study area.
I-8, which is maintained by ADOT, is a high-capacity freeway facility supporting
east-west through and local travel within the study area. I-8 has been developed with
frontage roads, which facilitates access to commercial development and residential
communities abutting this segment of the National Highway System (NHS). The
freeway frontage roads, which are maintained by Yuma County, provide access to
fronting parcels and support local east and west travel within the study area. There are
two I-8 interchanges in the study area providing regional access. One is located at
South Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E); the other is located at South Foothills
Boulevard (South Avenue 13E). Although not in the study area, US 95, located two
Page | 1-5
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 1.2
STUDY AREA: FOOTHILLS AND MESA DEL SOL AREAS

Page | 1-6
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
miles north of I-8 and accessed via South Fortuna Road, provides a viable alternative
for east-west travel between the study area and the City of Yuma (refer to Figure 1.1).

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
This Final Report presents information regarding the general social, physical,
multi-modal transportation, and environmental conditions of the study area, including
information relating to special topics of interest to the County and ADOT. In addition, it
presents an evaluation of the highway network, identifying current mobility deficiencies
and establishing the basis for determining future transportation needs. It also presents
an evaluation of alternative improvement plans developed to resolve transportation
network deficiencies. These alternatives are defined by specific projects and strategies
associated with both roadway and non-motorized modes of travel to address
deficiencies and special transportation needs of the study area. Ultimately, this
foundational information and data provides the basis for a program of capital
improvement projects to be implemented during the next 20 years.

Page | 1-7
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Page | 1-8
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

RELATED STUDIES AND
REPORTS

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

2.0 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND REPORTS
Previous transportation, community, and regional planning efforts have been directed at
developing a roadway network to efficiently, effectively, and safely accommodate future
travel demand in the study area. Summaries of recent and relevant studies and reports
reviewed and considered during conduct of this study are presented in this chapter.

2.1 YMPO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, 2010-2033
(April, 2010)

The Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) serves as a coordinating body
for local, state, and federal agencies on traffic, transportation, air quality conformity, and
related issues in Yuma County. The primary study area for the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) covers 5,522 square miles in the southwestern portion of Yuma County and
includes: the Cities of Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis; the Town of Wellton; the
Cocopah Indian Tribe; and several unincorporated communities. The Foothills and
Mesa Del Sol areas are part of the RTP study area.
The YMPO RTP, 2010-2033 is a multi-modal plan that prioritizes investments in public
transportation, bicycling, and walking to promote health, environmental quality, and
mobility for those who do not have access to cars. The 2010-2033 RTP builds upon the
findings and conclusions of the 2006-2029 RTP. An important goal of the RTP is to
satisfy “…the need to develop a regional plan that is environmentally sensitive, reduces
greenhouse gases, and incorporates the latest technology to maximize the investment
in the region.”
The 2010-2033 RTP documents the modeling process employed to assess
transportation system conditions, including identifying the existing and future conditions
forming the basis of the travel forecasting model and the RTP. Existing and future
conditions documented in the RTP includes:
socio-economic data, travel
characteristics, functional classification, truck routes, traffic volumes, and
volume-to-capacity ratios for study area roadways. The RTP addresses four elements
of the regional transportation system: Roadways, Transit services, Pedestrians, and
Bicycles.
2.1.1 ROADWAY ELEMENT OF THE YMPO RTP
The Roadway Element notes: “Despite the current economic conditions, population and
employment growth will continue and it is important that improvements to the roadway
system accommodate that growth at an acceptable level of service.” The Roadway
Element includes maps showing proposed improvements for five implementation
periods between 2010 and 2033. Excerpts from these maps showing proposed
improvements in the study area are presented in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 reflects the
combination of projects included in the 2033 Base Roadway Network and additional
projects, addressing “…capacity needs, mobility, and grid continuity not met by the 2033
base network within the financial constraints of the RTP.” The Roadway Element

2-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 2.1
YMPO RTP RECOMMENDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE STUDY AREA

2-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
includes a variety of projects with associated estimated costs, including: widening
streets, new street construction, new interchanges, and reconstruction of existing
interchanges and intersections. The RTP notes: “Although the project list is presented
in five-year periods, from a revenue standpoint, only the first five-year period is typically
described as programmed and the anticipated revenues are more reliable. Beyond the
first five years, the revenue is less predictable and priorities can change.” Proposed
improvements specifically relevant to this study are cited below:
Four lanes on East 40th Street/East County 12th Street from South Fortuna
Road to South Avenue 15E; and
Four lane expressway on East 56th Street/East County 14th Street from SR 195
to South Foothills Blvd.
2.1.2 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE YMPO RTP
This document, adopted by the Executive Board in May 2003, is a resource outlining a
plan for future transit use throughout Yuma County. An updated version of the regional
Transit Element is incorporated in the 2010-2033 RTP. The Transit Element consists of
a Short-Range Plan, Vehicle Replacement Schedule, Long-Range Plan, and an
analysis of revenue requirements and sources. In addition to recommendations for
improving management and coordination, the Short-Range Plan calls for increased
service frequency on seven existing routes and nine new Local Circulator routes, four of
which would serve the Fortuna Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas. Additional detail
regarding this planned service expansion is presented in Section 6.4.
Service improvements will be dependent on the availability of funding. The Plan also
includes recommendations for the purchase of ten new buses, two vans for paratransit
service, and landscaping and amenity improvements at the Yuma Palms Shopping
Center Transit Center. The ultimate goal is to develop a multi-modal transit service
facility more centrally located.
The Long-Range Transit Plan recognizes the fixed-route bus service will remain the
backbone of the Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) system. This Plan proposes
expansion of the system to include a full range of express, local, cross-town, and
neighborhood circulator service. New routes and reconfiguration of the system to
improve connectivity is the long-term goal. Improvements to paratransit services and
adoption of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), such Automatic Vehicle Location
(AVL), signal priority systems, and “Smart Card” fare collection systems, are
contemplated improvements. Planned capital improvements include: acquisition of
rights-of-way for bus pullouts and stop amenities; and development of park-and-ride
(P&R) lots, intermodal transit hubs, queue jumper lanes, and new maintenance
facilities.
2.1.3 PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT OF THE YMPO RTP
The Pedestrian Element establishes guidance for development of a safe and effective
environment for pedestrians. This guidance includes recommendations to: upgrade
pedestrian facilities on major and minor arterials, coordinate pedestrian facilities with
transit services, establish Safe Routes to School (SRTS), and assure access in
2-3
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Guide for the Planning,
Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, published by the American Association
of State Highway and Planning Officials (AASHTO), is cited as a key resource.
2.1.4 BICYCLE ELEMENT OF THE YMPO RTP
The Bicycle Element contemplates a system of linear facilities and nodes that will:
(1) improve accessibility for bicyclists to regional destination points within the YMPO
jurisdiction area; (2) increase bicycle use within the YMPO region through recognition
and awareness; and (3) improve non-motorized use and safety within the YMPO region.
The Bicycle Element recommends additional bicycle facilities that build on existing
YMPO plans, the City of Yuma Bicycle Facilities Plan, and the City of Somerton
Shared-Use Pathway and Trails Master Plan.

2.2 YUMA COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(December, 2001; Updated July, 2006)
This Plan has been developed in response to Arizona’s Growing Smarter Act and
Growing Smarter Plus. Under Growing Smarter Plus, each Arizona county must
prepare and adopt a ten-year comprehensive plan. The Plan is intended to "accomplish
a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the area of jurisdiction."
Specifically, such a Plan is formulated to provide guidelines for future land use
development. The Circulation Element of the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
states “…the capacity and level of service of the existing transportation network must be
enhanced.” It provides an overview of past actions to improve transportation in the
County. With respect to future investments in the transportation system, the Circulation
Element notes that “…existing transportation plans address and prioritize projects.”
Still, seven critical issues are highlighted for attention. Two of these issues apply
directly to this study: (1) improving access and traffic flow to/from the Foothills, and
(2) protection for visual corridors.
The first issue draws attention to the “…increased housing and commercial
development in the Foothills…’ that has resulted in “…more congestion and a general
reduction in the level of service of roads.” Extension of East 56th Street/ East
County 14th Street to the west is proposed to relieve congestion (Figure 2.2). This
extension would tie into SR 195, which also is referenced as Area Service Highway
(ASH). SR 195 consists of Juan Sanchez Boulevard/West County 23rd Street South
and Araby Road. The highway, constructed along the western edge of the Barry M.
Goldwater Range, currently provides a direct link between I-8 and four destinations in
southwest Yuma County: City of San Luis; City of San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora,
Mexico; San Luis I Land Port of Entry (LPOE) in the City of San Luis; and San Luis II
LPOE, five miles east of the city. Ultimately, the plan is to continue approximately
1.5 miles north of I-8 to connect with US 95. The second issue focuses on preserving
the rural character of sensitive areas and “resource lands.” Potential impacts on the
aesthetic qualities of Fortuna Wash and views of the Gila Mountains located directly
east of the study area are particularly relevant to this study. Visual corridors have been
designated and guidelines are being developed to aid in protecting sensitive resources.
2-4
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 2.2
PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: YUMA COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

2.3 FOOTHILLS AREA BACKGROUND STUDY
(November, 2006)
This study was completed in 2006 to assist in the updating of the Yuma County 2010
Comprehensive Plan. It details current conditions of the planning area and how the
area has changed in the past five years. This document is a valuable source of
information regarding:
topography; soils; community facilities; transportation;
demographics; housing; and land ownership.
The study highlights two major
transportation improvement projects scheduled for the Foothills Planning Area:
widening the North and South Frontage Roads of I-8 between South Avenue 9E and
South Foothills Blvd; and extension of East 56th Street/East County 14th Street from
South Avenue 7E to South Foothills Blvd. The latter project is of particular significance,
as it will be an entirely new route linking the Foothills with the City of Yuma. As such, it
will be an alternate route to I-8 for travel between the two areas. (Refer to Section 2.2,
Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan above).

2-5
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

2.4 FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP
REPORT
(September, 2007)
This report, like the Foothills Area Background Study, specifically was created to
support the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan update process. The activities of
the Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) followed publication of the Foothills Area Background
Study (November, 2006), summarized above. The CAG was formed to review the
Comprehensive Plan and provide information and comments regarding matters of
interest to the residents and businesses in the Foothills Planning Area. With respect to
the review of transportation issues, the CAG “…overwhelmingly identified…” extension
of East 40th Street/East County 12th Street westward to connect with South Avenue 8E
in the City of Yuma as the most important transportation need. This extension would
create better connectivity between the Foothills area and the City of Yuma, offering a
realistic alternative to I-8 as an east-west facility. The group also recommended
“…development of a network of multi-use paths separate from roadways in the
Foothills.”
The CAG recommended 20 changes to the Goals, Policies, and Objectives outlined in
the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. During this review, several areas were
discussed that are particularly pertinent to and have ramifications for traffic operations
and transportation needs in the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas:
Reduce traffic congestion;
Improve the timing of traffic signals;
Improve public transportation in the Foothills with handicapped accessible
facilities;
Expansion of commercial zoning beyond South Fortuna Road, South Foothills
Boulevard, and the I-8 Frontage Roads;
Lower density residential development; and
Limit development to small businesses.
The first three directly address the transportation system, its performance, and mobility
provided by it. The latter three can influence the effectiveness of a transportation
system by altering travel demand.

2.5 CITY OF YUMA 2012 GENERAL PLAN
(Draft, February 1, 2011)
This Plan was developed in response to Arizona’s Growing Smarter Act and Growing
Smarter Plus. Under Growing Smarter Plus, each Arizona municipal jurisdiction must
prepare and adopt a ten-year General Plan. The City of Yuma eastern city limit is South
Avenue 10E, which is the western limit of the study area adopted for this study of
transportation needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas. Therefore, the Plan’s
contents are relevant to this study, particularly the Transportation Element. The
Transportation Element establishes “…a coordinated multi-modal system designed to
work with the locations of homes, businesses, and other land uses.” The Transportation
Element:
2-6
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
(1) provides information regarding the existing transportation system;
(2) presents an analysis and evaluation of proposed facility types and locations;
(3) sets forth goals, objectives, and policies to guide development of a
coordinated, safe, and interrelated transportation system; and
(4) establishes a phased action plan.
The Transportation Element addresses existing and desired future conditions relating
to: major roadways, public transit, bicycling, air travel, and railroad operations.
The Growth Areas Element identifies the Araby Road and Interstate 8 area as being
focused on I-8, the new SR 195, East 32nd Street, and East 24th Street. I-8, SR 195,
and East 32nd Street are designated as “Gateway Routes.” It is noted that as growth
and development continue in this area, additional capacity will be required on east-west
facilities. Activity in this growth area is particularly attractive to persons in the Foothills
area, and the Plan anticipates there will be a significant amount of regional through
traffic in the future. Specific to this matter, East 40th Street/East County 12th Street
between South Avenue 3½ E and South Fortuna Road is highlighted as a Principal
Arterial with the implication that this roadway will need to be improved in the future.

2.6 JOINT LAND USE PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
(September 1996; Revised February 2007)
This document represents the combined efforts of the City of Yuma and Yuma County.
The objective of the Joint Land Use Plan is to:
Create a common “blue print” of land uses and land use development policies for
future economic growth and development of lands within the incorporated area of
the City of Yuma and the unincorporated areas around the City; and
Establish a foundation for (1) achieving compatible land use activities in the
vicinity of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) – Yuma and Yuma International
Airport, and (2) protecting the primary economic assets of the area – agriculture,
the MCAS, and tourism.
The Plan, which is comprised of a land use map to guide planning commissioners and
elected officials in their deliberations on development opportunities and zoning actions,
amends the respective City and County General Plans. The map identifies various
types of land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) anticipated in the future and
establishes corresponding general development intensities and population densities. It
also includes policies to further goals and objectives and presents an Implementation
Plan.
The Plan recognizes that “recent urban development in the eastern part of the planning
area has occurred along the major transportation corridors, particularly Interstate 8.
This is also the location identified in public involvement activities and discussions with
City and County staff as a promising area for new development.” This Plan provides
information regarding land uses directly west of South Avenue 10 E, the western
boundary of the study area defined for this current study.
2-7
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

2.7 CITY OF YUMA BICYCLE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
(April 1, 2009)
This Master Plan is an update of the 1995 Bicycle Element of the City’s General Plan.
The documents provides an overview of existing bicycle facilities in the City, outlines
facilities and programs for improvements, establishes phased goals to effect
implementation of the Master Plan, and establishes design standards for future bicycle
facilities. This Master Plan is one of the starting points for the YMPO Regional Bicycle
Element, as discussed above. The existing City system of bicycle facilities consists of
44 miles of routes, lanes, paths, and multi-use paths. Today, there are bike paths along
several local streets directly west of the study area between South Avenue 9E and
South Avenue 10E.
As defined by the Plan, a Bike Path is a facility physically separated from motorized
traffic for used by bicyclists. A Bike Path exists along South Avenue 10E (the western
boundary of the study area) between East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street.
This Bike Path continues west on
East 48th Street to South Avenue 8E. A Bike Lane is defined by a portion of a roadway
designated for bicycle use by striping, signing, and pavement markings. There is an
existing Bike Lane along one-quarter of a mile of East 28th Street west of South
Avenue 10E. It provides access from the study area to Sunrise Elementary School and
Ron Watson Middle School. The City’s Master Plan proposes that a Bike Lane be
established along South Avenue 10 E between East 48th Street and East 24th Street.
Bike Lanes connecting South Avenue 10E with South Avenue 9E are proposed on
East 28th Street and East 40th Street.

2.8 YUMA REGIONAL TRANSIT STUDY
(Ongoing, August, 2011)
The Yuma Regional Transit Study was undertaken to identify transit needs in the
southwestern portion of Yuma County, which is the primary location of the County’s
population centers. This Study resulted in a recommended transit system and an
Implementation Plan. The planning horizon for the study is ten (10) years. It
established the principal administrative and operating framework for the Yuma County
Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (YCIPTA), which was formed by the
Yuma County Board of Supervisors under Resolution No. 10-52, adopted December 13,
2010. Prior to formation of the YCIPTA, the YMPO had assumed operation and
administration of the Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) system and the Dial-A-Ride
(DAR) service.
This Study provides a comprehensive assessment of current conditions associated with
the transit system operations in the Greater Yuma Area, which includes the study area.
The assessment of current conditions includes an on-board survey and community
survey to determine the use and demand for transit services. Based on an analysis of
projected future conditions, goals and objectives were identified and at least three
transit service development scenarios were formulated. Thorough analysis of potential
future operating and administrative scenarios were relied on to formulate an
Implementation Plan that permitted the YMPO to turn the transit system over to the
2-8
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
YCIPTA in 2011. Once YCIPTA receives grantee status, it will become an autonomous
board; at the current time, the authority operates as a subsidiary organization of the
YMPO. Grantee status is expected to be gained in June/July 2012.

2.9 DRAINAGE FACILITY INVENTORY MEMO, FOOTHILLS MASTER
DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE
(August 2011)
An update of the Foothills Master Drainage Plan is underway. The Drainage Facility
Inventory Memo provides a detailed record of existing drainage facilities. This inventory
includes the name, location, dimension, capacity, and condition of each major drainage
facility. As the update proceeds, the flow conveyance and estimated hydraulic capacity
of inventoried facilities within the Foothills will be assessed. The results of this
assessment will be useful in evaluating the potential impacts of roadway improvements
on drainage and designing crossings that will minimize occurrences of flooding both
upstream and downstream. This information will be particularly valuable in the
development of future all-weather crossings of Fortuna Wash.

2-9
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2-10
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and other available plans and studies
contain substantial information regarding the existing conditions and characteristics of
the Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area within which lies the whole of the Foothills
and Mesa Del Sol study area. This information has been reviewed by the officials and
citizens of the County and the sub-regional planning area. Therefore, the documents
provide a credible source for understanding the current make-up of social, economic,
physical, and environmental facets of the study area. This chapter presents a
discussion of existing conditions in the study area, as available from available sources,
augmented with additional detail specific to the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas
through field surveys and Internet research.

3.1 EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN
Figure 3.1 illustrates the generalized existing land use in the study area, based on an
assessment of aerial photography currently available on the Internet. The pattern
clearly shows a dominance of residential land uses throughout the study area. There
are more than 5,000 acres of developed residential land, representing approximately
40 percent of the study area’s 12,800 acres. Some open space areas are included in
this estimate, particularly the golf course at the Mesa Del Sol Golf Club and the Foothills
Golf Course and Foothills Par 3 Golf Course, which are integrated with area housing.
Commercial land uses are concentrated around the I-8/South Fortuna Road Traffic
Interchange, along South Fortuna Road south of this interchange to
East 40th Street/East 12th Street, and the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and South Foothills Boulevard, extending north
along South Foothills Boulevard to East 34th Street. There are a number of separated,
independent areas of commercial development along the I-8 South Frontage Road and
a couple of sites on the I-8 North Frontage Road. Some other commercial areas are
scattered around the study area, the largest and most notable of these being along
East 44th Street at South Foothills Boulevard and south along South Foothills
Boulevard.
The only notable industrial land use in the study area is the quarry located east of South
Avenue 14½E and south of East 29th Street at the base of the North Gila Mountains. A
few small industrial-type land uses (principally water supply sites) are scattered around
the study area.
The area north of East County 10½ Street/Masterson Avenue and east of South
Foothills Boulevard is open space associated with the Fortuna Wash floodplain.
Another large area of open space/undeveloped land is bounded by Fortuna Wash on
the west, I-8 on the North, South Avenue 15E on the east, and East 48th Street/East
County 13th Street on the south. The southwest portion of the study area – south of
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and west of South Foothills Boulevard –
remains largely undeveloped. There is other undeveloped land scattered around the
study area, some of which are one-quarter-mile square parcels.
Page | 3-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.1
GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN

Page | 3-3
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-4
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

3.2 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
The Comprehensive Plan provides population and
household profiles for the Foothills Sub-Regional
Planning Area. It is important to note that the data
provided in the Comprehensive Plan has been collected
and reported using US Census Bureau sources for the
Fortuna Foothills Census-Designated Place (CDP). The
CDP is a geographic unit that roughly corresponds to the
Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area; being slightly
larger, as depicted in the graphic at right. Although both
areas are larger than the study area adopted for this
transportation needs study, the study area accounts for
the bulk of all existing development. Because there is
very little development/occupancy of the sub-region
outside the study area, the sub-regional data are
indicative of population and housing characteristics of
the study area.
3.2.1 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Foothills sub-region historically has been a prime
destination for winter visitors, who temporarily occupy
specialized accommodations for travelers, especially recreational vehicles (RVs).
Historically, Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks represented 75% of the
housing in the Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area. However, during the 1990s and
continuing today, there has been a marked increase in the number of permanent
residents occupying site-built homes. For example, the Mesa Del Sol development on
the north side of I-8 between South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard
contains planned, mixed-use housing that includes traditional, site-built apartments,
duplexes, condominiums, and single-family homes.
In addition, the area has
experienced an increase in commercial activities providing supportive goods and
services. This growth trend is expected to continue. A profile of the population is
shown in Table 3.1.
TABLE 3.1
FOOTHILLS POPULATION PROFILE
Information Category
Permanent Residents in 1990:
Permanent Residents in 2000:
Permanent Residents in 2010:
Population Increase 1990 – 2000:
Population Increase 2000 – 2010:
Median Age of Residents in 2000:
Percentage of Fortuna Foothills Residents 65 to 74 Years of Age in 2000:

Reported
Value
7,737
20,478
26,265
165%
28%
62.9 years
28.5%

Source: Information for Fortuna Foothills Census-Designated Place (FFCDP) provided in the Yuma County 2010
Comprehensive Plan supplemented with 2010 Census results, as available.

Page | 3-5
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
The Year 2010 population reported by the US Census Bureau reflects a growth of
28 percent during the period 2000 – 2010, which represents a significant decrease in
growth from the 165% change experienced in the preceding decade. Housing data
reveals a similar trend (see household profile below in Table 3.2). Significant growth in
the number of housing units (115%) and the number of households (164%) was
recorded for the period 1990 – 2000. Data for the Year 2000, as reported in the
Comprehensive Plan, indicates 93% of housing in the CDP was owner-occupied, but
26% of housing was classified as seasonal-use. This information verifies the
proposition that there are significant fluctuations in the number of residents in the
sub-region and study area during the year. Expansion of a similar magnitude in housing
was not experienced after the Year 2000; the increase in the number of housing units
was only 45% in the period 2000 – 2010.
TABLE 3.2
FOOTHILLS HOUSEHOLD PROFILE
Information Category

Reported
Value

Number of Housing Units in 1990:
Number of Housing Units in 2000:
Number of Housing Units in 2010:
Increase in Number of Housing Units 1990 – 2000:
Increase in Number of Housing Units 2000 – 2010:

6,957
14,961
21,642
115%
45%

Number of Occupied Housing Units 2010:
Number of Vacant Housing Units 2010:

12,006
9,636

Number of Households in 1990:
Number of Households in 2000:
Increase in Number of Households 1990 – 2000:

3,647
9,652
164%

Share of Owner-Occupied Housing 2000: 93%

93%

Source: Information provided in the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan supplemented with 2010 Census results,
as available.

3.2.2 EMPLOYMENT
The Foothills Planning Area Background Study provides the following information
regarding employment in the study area. The planning area and, therefore, the study
area…
…is primarily a retirement and bedroom community. This is reflected in
the types of business establishments that are predominate in the area.
Construction, retail trade, and accommodation and food service are the
most prominent industries in the area. Notable is the lack of business
establishments and jobs that are related to agriculture. This scarcity
makes the Foothills Planning Area unique in Yuma County where
agriculture plays a central economic role.
The number of people employed by business establishment[s] in the
Foothills Planning Area nearly doubled between 1998 and 2004…. During
Page | 3-6
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
the same period of time, the total payroll of business establishments
divided by total payroll adjusted for inflation grew by 46%. These numbers
indicate that both the number of jobs and what people are getting paid are
growing at a fast pace in the Foothills Planning Area.1
The majority of employment is within the Private, Non-Agriculture sector (61%), with the
Government sector accounting for another 23%. The largest percentage of Foothills
Planning Area residents are employed in retail trades, followed closely by educational,
health and social services. Overall, 76% of Foothills Planning Area residents are
employed in what can broadly be termed service industries. Given that there is no
major industrial or agricultural activity in the Foothills Planning Area, the predominance
of people being employed in service industries is a logical finding. A profile of the
employment by sector is shown in Table 3.3.
TABLE 3.3
MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT
Employment Category
Agriculture
Private, Non-Agriculture
Government
Self-Employed
Not For Profit
Total Employment

Jobs
206
2,630
971
317
180
4,304

Source: Foothills Planning Area Background Study, November, 2002

During work accomplished in support of the YMPO Travel Demand Model Update in
2009, 33 TAZs were defined for the Foothills/Mesa Del Sol study area. Population and
employment values were developed for each TAZ. Given that agricultural areas
included for the Foothills Planning area are located north of and outside the study area
and beyond these TAZs, it can reasonably be assumed that employment in the study
area in 2002 would reflect the total less agriculture jobs. Therefore, an estimate of
approximately 4,100 jobs in the study area was established for the Year 2002.
The Foothills Planning Area Background Study indicates that retail trades account for
the largest percentage of Foothills Planning Area residents’ employment, followed
closely by educational, health and social services. Employment in the Foothills
Planning Area has been spurred by expansion of the commercial sector. “Between
2000 and September 18, 2006, 84 commercial building permits on 62 parcels were
issued in the Foothills Planning Area.” The Foothills Planning Area Background Study
states that most new commercial structures were constructed along South Fortuna
Road, South Foothills Boulevard, and the I-8 Frontage Roads. The great majority of
new commercial structures were located within a mile of the South Fortuna Road and
South Foothills Boulevard interchanges with I-8.

1

Foothills Planning Area Background Study, November, 2002.

Page | 3-7
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
The YMPO Travel Demand Model Update accomplished in 2009 developed
employment estimates for different categories based on the 33 TAZs in the study area,
as shown in Table 3.4. The mix of employment is different, although the combined total
for Retail and Services – 2,749 – is similar to the total identified in 2002 for Private
Non-Agricuture – 2,630. The key difference is in the presence of Industry and
Manufacturing employment, which was not represented in the 2002 estimate prepared
for the Foothills Planning Area Background Study. The estimates prepared for the Year
2009 by YMPO indicate a similar number of employees – 4,187 – in the 33 TAZs
making up the study area, representing a slight increase over 2002. Overall, then,
employment in the study area has not changed significantly since the 2002 study, but it
has been redefined.
TABLE 3.4
MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT
Employment Category
Retail
Office
Services
Public
Industry
Manufacturing
Total Employment

Jobs
1,683
260
1,066
245
245
688
4,187

Source: Socioeconomic Dataset, YMPO Travel Demand Model 2009 Update.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
Expansive growth being experienced in Arizona presents significant natural
environmental and cultural resource issues and concerns relative to planning and
developing transportation infrastructure improvements. The State of Arizona, through
its various offices and agencies, including ADOT, has completed a number of studies
and efforts to help ensure there is an active awareness of environmental and cultural
resources during the planning of state facilities. As an example, the Arizona’s Wildlife
Linkages Assessment completed in 2002 examined key habitat linkages to help
agencies account for and conserve wildlife and natural ecosystems. This assessment
has been particularly critical in planning state highway facilities, as these facilities tend
to create lengthy, linear barriers to wildlife movements – movement that may be critical
to the viability of a habitat area. Additionally, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU) mandates greater
environmental consideration when developing regional transportation plans.
This section provides a brief overview of the physical, natural, and cultural resources
that should be accounted for as the transportation system in the Foothills & Mesa Del
Sol study area is planned and developed. This overview also will help ADOT by
providing the data necessary to complete any early coordination activities that may be
needed to successfully determine the level of, and ultimately complete, environmental
documentation required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Page | 3-8
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
3.3.1 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OVERVIEW
This section addresses the physical structural characteristics of the study area relative
to topography and soils.
TOPOGRAPHY
The topography of the study area is generally flat, sloping from approximately 450 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southeastern corner to approximately 230 feet
AMSL in the northwestern corner. The highest elevations of the study area – exceeding
500 feet AMSL – are located at the base of the Gila Mountains in the northeastern
corner of the study area. Fortuna Wash flows through the eastern portion of the study
area, generally following the overall slope from the southeastern corner and exiting the
study area on the eastern side of the Mesa Del Sol development. Almost all existing
development is located on the western side of Fortuna Wash, although the Fortuna del
Rey Golf Course, Las Barrancas Golf Course, and Foothills Golf Course constructed
east of the wash, are attracting residential development. The Foothills Planning Area
does not contain any significant portion of the Colorado or Gila River Valleys.
SOILS
A large portion of existing development north and south of I-8 has occurred on Rosistas
Sand and Rosistas-Ligurta Complex soils west of Fortuna Wash. Surface runoff
particularly associated with Rosistas Sand is very slow and the hazard of blowing soil is
high. Thus, the soil is severely limited for recreational development, due to its texture.
This soil also is severely limited for use in association with sewage lagoons because of
seepage. A large portion of development south of East 44th Street, east of South
Hunter Avenue, west of Fortuna Wash has occurred on soils classified as Dateland Fine
Sandy Loam. This soil type is well drained and well suited for urban development.
Development on land along the west side of Fortuna Wash and between Fortuna Wash
and the Gila Mountains has taken place on soils mostly classified as Ligurta-Cristobal
Complex. This soil type associated with old alluvial fans is well drained, but
development is moderately limited due to shrink-swell potential and moderately slow
permeability with respect to septic tank fields.
3.3.2 NATURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW
As an area develops, it is highly recommended to avoid natural resource impacts.
However, there are times when completing a transportation project where no other
alternatives exist, so minimizing or mitigating impacts can become necessary. This
natural resource overview identifies potential impacts that will be evaluated in greater
detail as projects move forward toward implementation and development.
VEGETATION
Transportation projects affect vegetation directly through construction impacts and
indirectly through changes in environmental settings and can hinder or stimulate the
recovery of affected plants. This section identifies general vegetative concerns relative
to transportation project development and sensitive species that can be harmed by such
projects.
Page | 3-9
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
GENERAL
The predominant vegetation type in the study area outside of urbanized developments
is the Sonoran Creosotebush-Bursage Scrub. This almost ubiquitous vegetative group
develops on level-to-gently sloping soils of generally silty or sandy texture. It is
comprised of very open, evenly-spaced, low-diversity stands of shrubs 11 to 35 inches
(0.3–0.9 meters) tall, containing a few scattered trees and a variety of cactus species.
According to the Foothills Planning Area Background Study, “perennial cover is usually
10–20%, but in wet years annual plants may provide 100% cover.” Fortuna Wash and
tributary desert washes and floodplains as well as existing residential and commercial
development interrupt large patches of Sonoran Creosotebush-Bursage Scrub.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Yuma County and the study area are located within the Sonoran Desert physiographic
province. The Sonoran Desert is home to a variety of unique Colorado River and
Arizona Uplands plant communities. Continuing development is diminishing the native
Sonoran desert plants, and water use practices are threatening some wetland species.
The number of invasive weed species is increasing in some areas. There are no
vegetative species in the study area listed in the County as “Threatened” or
“Endangered.” However, there are "Species of Concern." These include: Dune
Spurge, Gander's Cryptantha, Dune Sunflower and Sand Food. Additional research
and field reconnaissance will be necessary to evaluate potential impacts on these
species by transportation improvement projects, as they are implemented.
WILDLIFE
The presence of sensitive wildlife species and the general movement of wildlife
resources of the State can be impacted by transportation improvements projects. This
section presents information regarding potential wildlife impacts in the study area.
ARIZONA WILDLIFE LINKAGES
During the middle of the past decade, ADOT engaged in a partnership with other state
and federal agencies and organizations to develop a preliminary statewide linkage
assessment. The result, Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment, identifies important
wildlife habitat connectivity areas, or linkage zones, as well as the associated threats.
The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup that completed the Assessment represented
the first serious effort to establish wildlife connectivity “on the map” and create a
comprehensive inventory of connectivity needs throughout the state. The important
realization of the Workgroup was that to protect the safe movement of people and plan
for a future transportation network that includes wildlife, a blueprint was needed for
accounting for Arizona’s remaining wildlife habitats and wildlife movements. The
Workgroup’s Assessment is designed to promote the conservation or restoration of
linkages in areas important for wildlife movement. The Assessment is viewed as a
valuable tool to support all types and levels of planning, including development,
transportation, wildlife management, and conservation.

Page | 3-10
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment identifies the study area as being mostly
contained within what is termed a “Fracture Zone”, as shown in Figure 3.2. Fracture
zones are defined as areas of reduced permeability between habitat blocks, i.e., wildlife
movements are impeded. Habitat blocks are important wildlife areas that can
reasonably be expected to remain wild for at least 50 years. The fracture zones are
largely State Land, urbanized areas and other private holdings, and transportation
corridors (e.g., roads, canals, railroads) that limit or prevent animal movement, or
threaten to do so in the foreseeable future. Most fracture zones, due to the extent and
manner of development actions, need significant restoration to function as reliable
linkages, which are considered critical to wildlife movement. The Assessment seeks to
provide guidance to State departments responsible for public projects, resource
agencies, and conservation groups for protecting and enhancing washes, streams, and
rivers, which are seen as major corridors in all areas of fracture zones. The
Assessment also focuses on implementing, where feasible, improvements to culverts
and bridges to promote wildlife permeability.
Directly east of the study area, and illustrated in Figure 3.2, is Potential Linkage Zone
No. 71. A Linkage Zone is “a portion or subset of the Fracture Zone or Habitat Block
identified as an area critical to wildlife movement. Threats must be managed, if
connectivity is to be maintained or restored.” This Zone, identified as the North-South
Gila Mountains, is characterized by Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desertshrub. The
US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns 92 percent of the land area in the Zone.
State Trust Lands, under the control of the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD),
account for another six percent, and the remainder is under private ownership.
Identified species in this zone include:
Sensitive Species Associated with Wildlife Linkage No. 71
Arizona Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater
Banded Gila Monster Heloderma suspectum cinctum
Big Free-tailed Bat Nyctinomops macrotus
Bighorn Sheep Ovis Canadensis
California Leaf-Nosed Bat Macrotus californicus
Cave Myotis Myotis velifer acia
Desert Rosy Boa Charina trivirgata gr
Greater Western Mastiff Bat Eumops perotis californicus
Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans
Mountain Lion Felis concolor
Pale Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens
Pocketed Free-Tailed Bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Pronghorn Antilocapra americana ulatum
Spotted Bat Euderma mac
Yuma Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis
Yuman Desert Fringe-Toed Lizard Uma notata rufopunctata
Source: Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment, Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup, 2006.

Page | 3-11
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.2
STUDY AREA WILDLIFE LINKAGES

The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup identified border security issues, highway
development (specifically I-8), railroad facilities and operations, and urbanization as the
principal threats to wildlife in this zone. It also developed a means to assist in
identifying proposed potential linkage zones for immediate action. Linkages with the
highest ecological value coupled with the most pressing threats were given the highest
priority for consideration. Linkage Zone No. 71 was identified as a priority linkage
among 28 cited for the highest priority consideration out of 152 Linkage Zones identified
around the State.
SPECIES OF CONCERN, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED
Yuma County is home to diverse wildlife ranging from big game to reptiles and
amphibians. The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists threatened and
endangered species found in the County. Included on the list are: Big Horn Sheep,
Pronghorn Sonoran Antelope, American Peregrine Falcon, Yuma Clapper Rail,
Page | 3-12
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Brown Pelican, Razor Back Sucker, and Desert
Tortoise. The Yuma County Comprehensive Plan notes that the Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AzGFD) Species of Concern List documents species that are of
"concern" but do not have official status as an Endangered Species. This list has been
reproduced in the Technical Appendices.
In addition, AzGFD has designated special habitat management areas for the Flat-tailed
Horned Lizard, Big Horn Sheep, Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope, and Sonoran Desert
Tortoise within the Barry M. Goldwater Range immediately south of and contiguous with
the study area. As development proposals and roadway improvements proceed, care
should be taken to understand and preserve wildlife habitat and habitat linkages.
Additional research and field reconnaissance will be necessary as transportation
improvement projects are moved toward implementation. An AzGFD listing Special
Status Species in Yuma County is provided in the Technical Appendices.
WATER RESOURCES
There are two primary water resources of interest relative to development of
transportation projects: floodplains and wetlands. This section provides a brief
summary of these two resources as they pertain to the study area.
FLOODPLAINS
Floodplains and wetlands are environmentally sensitive resources that must be
considered in the evaluation of transportation improvements. The majority of the study
area is located within the Dome Valley/Wellton watershed, which is the lower portion of
the larger Gila River watershed. The southwestern corner of the study area is located
within the City of Yuma, Foothills area, and South County, which forms the Yuma
Desert watershed. Fortuna Wash is ephemeral and flows only in response to major
precipitation events, flowing into the Gila River approximately two miles north of US 95.
The City of Yuma 2006 Parks and Recreation Facility Plan cites Fortuna Wash as an
example of open space that can “…serve a variety of park and recreational purposes
that wouldn’t be possible in proximity to development....”
Figure 3.3 is a composite showing the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Fortuna Wash. The majority of the upper
reaches are designated as Zone A and D, meaning flooding is likely but determinations
have yet to be formalized. Immediately proximate to the center of the wash, flood
elevations have been determined, and these areas must be kept free of encroachment.
Wash C, which flows parallel to and south of I-8, is designated Zone AO, meaning flood
depths of one to three feet have been determined. North of I-8 flood zones mostly have
been identified and flood depths determined (Zone AO). In addition, the specific range
of flooding has been determined in Zone AE, where no encroachment is permitted.
WETLANDS
A search using the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database did not identify any
known wetlands or areas of interest within the study area. As projects are defined,
particularly affecting Fortuna Wash and tributary washes, early coordination with the US
Page | 3-13
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-14
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.3
FLOODPLAIN AREAS

Page | 3-15
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-16
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is encouraged to maximize communication to the
permitting agency and minimize review time.
3.3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW
Cultural resources is a broad term that encompasses archaeological resources and
historic sites. Each highway project involves a cultural resource assessment which
includes a records search and on-site surveys to identify possible sites. As project
development proceeds, coordination will be accomplished with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine if a cultural resources investigation is
necessary. Consultation is made with the SHPO, Native American tribes and agencies,
and land resource agencies to make sure that findings and conclusions satisfy local and
federal laws, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). If
sites are found, mitigation involves avoidance or data recovery.
The only known cultural resource of relevance in the study area is the Juan Bautista de
Anza Trail. The BLM is actively developing a continuous multi-use path for the Anza
Trail across Arizona. The potential routes under evaluation are north of I-8 near the
Gila River, approximately three miles north of and outside the study area. Although not
a formal constituent part of the trail, I-8 is designated by the National Park Service as a
segment of the “Auto Tour Route,” providing access to historic sites, interpretive sites,
and a visitor center in Yuma. Two other trails have been identified by Yuma County for
recognition as part of the County’s Open Space and Recreational Resources Planning
(see Open Space and Recreation below).
Beyond the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail, other cultural resources may be present in the
study area that are yet unknown. SHPO consultations associated with projects that are
implemented in the future may result in the identification of additional resources.
Depending on the potential impact, appropriate actions will be identified at that time to
avoid or mitigate those impacts.
3.3.4 SENSITIVE ISSUES AND/OR FEATURES
Within the study area, there are certain other issues and/or features that are particularly
sensitive with respect to socioeconomic and environmental conditions and concerns.
This section highlights these issues and/or features to ensure project planning and
definition of improvements with respect to their special status and sensitivity.
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Chapter 5, Open Space and Recreational Resources, of the Yuma County 2010
Comprehensive Plan identifies several locations within the study area that exist today
for open space or recreational purposes. There are also proposals for additional sites
to be developed in the future. These areas and their proposed use must be considered
in defining improvements to the transportation system in the study area (Figure 3.4).

Page | 3-17
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-18
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.4
TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE & RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Page | 3-19
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-20
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Open Space Overlay – Gila Mountains: Identifies 62,000+ acres of the Gila
Mountains directly east of the study area as open space.
Foothills Wash Park: This is a 4.5-acre parcel on the south side of
East 52nd Street directly west of South Avenue 14½E situated on the north edge
of Foothills Wash and the Foothills Golf Course.
Foothills Multi-Purpose Transportation Complex: The southeast quadrant of
the I-8/South Foothills Boulevard interchange is owned by ADOT. This 20-acre
parcel situated between I-8 main lanes and South Frontage Road is designated
as the future site for a multipurpose transportation complex.
Foothills Optimist Community Park: This 3.8-acre park is located on the west
side of South Camino Del Sol directly north of the Mesa Del Sol Golf Club.
Yuma County Desert Preserve: This 549-acre site, owned by the BLM is
proposed as an area for preferred trails with limited access. It is located directly
north
of
the
study
area,
being
contiguous
with
East
24th Street/East County 10th Street and bounded by extensions of the
alignments of South Camino Del Sol on the west and South Foothills Boulevard
on the east.
Multi-Use (Equestrian and Non-Motorized) Trail System: A portion of this
regional trail system is planned to run along the southern edge of the study area
in the vicinity of East 56th Street/East County 14th Street.
El Camino Del Diablo Historic Trail: El Camino Del Diablo (The Devil’s
Highway) is an historic trail, originally connecting Caborca, Sonora, to the
Spanish colonies of California. Jesuit Padre Eusebio Francisco Kino pioneered
the trail from 1699-1701. The most difficult stretch of the trail was the 130-mile
stretch from Sonoyta, Sonora, to what is now Yuma, Arizona.2
Telegraph Pass Historic Trail: Telegraph Pass is the principal route through
the Gila Mountains directly east of the study area. The eastbound lanes of I-8
were constructed following the existing route of US 80 built in 1948. The
westbound lanes generally follow an earlier alignment of US 80 constructed in
1928. They criss-cross in the midst of the Gila Mountains. The actual Telegraph
Pass Trail starts at the base of the Gila Mountains (approximate elevation:
480 feet) near the I-8 North Frontage Road and ends at an elevation of over
1,600 feet overlooking I-8 and Fortuna Wash.
STATE TRUST LANDS
Arizona has approximately 9.28 million surface acres of State Trust Lands, which are
administered by the ASLD. State Trust lands are not public lands. These lands are
held in a public Trust to support education in the State. The Trust Lands were
established through the State Enabling Act, passed June 20, 1910, which allowed the
Territory of Arizona to prepare for statehood. The Enabling Act assigned Section 2 and
32 of each township to be held in Trust for the common schools. The Trust operated by

2

From informational page submitted by Bill Kirchner, March 22, 2010, at http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=28968.

Page | 3-21
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.5
LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE STUDY AREA

ASLD accomplishes its mission through the sale and lease of Trust lands for grazing,
agriculture, municipal, school site, residential, commercial and open space purposes.
The sale or lease of State Trust Lands also results in local economic stimulation. In
addition, the ASLD has programs to support environmental protection, forest health and
fire suppression, and range land management.
Figure 3.5 shows that all land within the study area not in private hands is held by the
ASLD under its mandate for State Trust Lands.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ)
“Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and subsequent related statutes have been
passed to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex,
and disability in association with any program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance”. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice In Minority Populations And Low-Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994,
directs Federal agencies (and programs and activities receiving federal financial
assistance) to “…make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations
and low-income populations.” “Disproportionately high and adverse” effects means the
effect(s) of the proposed action:
Page | 3-22
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
(1) is (are) predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income
population, or
(2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and
is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect
that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income
population.
There are three fundamental environmental justice principles:
Ensure full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process.
Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health
and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority
populations and low-income populations.
Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits to
minority and low-income populations.
U.S. DOT Order (5610.2), addressing “Environmental Justice in Minority and
Low-Income Populations,” defines Minority and Low-Income Populations as …”any
readily identifiable groups … who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances
warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native
Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy or
activity.” The Order identifies four minority groups:
(1) Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa);
(2) Hispanic (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South
American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race);
(3) Asian American (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the
Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); and
(4) American Indian and Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the
original people of North America and who maintains cultural identification
through tribal affiliation or community recognition).
Additionally, the U.S. DOT Order specifies “Low Income” as a person whose median
household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty
guidelines.
An assessment of the socioeconomic composition of the study area was based on data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Population information is available from the
recent 2010 Census; however, income information is only available for the period
2005-2009 within the framework of the American Community Survey (ACS).
Information regarding the former is reported for nine Census Tracts identified for the
2010 Census. Information regarding the latter is available for three Census Tracts used
to collect and record information for the 2000-2009 period that formed the Fortuna Hills
Census-Designated Place (CDP).

Page | 3-23
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
The standard of disproportionate effects relative to race/ethnicity has been examined by
comparing the representation of race/ethnicity within relevant Census Tracts to that of a
larger socioeconomic region, in this case the Yuma Census County Division (CCD).
The CCD is an appropriate unit for this purpose, as it encompasses most of the
urbanized portion of Yuma County. Figure 3.6 depicts the distribution of race/ethnicity
in nine Census Tracts entirely within or coincident with the study area. The figure
reveals there is no notable representation of minority people groups in any of the
Census Tracts, although minority people groups represent approximately 27.5 percent
of the population of the CCD. Table 3.5 reveals there are two Census Tracts where
minority population groups are present in slightly greater proportions than in the CCD;
however, representation is not disproportional. Therefore, it can be concluded that
Minority Populations would not be disproportionately affected by projects undertaken to
improve transportation systems and services within the study area.
Figure 3.7 displays the Median Household Income in each of three Census Tracts used
for reporting prior to the 2010 Census. In this case, the Median Household Income of
Yuma County for the period 2005-2009 was adopted for comparison. Average Median
Household Income for the County was slightly less than $39,000. The Median
Household Income reported for each of the three Census Tracts coincident with the
study area was greater than that reported for the County. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the study area does not have a concentration of Low-Income
Populations that potentially would be disproportionately affected by projects undertaken
to improve transportation systems and services.

3.4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The Yuma County multi-modal transportation system is comprised of state and local
roadways to effectively move goods and people. The backbone of the roadway network
in the study area is I-8, a four-lane, high-capacity freeway, which is supplemented on
both sides with frontage roads providing access to adjacent parcels. I-8 transects the
northern half of the study area and plays an important regional and sub-regional role in
the transportation system.
The region is served by all transportation modes and is actively developing plans to
embrace and foster these modes. At a statewide level, communities in the study area
are actively engaged in evaluating opportunities for transit service. This section of the
report describes the existing transportation system within the study area and the several
communities comprising it. For purposes of this study, the term “Existing” refers to the
conditions on the system in April 2010, when this study commenced.
3.4.1 YUMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS
The Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan currently in effect, and the City of Yuma
2012 General Plan, provide frameworks for community and transportation system
development.3 They stipulate goals for the community, specify objectives to accomplish
the goals, and establish technical and policy guidance for land use, transportation, and

3

Yuma County is in the process of preparing a 2020 Comprehensive Plan and it remains in Draft status at this time.

Page | 3-24
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.6
STUDY AREA RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION

Page | 3-25
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

TABLE 3.5
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATION GROUPS BY CENSUS TRACT
Population
Group
White
African
American
Asian
AIAN
NHPI
Some Other
Race
Two or More
Races
Total
Population

Yuma Census
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
County
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
CCD
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Division
10\9.05
109.07
109.10
111.08
111.10
111.11
111.12
111.14
111.15
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
(CCD)
100,783

72.51%

2,327

82.66%

4,331

85.69%

1,656

94.20%

2,517

79.45%

2,615

89.99%

2,676

85.11%

2,373

92.88%

1,846

90.40%

2,725

93.90%

3,162

2.27%

34

1.21%

99

1.96%

5

0.28%

75

2.37%

38

1.31%

18

0.57%

7

0.27%

16

0.78%

20

0.69%

2,142

1.54%

16

0.57%

81

1.60%

7

0.40%

67

2.11%

28

0.96%

18

0.57%

12

0.47%

15

0.73%

17

0.59%

2,120

1.53%

27

0.96%

55

1.09%

6

0.34%

32

1.01%

23

0.79%

43

1.37%

32

1.25%

18

0.88%

11

0.38%

256

0.18%

2

0.07%

11

0.22%

0

0.00%

2

0.06%

5

0.17%

3

0.10%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

2

0.07%

24,717

17.78%

315

11.19%

298

5.90%

51

2.90%

323

10.20%

138

4.75%

310

9.86%

108

4.23%

101

4.95%

106

3.65%

5,817

4.18%

94

3.34%

179

3.54%

33

1.88%

152

4.80%

59

2.03%

76

2.42%

23

0.90%

46

2.25%

21

0.72%

138,997

100%

2,815

100%

5,054

100%

1,758

100%

3,168

100%

2,906

100%

3,144

100%

2,555

100%

2,042

100%

2,902

100%

White

10.16%

13.19%

21.69%

6.94%

17.48%

12.61%

20.37%

17.89%

21.39%

African American

-1.07%

-0.32%

-1.99%

0.09%

-0.97%

-1.70%

-2.00%

-1.49%

-1.59%

Asian

-0.97%

0.06%

-1.14%

0.57%

-0.58%

-0.97%

-1.07%

-0.81%

-0.96%

AIAN

-0.57%

-0.44%

-1.18%

-0.52%

-0.73%

-0.16%

-0.27%

-0.64%

-1.15%

NHPI

-0.11%

0.03%

-0.18%

-0.12%

-0.01%

-0.09%

-0.18%

-0.18%

-0.12%

Some Other Race

-6.59%

-11.89%

-14.88%

-7.59%

-13.03%

-7.92%

-13.56%

-12.84%

-14.13%

Two or More Races

-0.85%

-0.64%

-2.31%

0.61%

-2.15%

-1.77%

-3.28%

-1.93%

-3.46%

Differential Share Relative to the Yuma Census County Division (CCD)

Prepared by Wilson & Company , Nov ember 2011.
NOTES:
AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaskan Nativ e.
NHPI refers to Nativ e Haw aiian & other Pacific Islander.
Shading indicates representation of the Population Group w ithin the Census Tract is greater that the proportionate share w ithin the CCD.
Source: American Community Surv ey , U.S. Census Bureau at: http://2010.census.gov /2010census/popmap/.

Page | 3-26
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.7
STUDY AREA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION

Page | 3-27
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
other community development decisions. These plans are required by the State of
Arizona to provide a framework for rational community growth and must be updated
every ten years.
Recently, the State of Arizona mandated additional Comprehensive Plan elements as
part of Growing Smarter Plus. Historically, Land Use and Circulation were the only two
elements required by the State in developing Comprehensive Plans. The new
mandates require five additional elements, including:
Environmental Planning;
Open Space;
Water Resources;
Cost of Development; and
Growth Areas.
These elements are foundational in developing a plan for a balanced transportation
system, which is why the information in the preceding sections has been reviewed and
included herein.
The YMPO 2010-2033 RTP incorporates relevant elements of the two plans cited above
into a unified plan for the Yuma Metropolitan Area, including points east along I-8. This
Transportation Needs Study is intended to supplement the community planning process
by providing a perspective on the uses and needs of the regional transportation facilities
serving the study area. Too often, local access takes precedence over mobility,
particularly when a community is trying to vie for economic development opportunities
or sustain or establish economic and social practices.
When adequate alternative facilities, i.e., route options, are not in place, the result often
is undue congestion on the primary street network. This imbalance between desired
mobility, property access, and facility function is very common, particularly in smaller
communities. A related side effect of excessive access or lack of route options is a
reduction in safety and capacity not only for motorists but also for pedestrians and
cyclists. A particular concern in this regard is the action of turning vehicles involved in
ingress/egress to fronting properties. The focus of the RTP, therefore, is a balanced
transportation system that will support and sustain efficient and effective mobility and
access within the study area. At the same time, it addresses the critical nature of I-8 as
a facility serving regional, state, and interstate mobility needs.
3.4.2 STUDY AREA ROADWAY NETWORK
The roadway network in the study area consists of key roadways connecting major
activity centers, commercial centers, and residential communities. Today, I-8 and its
frontage roads form the primary connecting travel facility within the study area.
However, there are several lesser facilities, such as South Fortuna Road, South
Foothills Boulevard, and East 40th Street/East County 12th Street, that provide
connectivity within and between community areas.
Most connections are
accommodated with two-lane paved roadways with shoulders and ditches for drainage.
Within some portions of the study area, roadways are improved to include curb and
gutter, turn lanes, or additional through-lane capacity. Most local access roads in
Page | 3-28
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
residential areas are paved and have a curb and gutter cross-section. This section
highlights conditions of the existing roadway network and how well the network operates
under current traffic demands.
3.4.3 PHYSICAL ROADWAY ELEMENTS
The physical roadway elements are characterized by roadway type, size, and purpose.
Bridges are required to ensure connectivity, and traffic control elements (e.g., traffic
signals and signs) are intended to control vehicular flow and ensure operational
efficiency. Additionally, there are overarching responsibilities for maintenance and
operations of roadway facilities. These responsibilities in the study area are divided
between ADOT and Yuma County, which coordinate system maintenance and
improvements with the YMPO.
JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ADOT)
ADOT has primary responsibility for maintaining connectivity within the State Highway
System. State Routes are the primary means to travel between urbanized areas and
provide vital access to urbanized areas for rural sections of Yuma County. At the state
program level, there is also a hierarchy of roadways, including the National Highway
System (NHS), which includes the Interstate Highway System (IHS) as well as other
roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. The NHS was
developed by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) in cooperation with the
states, local officials, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).
Although the IHS is the premier component of the NHS, the NHS consists mostly of
two-lane roads. Approximately 98 percent of all roads designated within the NHS
already have been built. The 160,000 miles (256,000 kilometers) that comprise the
NHS account for only four percent of the nation’s roads, yet these roads are vital to
industry, commerce, and social interaction. They carry more than 40 percent of all
highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic, and 90 percent of tourist traffic.
The advantage of NHS is that it encourages states to focus on a limited number of
high-priority routes and concentrate on improving them with Federal-Aid Highway
Program (FAHP) funds. At the same time, states can incorporate design and
construction improvements that address their traffic needs safely and efficiently. States
also can make operational changes, such as instituting a program to locate and remove
stalled vehicles that are impeding smooth traffic flow. States can employ available
technological improvements, such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), as well
as access management to help reduce congestion and keep traffic moving without
major roadway expansion.
The YMPO RTP identifies I-8 as being in the U.S. Strategic Highway Network
(STRAHNET). The STRAHNET system includes highways providing access, continuity,
and emergency transportation for the movement of personnel and equipment in support
of U.S. military operations in both times of peace and war. The STRAHNET system has
been designated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in partnership with the
Department of Defense (DOD). STRAHNET is a key component of the country’s
Page | 3-29
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
strategic defense policy. South Avenue 3E, which connects I-8 with the MCAS also is
included in the STRAHNET system.
At the local level, I-8 is the primary transportation facility of the NHS within the study
area and moves the greatest proportion of traffic. In fact, this route practically serves as
the primary or “Main Street” within the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol communities. As
such, I-8 plays a very significant role in regional and sub-regional mobility within the
study area. This is the only roadway in the study area included in the State Highway
System.
YUMA COUNTY
Yuma County maintains region-serving non-NHS roadways that traverse the study area,
particularly South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard, and most of the local
roadways. South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard, which provide
interchange access to I-8, play a major role in connecting key portions of the study area
and assuring access to community resources. Other roadways are primary routes of
travel, facilitating the collection and distribution of vehicular traffic relative to the many
activity centers in the study area. The location and capacity of these facilities are
influenced by the local land use decisions and, therefore, they are the most critical
components of the transportation system relative to local mobility.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The transportation system is made up of varying roadway types having different
functions within the framework of mobility and access. The different roadway types
support both urban and rural travel. Therefore, functional classification of roadways is a
critical component of effective transportation planning.
Functional classification
designations were developed to help manage mobility and access. Providing facilities
that are meant to move traffic and commerce must be in balance with other facilities
where key connectivity and local access are needed.
Eight functional classifications have been adopted to identify the role of major streets
and highways in the study area. The classifications depend on the character of traffic
and mobility associated with each facility and surrounding land uses as well as the
necessary level of access. The Arizona Functional Classification Guidelines published
by ADOT provide the basis for the following definitions of roadway functional
classifications relevant to this study. These have been applied by the YMPO in its
current RTP. Figure 3.8 identifies the functional classification of major highways and
streets in the study area. A description of the principal characteristics of each class
follows.
1. Urban Interstate: The Urban Interstate facility falls within the Urban Principal
Arterial classification. These facilities typically are multi-lane, high-speed divided
roadways with the primary function of providing the greatest mobility for through
movement. These facilities support large volumes of traffic efficiently by assuring
minimal interference to through movements. Access to Urban Interstate and other
freeways is controlled; utilizing traffic interchanges at crossing roadways,

Page | 3-30
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.8
STUDY AREA MAJOR ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

Source: Figure II-3, Federal Functional Classification, Final Report, 2033 Regional Transportation Plan,
Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization.

0

1

2

Miles

usually other Principal Arterials. The spacing for access to this class of facility is
typically one mile, but may be more frequent in highly developed areas. Urban
Principal Arterials serve major activity centers with direct access to adjacent land
being purely incidental. Limiting access aids in maintaining the integrity of the
roadway by reducing interference, allowing a major portion of traffic to pass through
the area. I-8, between South Avenue 10E and South Avenue 14½E (Fortuna Wash)
is the only Urban Interstate facility in the study area.
2. Urban Minor Arterial: These facilities connect with Rural Minor Arterials and
Collectors to support trips of moderate length at the county level, but they can
accommodate longer trips within the community. Posted speed limits usually are
lower than those established for Principal Arterials; therefore, Urban Minor Arterials
generally have four lanes with a center left-turn lane, but support lower travel
mobility. The spacing of Urban Minor Arterials can be developed at intervals of less
than one-half mile in highly developed areas. South Fortuna Road and South
Foothills Boulevard (north of East 40th Street/East County 12th Street) are prime
examples of Urban Minor Arterials in the study area.
3. Urban Collector: Urban Collectors in highly developed areas are generally
four-lane facilities with a center left-turn lane. These facilities have the purpose of
providing local street network access to the arterial system of roadways. They may
penetrate residential neighborhoods; therefore, the level of access is greater than
Page | 3-31
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
facilities with a higher classification. Urban Collectors provide direct access for
commercial and multi-family residential traffic to the transportation system. South
Foothills Boulevard, south of East 40th Street/East County 12th Street, is a prime
example of an Urban Collector.
4. Rural Interstate: Like the Urban Interstate, these facilities serve as the principal
corridors for interstate and statewide travel supporting long-distance trips and the
very highest volumes. They provide minimal interference to through movement. I-8,
east of South Avenue 14½E (Fortuna Wash) is the only Rural Interstate facility in the
study area.
5. Rural Principal Arterial: This functional classification of roadways includes all
interstates (as noted earlier) and serves urban areas with a population of 50,000 or
more and a large majority of urban areas with a population of 25,000 or more. The
Rural Principal Arterial system provides an integrated network without stub
connections, except where unusual geographic or traffic flow conditions dictate (e.g.,
international borders and coastal cities).
6. Rural Minor Arterial: These facilities serve most larger communities not served by
the Principal Arterial system as well as major traffic generators attracting travel over
long distances (though shorter than associated with the Principal Arterial system).
Rural Minor Arterials support interstate and intercounty travel of regional importance
at relatively high speeds with minimum interference to through movement. All
roadways not on the Principal or Minor Arterial system are on the Collector system.
7. Rural Major Collector: The Rural Major Collector generally is two lanes with the
purpose of supporting travel of intracounty and regional importance, as opposed to
statewide movements.
These facilities provide connectivity between Minor
Collectors and the local street network to the Minor Arterial network. They
accommodate shorter distance trips and posted speed limits tend to be more
moderate than those of the arterial system. Rural Major Collectors generally provide
direct access to commercial and larger residential developments. A prime example
of this type facility in the study area is South Avenue 15E.
8. Local Streets: Local streets, which are not a prime focus of this study, provide
direct access to abutting or adjacent properties and have the greatest amount of
access allowed. Through traffic is discouraged on local roadways and posted
speeds are lowest. Local roadways have not been evaluated as part of this
Transportation Plan.
Figure 3.9 illustrates the number of lanes for each major facility included in the study
area’s roadway network.
REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ROUTES
A Regionally Significant Route (RSR) may be an interstate, principal arterial, or a
collector street. Within the study area, the YMPO RTP identifies South Fortuna Road
(Avenue 11E) and I-8 as Regionally Significant Routes. This type of route or roadway
facility serves regional transportation and mobility needs.

Page | 3-32
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.9
EXISTING PRIMARY ROADWAY NETWORK TRAVEL LANES

Source: Figure II-4, Existing Number of Lanes, Final Report, 2033 Regional Transportation Plan, Yuma
Metropolitan Planning Organization.

0

1

2

Miles

ACCESS MANAGEMENT
CONCEPT AND PURPOSE
According to the FHWA’s Access Management
Website “access management (AM) is the
proactive management of vehicular access points
to land parcels adjacent to all manner of
roadways. Good access management promotes
safe and efficient use of the transportation
network.” This philosophy of roadway design and
development (shown pictorially at right) provides
an important means of maintaining the operational
viability of the various classes of facilities and,
therefore, community mobility. FHWA identifies
five key techniques that state and local
governments can use to control access to
highways, major arterials, and other roadways:

Source: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgmt/index.htm

Access Spacing: increasing the distance between traffic signals improves the
flow of traffic on major arterials, reduces congestion, and improves air quality for
heavily traveled corridors.
Driveway Spacing: Fewer driveways spaced further apart allows for more
orderly merging of traffic and presents fewer challenges to drivers.
Page | 3-33
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Safe Turning Lanes: dedicated left- and right-turn, indirect left-turns and Uturns, and roundabouts keep through-traffic flowing. Roundabouts represent an
opportunity to reduce an intersection with many conflict points or a severe crash
history (T-bone crashes) to one that operates with fewer conflict points and less
severe crashes (sideswipes) if they occur.
Median Treatments: two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL) and nontraversible, raised
medians are examples of some of the most effective means to regulate access
and reduce crashes.
Right-of-Way Management: as it pertains to R/W reservation for future
widenings, good sight distance, access location, and other access-related issues.
The result of combining all these techniques essentially is defined in the TRB 2003,
Access Management Manual, as the “systematic control of the location, spacing,
design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street
connections to a roadway.” Application of the best practices of access management
has benefits for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, business people,
government agencies, and communities.
The desired outcomes of access
management relative to highway operations are:
Creation of a safer operating environment for vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
Provisions allowing motorists to operate vehicles with fewer delays, less fuel
consumption, and fewer emissions;
Provisions for reasonable access to abutting (i.e., fronting) properties;
Maintenance of the functional integrity and efficiency of the roadway, helping to
protect the investment of taxpayer dollars;
Assured coordination between land use and transportation decisions; and
Assurance that highways are used for the purposes (functions) for which they are
designed.
STATE ROADS
The necessity of access management to preserve the function, efficiency, and safety of
federal and state highways increasingly has been recognized throughout the United
States and in Arizona. Without access management, highways intended as through
routes gradually degrade to local service routes, due to areas becoming developed or
urbanized. ADOT has initiated development of a Statewide Access Management Plan
for the State Highway System in accordance with the policies of the Arizona State
Transportation Board. The focus of this effort is to develop an access management
classification system for State Highways and publish a comprehensive access
management manual to provide uniform guidance for access management decisions
throughout the state. Currently, this ADOT transportation planning process is in
abeyance, due to Executive Order of the Governor and legislative action prohibiting the
making of new administrative rules.
In the meantime, access permitting for State highways currently is carried out pursuant
to ARS 28-7053, which prohibits unauthorized encroachments on State highways. For
an encroachment to be lawful, it must be authorized by the Director of ADOT. The
Director has adopted administrative rules (regulations) governing encroachments.
Page | 3-34
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
These rules are published as Arizona Administrative Code, R17-3-501, Highway
Encroachments and Permits, which includes access connections to state highways.
The rule states that each encroachment requires a permit. Permits for driveway access
to a state highway (referred to as encroachments) may be granted by ADOT's
Engineering Districts through delegation from the Director. Upon initiation of the formal
rulemaking process relating to the Statewide Access Management Plan, ADOT will
solicit public comment on the Program. The Traffic Engineering Group of ADOT’s
Intermodal Transportation Division oversees the Arizona Access Management Program
in its present form.
LOCAL ROADS
Yuma County Subdivision Regulations provide guidance for the design and
development of all subdivision of land. While these regulations are not specifically
focused on access management, sections address the need to ensure adequate traffic
circulation and minimizing cut-through traffic. Section 4.5, Access to Subdivision,
states: “Access to subdivisions from arterial roads and major collectors shall be limited
to maintain traffic capacity, encourage smooth traffic flow and limit the use of local
streets to local traffic.” This section also states: “Subdivision access roads shall be
spaced according to Public Works Standards or the standards of the jurisdiction that is
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the arterial road or major collector.”
TRAFFIC CONTROL INVENTORY
Intersection traffic control is the primary method for maintaining orderly traffic flow within
a roadway network, particularly along facilities with higher traffic volumes. The most
significant of these facilities in the study area are: I-8; South Fortuna Road; segments
of the I-8 Frontage Road system; and South Foothills Boulevard between I-8 and
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street. Current intersection traffic control within the
study area includes traffic signals and STOP or YIELD signs at intersections.
Transportation officials in Arizona and throughout the nation are examining other traffic
control options, such as the modern roundabout, to obtain potentially greater capacity
and proven safety benefits.
An inventory was completed to identify the signalized intersection locations within the
study area. The majority of signalized intersections were identified for the purpose of
conducting turning-movement counts. Other key unsignalized intersections were
identified for the same purpose. In addition, a number of locations along roadways
were identified for the purpose of conducting tube counts, i.e., counting vehicles passing
a specific point. All signalized intersections in the study area are listed below;
Figure 3.10 shows the locations of these intersections as well as other locations where
traffic counts were conducted. Counts were conducted in April 2011.
I-8 South Frontage Road at Payson Drive (west of South Fortuna Road)
I-8 at South Fortuna Road (South Ave 11E) at:
o North Frontage Road
o North On/Off Ramp
o South On/Off Ramp
o South Frontage Road
Page | 3-35
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-36
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.10
ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS

Page | 3-37
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-38
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
South Fortuna Road (South Ave 11E) at:
o East 35th Place
o East 40th Street/East County 12th Street
I-8 South Frontage Road at Fry’s Entrance Drive (Fortuna Commons SC)
I-8 at South Foothills Boulevard at:
o North Frontage Road
o North On/Off Ramp
o South On/Off Ramp
o South Frontage Road
South Foothills Boulevard at:
o East 38th Street
o East 40th Street/East County 12th Street
o East 44th Street
o East 48th Street/East County 13th Street (Proposed).
3.4.4 ROADWAY NETWORK OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT
Traffic operations for this Transportation Needs Study have been evaluated relative to
the primary roadway segments to ensure there is adequate high-level capacity to
handle regional and sub-regional travel demands. Roadway segments have been
examined at a planning level to compare existing facilities capacity with forecasted
daily traffic demand.
As shown in Figure 3.11, the highest volumes clearly are associated with I-8, where
the average traffic load is 23,000 to almost 27,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Based on
annual average daily volumes, the study area’s busiest streets generally are about
one-half or less of the traffic volumes occurring on I-8. For example, South Fortuna
Road, South Foothills Boulevard, and the I-8 South Frontage Road (west of Fortuna
Road) average 12-14,000 vpd. East 40th Street/ East County 12th Street, east of South
Fortuna Road, averages approximately 7,000 vpd.
Nevertheless, seasonal highs associated with roadways in the study area result in
traffic volumes varying considerably from the annual averages. The highest volumes
reported on South Foothills Boulevard (south of East 40th Street/East County
12th Street) and the I-8 South Frontage Road (west of South Fortuna Road) in
February and November, respectively, exceeded 20,000 vpd. The recorded traffic
volume on South Fortuna Road, south of I-8, reached 17,969 vpd in November,
compared to the annual average of 12,570. The extreme changes in traffic volumes
amount to an average increase of 54 percent on study area roadways, based on
recorded traffic in November and February. The greatest increase (109%) was
recorded on East 40th Street/East County 12th Street, east of South Foothills Boulevard
(although the actual volumes on this roadway segment were relatively small). The
lowest increase (36%) in the core portion of the study area occurred on the I-8 North
Frontage Road, east of South Avenue 10E.
A summary of peak-hour intersection turn movements at selected key intersections in
the study area are provided in Figure 3.12. The collected data provided the foundation
for analyzing traffic operations and identifying current capacity needs in the study area.
Page | 3-39
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-40
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.11
2009 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON SELECTED STUDY AREA ROADWAY SEGMENTS

Page | 3-41
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-42
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.12
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION COUNTS AT SELECTED KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011

Page | 3-43
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.12 (CONT.)
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION COUNTS AT SELECTED KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011

Page | 3-44
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.12 (CONT.)
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION COUNTS AT SELECTED KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011

Page | 3-45
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Transportation engineers and planners commonly use a rating system to measure the
operational status of roadway segments and interchanges/intersections comprising a
local roadway network. This rating system is referred
to as level of service (LOS), which yields a
measurement of the performance of network
components. As defined in the Highway Capacity
Manual 2010 (HCM2010), LOS is a qualitative
measure describing operating conditions associated
with a traffic stream. Six levels of service are defined
using letters, with LOS A representing the best
operating condition and LOS F the worst. Each LOS
represents a range of operating conditions and the
driver’s perception of these conditions, which are
graphically depicted in the figure at right. The various
levels of service are generally defined as follows:
LOS A represents free flow.
LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the
presence of other users in the traffic stream
begins to be noticeable.
LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks
the beginning of the range in which the
operation of individual users becomes
significantly affected by others.
LOS D represents high-density but stable flow.
Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely
restricted, and the driver experiences a
generally poor level of comfort and
convenience.
LOS E represents operating conditions at or
near the capacity level. All speeds are
reduced to a low but relatively uniform value.
LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown
flow. This condition exists wherever the
amount of traffic approaching a point at a given
period of time exceeds the amount which can
traverse the point.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
ROADWAYS
Table 3.6 summarizes the functional classifications of roadways within the study area
and identifies the associated roadway capacities based on level of access, traffic signal
spacing, and design standards.
Page | 3-46
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 3.6
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CAPACITIES
Functional
Classification
Interstate
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Collector
Minor Collector

Number of
Lanes

Daily Capacity

4
2
4
2
4
2
2

42,600
18,000
36,000
14,000
26,800
13,400
10,800

Source: YMPO Travel Demand Model capacities by facility type.

LOS for a roadway segment is defined in terms of the ratio of daily traffic volumes to
daily capacity (v/c). Table 3.7 details the LOS criteria for roadway segments.
TABLE 3.7
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Level of Service

v/c ratio

A
B
C
D
E
F

≤ 0.50
0.51-0.60
0.61-0.72
0.73-0.84
0.85-1.0
> 1.0

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 5th Edition, Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2010.

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Operating conditions are defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all
movements through an intersection, usually in seconds per vehicle. According to
HCM2010,
“…vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors,
including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time.
LOS
associated with signalized intersections is derived through an operations
analysis that measures many variables, including signal phasing (i.e.,
progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length,
lane geometry, and traffic volumes. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in
terms of average control delay per vehicle during a specified time period
(for example, the PM peak hour).”
Traffic control delay is that portion of total vehicular delay attributed to traffic signal
operations and includes initial deceleration, queue move up time, stopped delay, and
acceleration delay. Table 3.8 details the LOS criteria for signalized intersections.

Page | 3-47
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 3.8
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level
of
Service

Average Control Delay
(sec./veh.)

General Description

A
B
C
D
E
F

≤ 10.0
> 10.0 and ≤ 20.0
> 20.0 and ≤ 35.0
> 35.0 and ≤ 55.0
> 55.0 and ≤ 80.0
> 80.0

Free Flow
Stable Flow (slight delays)
Stable flow (acceptable delays)
Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait
through more
Unstable
than one
flowsignal
(intolerable
cycle before
delay)proceeding)
Forced flow (jammed)

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 5th Edition, Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2010.

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
For all-way and side-street stop-controlled intersections, traffic control delay
incorporates time associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in
the queue. Table 3.9 summarizes the relationship between the average control delay
and LOS for unsignalized intersections.
TABLE 3.9
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service

Average Control Delay
(sec./veh.)

A
B
C
D
E
F

≤ 10.0
> 10.0 and ≤ 15.0
> 15.0 and ≤ 25.0
> 25.0 and ≤ 35.0
> 35.0 and ≤ 50.0
> 50.0

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 5th Edition, Transportation
Research Board (TRB), 2010.

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS RESULTS
AM and PM peak-hour LOS has been analyzed for 18 intersections within the study
area, using turning-movement counts presented earlier in Figures 3.10 and 3.12. The
number/naming convention established in those figures have been maintained for this
LOS analysis. Methodologies presented in the HCM2010 were applied, and the
intersections were evaluated using the Synchro (Version 7.0) traffic simulation software,
which permits analysis of overall LOS for signalized intersections and all-way and
stop-controlled operations at unsignalized intersections. Figure 3.13 illustrates the lane
geometry and traffic control for each analyzed intersection.
The results of the LOS analysis of signalized intersections are presented in Table 3.10.
As a general conclusion, the Eastbound and Westbound approaches do not perform as
well as the Northbound and Southbound approaches for all intersections evaluated.
However, none of the intersections are performing at less than LOS B, and no approach

Page | 3-48
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.13
LANE GEOMETRIES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011

Page | 3-49
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.13 (CONT.)
LANE GEOMETRIES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011

Page | 3-50
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.13 (CONT.)
LANE GEOMETRIES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR KEY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011

Page | 3-51
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-52
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 3.10
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS
ID

Signalized
Intersection Name

I-8 North Frontage
AA
Road &
South Fortuna Road

I-8 Westbound On/Off
BB
Ramps and
South Fortuna Road

I-8 Eastbound On/Off
CC
Ramps and
South Fortuna Road

I-8 South Frontage
DD
Road and
South Fortuna Road

EE

East 35th Place &
South Fortuna Road

East 40th Street/East
FF County 12th Street and
South Fortuna Road

North Frontage Road
and
GG
South Foothills
Boulevard
I-8 Westbound On/Off
Ramps and
HH
South Foothills
Boulevard

II

I-8 Eastbound On/Off
Ramps and
South Foothills
Boulevard

South Frontage Road
and
JJ
South Foothills
Boulevard

KK

East 38th Street and
South Foothills
Boulevard

East 40th Street/East
County 12th Street and
LL
South Foothills
Boulevard

Metric
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
Approach Delay (sec)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (sec)
Intersection LOS

Left-Turn

Northbound
Through

Right-Turn

Left-Turn

Southbound
Through
Right-Turn

Left-Turn

0.351 (0.393)

0.167 (0.302)

0.11 (0.261)

0.039 (0.182)

0.182 (0.448)

0.152 (0.207)

11.9 (14.5)

16.6 (16.4)

B (B)

B (B)

0.281 (0.453)

Eastbound
Through
Right-Turn
0 (0)

0.73 (0.711)

Left-Turn

Westbound
Through

Right-Turn

0.326 (0.287)

0 (0)

0.52 (0.327)

24.6 (23.9)

20.1 (20.2)

C (C)

C (C)

17.7 (17.5)
B (B)
0.266 (0.305)

0.205 (0.29)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.168 (0.403)

5.6 (5.2)

11.3 (10.9)

A (A)

B (B)

0.371 (0.236)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.143 (0.205)

0.014 (0)

-

19.2 (20.4)

-

B (C)

0.187 (0.194)

9 (8.9)
A (A)
0 (0)

0.237 (0.271)

0.081 (0.065)

0.076 (0.136)

0.142 (0.36)

8 (9.3)

4.2 (5.1)

A (A)

A (A)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.413 (0.728)

0 (0)

0 (0)

17.4 (20)

-

B (B)

-

0 (0)

8.4 (9.8)
A (A)
0.109 (0.188)

0.212 (0.198)

0.216 (0.203)

0.097 (0.133)

0.218 (0.504)

13.1 (13.5)

13.4 (15.8)

B (B)

B (B)

0.165 (0.543)

0.364 (0.455)

0 (0)

0.286 (0.325)

0.086 (0.117)

0.503 (0.368)

17.5 (18.7)

23.4 (23.3)

B (B)

C (C)

0.304 (0.406)

15.8 (16.8)
B (B)
0.035 (0.055)

0.187 (0.165)

0.187 (0.166)

0.029 (0.045)

0.191 (0.388)

9.3 (9.7)

9.5 (10.8)

A (A)

A (B)

0.198 (0.343)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.05 (0.05)

0.016 (0.008)

0 (0)

0.083 (0.081)

14.5 (15)

12.9 (13.1)

B (B)

B (B)

10.6 (11.4)
B (B)
0 (0)

0.007 (0.008)

0 (0)

0.224 (0.357)

0 (0)

4.4 (4.2)

5.1 (5.6)

A (A)

A (A)

0.03 (0.048)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.084 (0)

0 (0.003)

0.137 (0.094)

11.2 (11.4)

12.8 (12.7)

B (B)

B (B)

0.647 (0.591)

9.7 (9)
A (A)
0.191 (0.18)

0.007 (0.006)

0.102 (0.099)

0.008 (0.002)

0.002 (0.001)

12.6 (10.6)

11.9 (9.9)

B (B)

B (A)

0.011 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.172 (0.203)

0.411 (0.126)

0 (0)

0.081 (0.041)

6 (6.8)

13.7 (11.9)

A (A)

B (B)

10.7 (9)
B (A)
0.598 (0.364)

0.06 (0.065)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.104 (0.123)

9.9 (8)

8.1 (7.9)

A (A)

A (A)

0.162 (0.031)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.032 (0.125)

0 (0)

0.24 (0.163)

-

16.9 (15.9)

-

B (B)

9.5 (8.5)
A (A)
0 (0)

0.191 (0.141)

0.192 (0.143)

0.013 (0.003)

0.075 (0.116)

4.3 (5.3)

4.1 (5.3)

A (A)

A (A)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.461 (0.79)

0 (0)

0 (0)

10.4 (11.4)

-

B (B)

-

0 (0)

5.1 (7.6)
A (A)
0.063 (0.085)

0.241 (0.165)

0.242 (0.168)

0.031 (0.075)

0.111 (0.232)

5.1 (5.2)

4.9 (5.3)

A (A)

A (A)

0.114 (0.232)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.211 (0.344)

0.143 (0.124)

0 (0)

0.29 (0.208)

9.3 (9.5)

9.4 (9.2)

A (A)

A (A)

6.2 (6.4)
A (A)
0.038 (0.059)

0.232 (0.134)

0.232 (0.136)

0.035 (0.095)

0.1 (0.201)

6 (6.1)

6 (6.4)

A (A)

A (A)

0.102 (0.205)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.192 (0.293)

0.022 (0.013)

0.054 (0.05)

14.4 (14.8)

14.2 (14.4)

B (B)

B (B)

0.185 (0.081)

7.3 (7.5)
A (A)
0.214 (0.164)

0.209 (0.134)

0.21 (0)

0.006 (0.016)

0.134 (0.228)

5.5 (6.9)

7.4 (8.8)

A (A)

A (A)

0.138 (0.231)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.596 (0.688)

0.008 (0.017)

0 (0)

0.193 (0.073)

16.5 (15.8)

15.1 (13.9)

B (B)

B (B)

8.2 (10.2)
A (B)
Prepared by Wilson & Company, July, 2011.

Source: Synchro 7 Traffic Simulation based on 2011 intersection traffic supplemented with 2010 counts provide by the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO).

Page | 3-53
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-54
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
to any intersection is performing worse than LOS C. It should be noted, however, that
this table represents average delay for individual intersections, and does not reflect the
compounded delays that drivers may experience travelling through a series of closely
spaced intersections, such as along Fortuna Road at the frontage roads and
interchange. When passing through this series of intersections, drivers are more likely
sensitive to the compounded delay that is experienced. For example, compounding the
average southbound delay at each intersection would result in an average delay of over
48 seconds.
The results of the analysis of unsignalized intersections are presented in Table 3.11.
This table shows that all unsignalized intersections analyzed are performing at LOS A in
both the AM and PM peak hours.
TABLE 3.11
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Left-Turn Through Right-Turn Left-Turn Through Right-Turn Left-Turn Through Right-Turn Left-Turn Through Right-Turn
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
0.06 (0.02)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.25 (0.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.01 (0)
0 (0)
15.8 (16.4)
0.2 South Frontage Road Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)
A
and
Approach LOS
C (C)
South Avenue 10E Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
0.5 (0.1)
A (A)
Intersection LOS

ID

B

C

D

E

F

Signalized
Intersection Name

Metric

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
0 (0)
East 28th Street and Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)
South Camino Del
Approach LOS
Sol
Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
0 (0)
East Calle Ventana
Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)
and
Approach LOS
South Camino Del
Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Sol
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
0 (0)
North Frontage Road Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)
and
Approach LOS
SouthCamino Del Sol Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
0 (0)
South Frontage Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Road and South Far
Approach LOS
West Avenue
Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
0.07 (0.05)
Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)
East 28th Street and
Approach LOS
South Fortuna Road
Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Intersection LOS

0.08 (0.12)
-

0 (0)

0.01 (0.07) 0.04 (0.17)
0.5 (1)
-

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)
-

0 (0)

0.45 (0.27)

0 (0)
13.6 (14)
B (B)

0 (0)

0.03 (0.09)
9.1 (9.3)
A (A)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.05 (0.03)
9.6 (9.4)
A (A)

0 (0)

0.01 (0)
8.8 (8.8)
A (A)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.1 (0.04)
9.7 (9.6)
A (A)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.13 (0.1)
-

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)
0.1 (0.3)
-

0 (0)

6.1 (2.2)
A (A)
0.02 (0.01)
4.3 (3)
-

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)
0.2 -

0 (0)

0 (0)

5.4 (6.4)
A (A)
0 (0)
0.3 (0.1)
-

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0.01)
0.3 (1)
-

0 (0)

0 (0)

4.2 (1.9)
A (A)
0 (0)
-

0 (0)

0.06 (0.05)

0 (0)
10.6 (10.6)
B (B)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)
0.11 (0.07) 0.03 (0.07) 0.09 (0.07)
10.4 (10.2)
1.5 (3.5)
B (B)
2.9 (3.5)
A (A)
0 (0)
-

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.11 (0.13)
-

1.4 (1)
A (A)
Prepared by Wilson & Company, July 2011.

Source: Synchro 7 Traffic Simulation based on 2011 intersection traffic supplemented with 2010 counts provide by the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO).

Full printouts of the Synchro 7 traffic simulation results are provided for both the
signalized and unsignalized intersections in the Technical Appendices.

Page | 3-55
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

3.5 SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Analysis of the number of crashes and the characteristics of crashes (e.g., time of
occurrence, type of collision, weather conditions, etc.) aids in identifying how safe a
roadway or intersection is for vehicle operations. Generally, when vehicular crashes are
examined over several years, patterns may be revealed that identify geometric
deficiencies, capacity issues, access control issues, or traffic control issues. Data was
obtained from ADOT’s Accident Location Identification Surveillance System (ALISS)
database for the period August 2005 through August 2010. During this six-year period,
a total of 738 crashes occurred in the study area.
Figure 3.14 graphically displays the number of crashes by year for the reported period.
The five-month period reported for 2005 indicates the potential number of crashes for
the year (185, annualized trend) was similar to years 2006 and 2007. A definite
downward trend in the number of crashes followed in 2008 and 2009. The annualized
trend for the eight months of 2010 indicates 88 crashes, which would be a slight
increase over 2009.
Figure 3.15 illustrates the location of crashes in the study area during the period
August 2005 through August 2010. As shown in the figure, major travel corridors
account for the majority of crashes in the study area, specifically, South Fortuna Road
(South Avenue 11E), South Foothills Boulevard (South Avenue 13E), and the South
Frontage and North Frontage roads of I-8, particularly between South Avenue 10E and
South Fortuna Road.
Figure 3.16 summarizes study area crashes during the same period by collision type,
injury severity, collision manner, and intersection type. The charts show that over 55%
of all crashes occurred at an intersection or where there was driveway access. Most
collisions (67.2%) involved two or more motor vehicles; however, single-vehicle crashes
represented 26 percent of all crashes. Only two percent of reported motor vehicle
collisions involved a pedestrian or bicyclist. Nevertheless, the severity of such crashes

Page | 3-56
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

FIGURE 3.14
STUDY AREA CRASHES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2010

Prepared by Wilson & Company, July 2011.
Note: Years 2005 and 2010 reflect partial year reporting.
Source: Accident Location Information Surveillance System (ALISS), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division, August
2005 through August 2010.

Page | 3-57
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-58
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.15
STUDY AREA CRASH LOCATIONS: AUGUST 2005 THROUGH AUGUST 2010

Source: Accident Location Information Surveillance System (ALISS), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division, August 2005 through August 2010.

Page | 3-59
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-60
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
is much greater than a motor vehicle/motor vehicle crash. Case in point, the recently
released ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan reveals that no injury occurs only 15 percent
of the time in a motor vehicle/bicycle crash.4
FIGURE 3.16
STUDY AREA CRASH CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN 2005 AND 2010

Source: Accident Location Information Surveillance System (ALISS), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning
Division, August 2005 through August 2010.

In contrast, Figure 3.16 indicates no injuries occurred 74.3 percent of the time relative to
the population of crashes reported, which largely involved only motor vehicles. Out of
the total of 738 crashes, 190 crashes (25.7%) resulted in varying degrees of injury to
the person or persons involved compared to 85 percent for a motor vehicle/bicycle

4

Figure 14, Statewide and State Highway Motor Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes, 2004-2008, Crash Injury Severity, Working Paper 1 – Profile of Bicycle Safety in
Arizona, Bicycle Safety Action Plan, ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan, December 27, 2010, Updated October 3, 2011.

Page | 3-61
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
crash. There were two fatal crashes reported during the period analyzed: one involving
a pedestrian and another at a railroad crossing. Detailed information involving severity
of injuries to pedestrians is not available in the same form as presented above for
bicycles. However, it is likely that the ratio of injury to no injury (85% v. 15%)
associated with motor vehicle/bicycle crashes is similar to or even higher for
pedestrians.
As noted above, the mapping of crash locations shown in Figure 3.15 revealed the
majority of crashes during the reported period occurred along the I-8 frontage roads,
Fortuna Road, and Foothills Boulevard. Therefore, additional review of crash data
along segments with a high number of crashes was conducted. The results of this
review are summarized in Table 3.12. Detailed data for each segment is presented in
the Technical Appendices.
TABLE 3.12
SUMMARY OF CRASH DATA FOR KEY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Roadway Segment
I-8 North Frontage Road: South Avenue 10E to South
Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E)
I-8 North Frontage Road: South Fortuna Road (South
Avenue 11E) to South Foothills Boulevard (South
Avenue 13E)
I-8 North Frontage Road: South Foothills Boulevard
(South Avenue 13E) to South Avenue 15E
I-8 South Frontage Road: South Avenue 10E to South
Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E)
I-8 South Frontage Road: South Fortuna Road (South
Avenue 11E) to South Foothills Boulevard (South
Avenue 13E)
South Frontage Road: South Foothills Boulevard
(South Avenue 13E) to South Avenue 15E
South Fortuna Road: South of the I-8 South Frontage
Road
South Fortuna Road: Between the North and South
Frontage Roads of I-8
South Fortuna Road: North of the I-8 North Frontage
Road
South Foothills Boulevard: South of the I-8 South
Frontage Road
South Foothills Boulevard: Between the North and
South Frontage Roads of I-8
Totals

Year
2007 2008

2005

2006

1

8

5

2

9

1

Total

2009

2010

4

3

0

21

5

4

0

1

21

1

2

2

1

3

10

5

25

12

15

9

5

71

5

6

4

8

1

3

27

1

2

0

0

0

1

4

1

11

10

4

2

4

32

16

29

21

17

32

16

131

2

4

4

5

3

3

21

1

2

4

4

1

3

15

2

6

4

8

2

2

24

37*

103

71

71

54

41**

377

Prepared by Wilson & Company, July 2011.
* Not a full calendar year; includes only August through December. Annualized estimate = 89.
** Not a full calendar year; includes only January through August. Annualized estimate = 62.
Source: Accident Location Information Surveillance System (ALISS), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division, August
2005 through August 2010.

Page | 3-62
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Table 3.12 shows 377 or 51.1 percent of the 738 total crashes in the study area were
concentrated on the eleven roadway segments identified. Overall, the number of
crashes on these segments has decreased from a high of 103 in 2006 to only 54 in
2009 – a decrease of 48 percent. This is consistent with the crash history of the study
area as a whole, which had a 56 percent decrease. Still, it is much better than
Arizona’s statewide trend, which showed a decrease from more than 143,000 crashes
in 2006 to fewer than 110,000 crashes in 2009 – a decrease of 23 percent.5 There is no
one specific reason for this trend, particularly as the number of vehicle miles traveled in
Arizona (and likely the study area) remained relatively constant between 2006 and
2009.6
Focusing on the eleven roadway segments highlighted in Table 3.12, the segment of
South Fortuna Road between the two I-8 frontage roads accounted for the highest
number of crashes – 131 – and, unlike the other segments, actually had a spike in the
number of crashes in 2009. The segment with the next highest number of crashes –
South Frontage Road: South Avenue 10E to South Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E) –
is located in the same general area. Interestingly, the number of crashes on the
segment of South Fortuna Road north of the I-8 North Frontage Road has remained
relatively constant in the range of three to five crashes per year between 2006 and
2009.
The majority of crashes on the eleven segments evaluated in detail were rear-end,
right-angle, and left-turn collisions. These types of collisions are typical on roadway
segments with closely spaced signalized intersections and unsignalized driveway
access points, two design characteristics prevalent along these segments. There also
were several single-vehicle collisions along the North and South Frontage roads of I-8
between South Avenue 10E and South Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E), which can
be an indicator of poor roadside clearance.
Often, a better indicator of roadway safety is the crash rate or frequency of crashes for
roadway segments expressed in terms of crashes per million vehicle miles (mvm)
traveled. The statewide average crash rate for the period 2006 through 2009 was
2.05 crashes/mvm (512,016 crashes divided by 249,628 mvm).7 Table 3.13 shows the
crash rates for the eleven key roadway segments in the study area. Rates on four of
the segments are higher than the statewide average. These rates were calculated
using the number of crashes reported (refer to Table 3.12) and existing traffic volumes
for each segment as defined by the travel demand model network developed for this
study.

5

Table 1-2, Licensed Drivers, Motor Vehicle Registrations and Crash History in Arizona, Section I – Highlights and Historical Trends, Arizona Motor Vehicles
Crash Facts 2009, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), September 29, 2010.

6

Ibid. Table 1-3, Historicla Trends – Arizona and the United States.

7

Ibid. Table 1-2, Licensed Drivers, Motor Vehicle Registrations and Crash History in Arizona and Table 1-3, Historicla Trends – Arizona and the United States.
Rates are based on motor vehicle operations only.

Page | 3-63
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 3.13
CRASH RATES FOR KEY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Crash Rate
(crashes per million
vehicle miles)

Roadway Segment
I-8 North Frontage Road: South Avenue 10E to South Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E)
I-8 North Frontage Road: South Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E) to South Foothills Boulevard
(South Avenue 13E)
I-8 North Frontage Road: South Foothills Boulevard (South Avenue 13E) to South Avenue 15E
I-8 South Frontage Road: South Avenue 10E to South Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E)
I-8 South Frontage Road: South Fortuna Road (South Avenue 11E) to South Foothills Boulevard
(South Avenue 13E)
South Frontage Road: South Foothills Boulevard (South Avenue 13E) to South Avenue 15E
South Fortuna Road: South of the I-8 South Frontage Road
South Fortuna Road: Between the North and South Frontage Roads of I-8
South Fortuna Road: North of the I-8 North Frontage Road
South Foothills Boulevard: South of the I-8 South Frontage Road
South Foothills Boulevard: Between the North and South Frontage Roads of I-8

1.20
0.66
1.09
4.23
0.74
0.22
2.29
12.17
1.96
0.87
4.24

Prepared by Wilson & Company, July 2011.
Source: Number of accidents reported in Table 5.7, Summary of Crash Data for Key Roadway Segments compared to existing traffic volumes by roadway
segment as defined in the travel demand model network developed for this study. Crash data from Accident Location Information Surveillance System (ALISS),
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division, August 2005 through August 2010.

As indicated previously, the statewide average crash rate was 2.05 crashes/mvm.
Crash rates in excess of this may be indicative of the presence of physical or
operational deficiencies and, therefore, measures may potentially exist to reduce the
frequency of crashes. Calculated crash rates shown in Table 3.13 indicate the following
segments exceed this rate:
I-8 South Frontage Road between South Avenue 10E and South Fortuna Road
(South Avenue 11E);
South Fortuna Road: South of the I-8 South Frontage Road;
South Fortuna Road: between the two I-8 frontage roads; and
South Foothills Boulevard between the two I-8 frontage roads.
When alternative improvements are investigated along these roadways, potential safety
improvements will also need to be considered. A more detailed safety evaluation will be
required with the future study of any proposed roadway improvements.

3.6 CROSSINGS OF FORTUNA WASH DRAINAGE NETWORK
Fortuna Wash and a network of tributaries drains the study area from south to north.
Currently, there are two major east-west roadways with all-weather crossings of Fortuna
Wash: I-8 and I-8 Frontage Roads and East 56th Street/East County 14th Street. The
only other roadway with all-weather crossings in the study area is South Avenue 15E, a
north-south facility. In addition to the all-weather crossings, numerous at-grade,
dry-weather riverbed crossings exist to support mobility in the study area. All-weather
and dry-weather crossings of Fortuna Wash and its tributaries are listed in and shown in
Figure 3.17.
Page | 3-64
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.17
ROADWAY CROSSINGS OF FORTUNA WASH DRAINAGE NETWORK

Page | 3-65
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-66
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Given that there are only two all-weather crossings of Fortuna Wash on major east-west
roadways in the study area, in the future it will be critical to provide additional allweather crossings to facilitate east-west travel during major precipitation events.

3.7 ALTERNATIVE MODAL ELEMENTS
A Transportation Needs Study not only serves to identify capacity requirements for
vehicular traffic, it also identifies how to move people, goods, and services. It is a
guidance document that helps provide information to the community as decisions are
being made. Planning for and delivering a multi-modal transportation system generally
involves coordination with multiple state, regional, and local agencies to ensure the
correct stakeholders are involved as facilities and services are being planned.
3.7.1 TRANSIT SERVICE
Transit service in the Greater Yuma Area has grown from a new transit service in the
late 1990s offering only paratransit service. Paratransit refers to transit service that
operates in response to calls from passengers or their agents to the transit operator. It
also is called Dial-A-Ride (DAR) and demand-responsive (DR) service. The fixed-route
Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) system evolved from the locally-funded DAR
service. The YMPO today owns, administers, and operates (through a contractor – First
Transit) the current mix of demand-responsive and fixed-route services provided in the
Greater Yuma Area. As noted in Chapter 2, formation of the YCIPTA in December of
2010 will permit the YMPO to divest its administrative and operational responsibilities
and focus on regional planning.
FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE
As of 2007, the YCAT system was providing fixed-route service on seven routes serving
the City of Yuma and Yuma County areas. Four mobility services were offered, using
four different types of vehicles: Passport; MST-2; Easy Rider; and Cut Away. All
accommodated wheel chairs and service animals. All vehicle types are equipped to
accommodate bicyclists. The system provided enhanced travel flexibility for all
residents in the Greater Yuma Area.
Since then, service adjustments were made in response to negative revenue impacts
associated with the national, even global, economic recession and reduced ridership.
Nevertheless, the YMPO Web site indicates ridership recovered somewhat, growing
17.3 percent from March 2008 to March 2009 with nearly 30,000 passengers using the
YCAT service in March 2009. A report on Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 operations revealed an
operating cost of $1.9 million to serve approximately 323,000 trips.
In August, 2010, the Yuma City Council voted to end all financial support of YCAT and
DAR services. In response, the YMPO Transit Sub-Committee recommended, and the
YMPO Board approved, suspending service on the Red and Blue routes. The Orange
Route, which originally served the entire study area was truncated at South Fortuna
Road; a new Gold Route now serves the full study area from South Avenue 10E to
South Avenue 15E. As shown in Figure 3.18, the Orange and Gold routes enter the

Page | 3-67
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-68
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 3.18
ORANGE AND GOLD ROUTES, YUMA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT (YCAT)

Page | 3-69
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 3-70
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
west side of the study area on the South Frontage Road at South Avenue 10E. Both
routes continue east to South Fortuna Road. The Orange Route – Colleges/Fortuna
Foothills [2] – initiates a return loop at South Fortuna Road. The route goes south on
South Fortuna Road, then travels west on East 35th Place. It turns to the north at South
Payson Drive and returns to the South Frontage Road, where it heads west and exits
the study area at South Avenue 10E. The Gold Route – Interstate 8/Wellton [8] –
continues east of South Fortuna Road along the I-8 South Frontage Road to South
Foothills Boulevard. This route is a “flex route,” which permits drivers to deviate to pick
up/drop off transit patrons. The route continues east from South Foothills Boulevard to
the community of Wellton. It follows the same route in the west direction, returning from
Wellton on I-8 and continuing on the South Frontage Road, leaving the study area at
South Avenue 10E. An example of a route deviation is shown in Figure 3.18 following
South Far West Avenue then turning east on East 34th Street to South Foothills
Boulevard.
The basic one-way fare is $2.00 for YCAT service with multiple options for reduced
fares, based on multiple ride passes and passenger eligibility. An additional fare of
$2.00 is charged for route deviation service associated with the Gold Route.
DIAL-A-RIDE (DAR)/ADA PARATRANSIT SERVICE
DAR services have been provided in many communities to assure that persons without
a means of transportation and with special mobility needs are able to access community
services and facilities. This paratransit service is available solely to people with
disabilities or seniors over the age of 60. Thus, this service provides curb-to-curb,
pick-up/drop-off for individuals with disabilities, who cannot use the fixed-route system.
However, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines require that DAR service
must be comparable to fixed-route service, which has been mandated to accommodate
persons with special mobility needs. Disabled individuals interested in taking advantage
of this service must apply and be found eligible according to ADA guidelines.
The DAR/ADA service reported a total of 34,000 riders in October, 2007. The service is
supported with an annual operating budget of $2.0 million. In FY 2009, almost 37,000
riders were served at a cost of $1.4 million. Currently, the DAR/ADA paratransit service
is available on Monday through Friday – 5:30 AM to 7:30 PM, and on Saturdays from
9:30 AM to 6:30 PM. The service area of the DAR/ADA paratransit component is
restricted to three quarters (¾) of a mile on either side of a route that is part of the
fixed-route service.
The basic one-way fare for DAR/ADA paratransit service is $4.00. The rider or his/her
representative must make a reservation at least 24 hours in advance. Reservations
may be made up to seven (7) days in advance in accordance with ADA guidelines. The
DAR/ADA service area is within a ¾-mile radius of YCAT bus routes operating during
the time of request, which generally provides coverage from the City of San Luis and
the City of Somerton through the City of Yuma and the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol study
area to the Town of Wellton.

Page | 3-71
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
3.7.2 PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS
There is a general lack of sidewalks in the study area, although much of the
single-family housing areas incorporate space along the roadways where sidewalks
could be constructed. In the study area for the period August 2005 through August
2010, there were five crashes involving pedestrians; one resulted in a fatality.
Therefore, greater emphasis on improving and providing safe and secure pedestrian
accommodations is of primary importance to the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas of
Yuma County. Developing a network of sidewalks and paths within the communities
would provide opportunities to walk or otherwise operate a non-motorized vehicle (e.g.,
wheel chair, bicycle) to a near-by destination instead of driving. The dominant grid
street pattern within the study area would benefit from sidewalks to promote pedestrian
mobility. Sidewalks have been constructed as part of the two I-8 interchanges, but they
have no connectivity to other parts of the study area.
3.7.3 BICYCLE FACILITIES
In the study area for the period August 2005 through August 2010, there were
10 crashes involving bicycles; only two (20%) resulted in no injuries. The Bicycle Safety
Action Plan recently completed by ADOT involved an in-depth evaluation of the
frequency and cause of bicycle fatal and injury crashes associated with the State
Highway System in Arizona. Based on this evaluation, the Plan recommends
improvements, programs, and strategies, that upon implementation, will reduce such
crashes. Potential countermeasures include: engineering solutions, education of
bicyclists and motorists, and improving enforcement of laws and regulations.
Arizona’s Bicycle Safety Action Plan highlights in graphic form Fatal State Highway
Bicyclist Crashes for the period 2004 – 2008. This graphic identifies the proportion of
fatalities by four different types of areas, ranging from rural to large urbanized with a
population of 200,000 or more. The YMPO region is considered a large urbanized area
with population exceeding 200,000. A fatality rate of 33 percent was associated with
this type of geographic area. Thus, it is appropriate that the Circulation Element of the
Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies improvement of bicycle facilities to
be a “critical issue.” There is recognition of “…a growing demand and interest for
access to safe and efficient bicycle facilities throughout the county.” The Circulation
Element also notes, “There is a need to incorporate provisions into existing
infrastructure, roadway and non-motorized plans to accommodate this mode of
transportation.” The recently adopted Yuma County 2020 Comprehensive Plan goes
one step further, stating under Circulation Policies and Priorities that “Yuma County will
encourage road design, construction or reconstruction to better accommodate
pedestrian and bicycle traffic.”
Safe bicycle facilities are especially important for individuals who do not drive, which is
particularly relevant for the large number of elderly persons in the study area. Based on
mapping available in the YMPO RTP, there are no formal, dedicated bicycle or
pedestrian routes, trails, paths, or lanes within the study area. Bikely.com identifies a
446-mile (717.9-km) “Sea-to-Saguaro” bike route that begins in San Diego, California,
and ends in Tucson, Arizona. The route follows the I-8 North Frontage Road through
Page | 3-72
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
the study area to South Foothills Boulevard, where it transitions to I-8; however, this
route does not serve the day-to-day mobility needs of study area residents.

3.8 FREIGHT SERVICES
Both truck and railroad freight services and facilities have developed in the Greater
Yuma Area in response to the east-west connection provided by rail facilities and I-8 as
well as the vast agricultural investments associated with the Lower Colorado River and
Imperial Valley in California.
3.8.1 TRUCKING
Yuma County and ADOT currently have no truck restrictions on study area roadways.
Information about trucking activity in the study area is available through documents
prepared during the Arizona Multimodal Freight Study, specifically Technical
Memoranda Nos. 2 and 3. This study reports that I-8, an east-west facility, has a
comparatively lower volume of truck travel relative to I-10 farther north. “One reason for
this could be the grades and curves encountered on I-8 in California west of El Centro
that many truckers would want to avoid.”8 The average annual daily truck volume
reported in February, 2008, was 5,001 to 10,000 trucks per day. At the time, truck
traffic accounted for 12.8% to 21% of the total daily traffic volume on I-8 through the
study area. The level of service provided by I-8 through Yuma County is not lower than
'C', which means there is adequate capacity for growth in trucking services through the
study area.
The new Arizona Highway 195 (SR 195) links I-8 to both border crossings in San Luis
and San Luis Rio Colorado in Sonora, Mexico. An ongoing study undertaken by ADOT
has evaluated alternative routes for extending SR 195 to US 95 and moved into the
engineering and environmental assessment phase. This link will provide access from
the commercial port of entry at San Luis to US 95, a major north-south highway through
western Arizona. It will further facilitate goods movement between the United States
and Mexico and provide an additional, enhanced travel corridor directly west of the
study area.
3.8.2 RAIL FREIGHT
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Sunset Route traverses Yuma County and passes
within 300 feet of the northeastern corner of the study area. The line crosses Fortuna
Road approximately three-quarters of a mile north of East 24th Street/East County
10th Street and one-third mile south of Fortuna Road’s connection to US 95. This
important route is UPRR’s primary line between the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach
and Texas, the southeast, and Midwest, as well as Mexico through either El Paso or
Laredo, the principal U.S./Mexico rail border crossings. The UPRR is experiencing
significant growth in rail freight traffic on this route, and the number of daily trains is
expected to reach 100 or more by the year 2013. In response to the growth in rail
freight demand, UPRR is in the process of double-tracking the entire line between Los

8

Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study, Technical Memorandum #2: Assessment of Arizona’s Existing Freight Infrastructure, ADOT/Wilbur Smith
Associates, February 2008, Pg. 10.

Page | 3-73
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Angeles and El Paso. This expansion, when completed, will create a new set of
challenges for the region’s transportation system. Added train operations potentially
could affect, i.e., create additional delays, for study area residents using US 95 as an
access route to the City of Yuma and points west, as an alternative to I-8.
As a response to potential opportunities associated with interstate rail freight services
operated by UPRR, the YMPO recently initiated a study to examine freight and
multimodal opportunities for the Yuma Region. The overall goal of this study “…is to
recommend a feasible rail corridor, identify opportunities for freight-related economic
development, increased mobility and access for freight movements throughout the study
area.”9 Although the expansion of rail freight services does not directly affect the study
area, any expansion in such service that may increase truck traffic on I-8 could have a
potential effect on this major regional highway.

9

Request for Proposals, Consultant Services for Yuma County Rail Corridor Study, Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO), September 2011.

Page | 3-74
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

COMMITTED AND PLANNED
IMPROVEMENTS

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

4.0 COMMITTED AND PLANNED TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS
This section identifies and summarizes committed and planned roadway improvements
for Yuma County and, specifically, the Fortuna Foothills and Mesa Del Sol study area.

4.1 CONTEXT
Plans and programs relevant to the study area have been reviewed to identify
“committed” and “planned” roadway improvements. Committed roadway improvements
(and other relevant) projects were identified within the ADOT Tentative 2012-2016
Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, the ADOT 2011-2014 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the YMPO FY 2011-2016 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), the 2011-2016 Yuma County Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP), and in the 2011-2016 City of Yuma CIP. The first year of each program identifies
projects for which funds have been committed. Planned projects are those listed in
subsequent years of the programs that may be initiated as part of a fiscally-constrained,
long-range improvement plan – no funding commitments have been adopted. Table 6.1
provides a summary of projects funded through FY 2016. A brief discussion of funding
programs follows.

4.2 FUNDING PROGRAMS
Transportation improvements in the study area may be funded through the State of
Arizona, Yuma County, and/or the YMPO. This section addresses these three sources
of funds.
4.2.1 ADOT STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
All highway and transit projects to be funded under Title 23, Federal-Aid Highways and
the Federal Transit Act, must be included in the federally-approved STIP. Projects in
the STIP must be consistent with the Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan and
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) of the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO). The STIP and TIP must reflect funding and priorities for
programming, including transportation enhancements.
As shown in Table 6.1, ADOT roadway improvement projects for the Fortuna Foothills
and Mesa Del Sol study area are programmed in the most recent available ADOT
FY 2011-2014 STIP. Approximately $3.1 million is planned for expenditure in 2012 and
2013 to reconstruct the I-8 South Frontage Road, an Urban Minor Arterial, between
South Avenue 9E and South Avenue 11E. An additional $636,000 is planned for
disbursement in 2012 to cover improvements at the I-8/South Fortuna Road Traffic
Interchange.
ADOT also is the primary conduit for funds to support transit facility development and
operations. Planning, capital purchase, and operating funding assistance for urban
areas over 50,000 population comes through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Page | 4-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Section 5303 Program (planning) and Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding
TABLE 4.1
COMMITTED AND PLANNED TRANSPORTATION-RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Source
ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS
ADOT STIP
ADOT STIP
Yuma County CIP
Yuma County CIP

Funding (000’s)
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Project Name

FY 2012

FY 2016

Reconstruct I-8 South Frontage Road
I-8/South Fortuna Road Traffic
Interchange Improvements
I-8 North & South Frontage Road
Widening, South Avenue 10E to South
Avenue 13E
Signal: South Foothills Boulevard at
East 48th Street/East County
13th Street

2,072
636

1,020
--

---

---

---

2,897

--

400

600

400

113

--

--

--

--

Prepared by Wilson & Company, July, 2011.

Program (capital and operating assistance). Funds are passed through to the MPOs
and allocated in accordance with short- and long-range transportation planning and
programming in their defined study area. The ADOT STIP includes approximately
$1.8 million for transit funding assistance to the Yuma area through FY 2014.
4.2.2 YMPO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The YMPO has responsibility for conducting the area-wide continuing, comprehensive,
and cooperative transportation system planning program and must maintain the regional
transportation system plan and short-range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The YMPO TIP is a multi-year, multi-agency listing of transportation improvement
projects determined eligible for federal funding. The TIP is developed and adopted in
conformance with all applicable requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134, as amended by the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) 2005 and the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments. Adoption
of the TIP and supporting planning documents is a prerequisite for receipt of both
federal transit and federal highway funding, which flows through the YMPO, which has
Direct Grantee Status for the region and its members.
Each of the projects proposed for implementation is consistent with the YMPO RTP,
which is updated every four years to create fully coordinated, countywide transportation
improvement program.
4.2.3 YUMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
On an annual basis, the Yuma County Board of Supervisors approves funding for the
first year of its Five-Year CIP. This first year is referred to as the CIP, as funding has
been approved to be used for specified capital projects. Based on review of the
FY 2012-2016 CIP, Yuma County has committed approximately $3 million in FY 2012 to
support widening of the I-8 South Frontage Road and installation of a traffic signal at
South Foothills Boulevard/48th Street intersection. Additional planned expenditures
Page | 4-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
totaling $1.4 million have been identified in FY 2014 through FY 2016 for continuing
improvements of the I-8 South Frontage Road.

4.3 BASE FUTURE ROADWAY NETWORK
The Base Study Area roadway network is defined by the existing roadway system plus
any improvements supported by authorized funding – committed improvements – and
improvements identified in adopted plans ultimately expected to be implemented. This
roadway network is referred to as the Existing-Plus-Committed (E+C) system. The
base study area roadway network was defined for Years 2020, 2030, and Buildout. The
principal components of the E+C roadway system are shown in Figures 4.1-4.3. As
indicated in the figure, all new roadway segments in the study were assumed to consist
of two travel lanes for purposes of the base conditions analysis.
Outside of the study area, improvements included in the YMPO 2033 RTP network were
assumed to be in place for all future analysis years for purposes of this analysis.

Page | 4-3
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 4-4
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 4.1
EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: YEAR 2020 NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES

Page | 4-5
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 4.2
EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: YEAR 2030 NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES

Page | 4-6
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 4.3
EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK: BUILDOUT NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES

Page | 4-7
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 4-8
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

FORECAST OF FUTURE
CONDITIONS

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

5.0 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS
This chapter examines the anticipated future land use pattern in the study area and
establishes area growth assumptions that influence forecasts of future travel demand. It
also addresses expectations for travel demand and needs of the transportation system
to accommodate that demand. In addition, information is provided relating to the future
status and operations of alternative modes of transportation, including transit service,
bicycle facilities, and accommodations of pedestrian movements.

5.1 FUTURE LAND USE PATTERNS
Figure 7-1 illustrates the proposed land use pattern adopted for the Foothills
Sub-Regional Planning Area. The pattern of land uses shown is based on specific
guidelines, goals, and objectives identified during the development of the Yuma County
2020 Comprehensive Plan:
Consistency with existing development and zoning patterns and anticipated
expansion of the commercial core on South Foothills Boulevard and South
Avenue 11E and the I-8 corridor.
Preservation of agriculture north and west of US 95, as shown by the
Agriculture/Rural Preservation (A-RP) designation.
Agriculture/Rural Residential (A-RR) north of I-8 and lower density residential
zones at the base of the Gila Mountains in the eastern portion of the sub-region.
New commercial growth zones are located along South Foothills Boulevard at
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street and between East 44th and
East 47th streets. Lands between the Fortuna Wash and I-8 are designated
Mixed Use Residential (R-MU), which allows for a combination of commercial
and residential uses for this transition zone.
The Urban Density Residential (R-UD) designation is shown in the areas
currently platted, which generally are east of South Foothills Boulevard, north of
East 44th Street, and proximate to the core commercial areas.
Lower density Suburban Density Residential (R-SD) is designated further from
the core commercial areas, typically south of East 44th Street and west of South
Foothills Boulevard.
Open Space & Recreational Resource (OS/RR) lands primarily are incorporated
in the Gila Mountain overlay and washes that transect the area. The Gila
Mountains have slope, depth, and bedrock problems that preclude development
and urbanization and washes are subject to periodic inundation.
There are a number of planning considerations addressed in the Comprehensive Plan
for the Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area. Most significantly, the sub-region has
experienced rapid residential growth and development trends in the sub-region indicate
expansion will continue. Expansion of residential land use south of I-8 and east to
Fortuna Wash is focusing on low-density manufactured home and recreational

Page | 5-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 5-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.1
PROPOSED STUDY AREA LAND USE PATTERN

Page | 5-3
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 5-4
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
vehicle(RV) subdivisions as well as RV parks. Land zoned for 6,000-square-foot home
sites is plentiful and is particularly available west of South Avenue 12E. Commercial
and office facility growth is occurring along I-8 and the South Fortuna Road and South
Foothills Boulevard interchanges with I-8. Future residential growth should approach
the boundary of the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) at East 56th Street/East
County 14th Street. Expansion into the northern Foothills is severely restricted by the
Gila Mountains and other physical and soil constraints.
Table 5.1 compares the land uses predominant in 2001 with the land use pattern
recommended in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to accommodate future trends. The
acreage shown for Designated Future Land Use is reflected in Table 5.1 below.
TABLE 5.1
LAND USE ACREAGE IN THE FOOTHILLS SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING AREA:
2001 & DESIGNATED FUTURE BUILDOUT
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Federal Lands
State Lands
Open Space
Agricultural
Total

Year 2001 (a)

Designated Future (b)

5,236
850
126
11,069
8,319
-- (1)
-25,600

13,650
1,166
0 (2)
--9,333
851
25,600

NOTES:
(1) -- Indicates no jobs were listed for this category by the identified source.
(2) No occurrence of industrial land use is anticipated, according to the identified source.
Sources:
(a) Table 4D.4 Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area Existing Private Land Use Designation, Foothills Sub-Regional
Planning Area, Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
(b) Table 4D.5 Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area Designated Land Use & Acreage, Foothills Sub-Regional
Planning Area, Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Quantities shown represent recommendations and
designations for future development developed and adopted in the Foothills Planning Area Citizen Advisory Group
Report, prepared in support of efforts by the Long-Range Planning Staff of the Yuma County Department of
Development Services to update the Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.

Table 5.1 reveals a substantial difference between the Year 2001 land uses and the
designated future or planned land uses. The difference is particularly pronounced in the
Residential, Industrial, Open Space, and Agricultural categories. These differences
result from assumptions regarding the future conversion of State and Federal lands,
which had historically been excluded from County land use plans. This was done to
ensure designations that meet the desires of County residents on lands subject to
conversion to private ownership.

5.2 AREA GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
Area growth assumptions have been based on the latest planning documents available
for the study area, as published by Yuma County and the YMPO. Buildout assumptions
developed for this study were developed by determining the maximum development
potential defined by the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance.
Page | 5-5
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
5.2.1 TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING METHODOLGY
Travel demand models used to evaluate potential future changes in traffic volumes on a
roadway network rely on an understanding of the land use pattern and how that pattern
will change over time. The TransCAD transportation planning software employed for
this study is capable of estimating the travel demand of an area’s population by
estimating the potential trips generated by and attracted to predefined zones. These
transportation analysis zones (TAZs), as they are called, are defined geographically and
statistically as inputs to this travel forecasting software, permitting the modeling of likely
conditions in the future. Thus, the transportation planner is able to use TransCAD to
predict changes in travel patterns and, therefore, utilization of the roadway network in
response to anticipated changes in regional development, demographics, and roadway
facilities. Although the modeling process supported by TransCAD includes in addition
to forecasts of traditional automobile and truck traffic, the ability to examine changes in
other modes and choices between modes, the emphasis for the Foothills and Mesa del
Sol study area is the roadway network.
5.2.2 MODEL FORECASTING INPUTS
This transportation needs study required an evaluation of current or existing conditions
within the roadway network, forecast conditions for interim years 2020 and 2030, and an
estimate of anticipated conditions under “Buildout” conditions. Buildout refers to the
condition of full utilization of developable land and is considered to be likely post 2030.
Buildout conditions are defined in terms of future population and employment expected
to be located within each TAZ, based on planned or zoned densities. Thus, it principally
is an estimate of the potential development far into the future, and decisions may be
made that change the current planning or zoning criteria.
Population and employment locates in direct response to land development. Therefore,
potential land development to define Buildout conditions in the study area was
estimated for each of the TAZs already identified for the regional travel demand model
and is shown in Figure 5.2. Development densities for each of the land use types
shown in Figure 5.2 were determined from the County Zoning Ordinance.10 These
densities then were used to derive the number of dwelling units (DUs) expected to be
developed in accordance with residential zoning in any particularly TAZ and the number
of employees expected to be located in the commercial zones. Desired densities
specified in the Foothills Planning Area Background Study, prepared in support of the
Yuma County Comprehensive Plan, also were taken into account.
First, the area of the separate and distinct land use zones was measured. For the
residential zones, the measured area was translated into an estimate of dwelling units
(DUs). This was accomplished by applying the number of units per acre, as determined
from the County Zoning Ordinance along with this general assumption: 20 percent of
the land area would be devoted to roads and common areas, and lot coverage for one
DU (based on the remaining area) could be no more than 50 percent. Commercial
zones were translated into an estimate of employment using a similar methodology.

10

Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Effective September 25, 2006, with Amendments through April 8, 2011.

Page | 5-6
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Figure 5.2
Transportation Analysis Zones and Planned Land Use

Page | 5-7
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 5-8
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
Instead of DUs being the unit of measure, commercial development was estimated in
terms of square footage allowed for each land use type under the ordinance. The
results of this process are shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 reveals that at Buildout the
study area will approach 50,000 DUs. This value is used in the modeling process to
estimate the number of trips originating in each TAZ with a residential component.
Table 5.2 also shows an estimated 10,000 employees or jobs associated with
approximately 800 acres of commercial development.
The base estimate of Buildout conditions prepared following this methodology was
combined within a second table, comparing the population and employment estimates
by TAZ established for the years 2009 and 2030 within the framework of the YMPO
RTP. In most cases, Buildout values were greater than the existing 2009 and future
2030 values used for the YMPO Update. However, there were variances resulting from
clear evidence of development displayed in aerials photographs and strict interpretation
of the potential associated with stipulations of the zoning ordinance. A comparative
table was submitted for review to County planning officials to permit local knowledge
and understanding to give weight to the estimates. Some modifications were made,
which substantiated the need to have and benefit from a local review.
Subsequent review and allocation of growth to support the modeling process required
an update of the number of DUs used as the control total for Buildout conditions.
During this process, it was determined that a substantial number of TAZs were already
at Buildout. Assuming no major renewal action would remove and replace existing
development, certain adjustments were necessary to assure a reliable estimate for
existing conditions. Therefore, a physical rooftop count of dwelling units in the study
area was undertaken by examining the latest available aerial photography. This count
was used to verify the magnitude of estimates for each TAZ. Adjustments were made
to the original 2009 estimates prepared for the RTP to attain an estimate for 2011.
Overall, the process followed provides a reasonable estimation of population and
employment in the study area under existing and Buildout Conditions. Interim-year
2020 and 2030 forecasts were established by assuming 50 percent of the remaining
developable land would be developed by 2020 and 75 percent would be developed by
2030. Growth was allocated first to developed TAZs with existing transportation and
other infrastructure. There were a greater number of adjustments made with respect to
the commercial development; however, this would seem appropriate in that commercial
development is less standardized, more sensitive to market dynamics, and perhaps
requires more specific locational choices. The result of this process is shown in
Table 5.3. Maps have been prepared depicting the projected future growth pattern of
the study area. These maps are presented in the Technical Appendices.

Page | 5-9
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 5.2
DERIVATION OF THE ESTIMATE OF BUILDOUT CONDITIONS

TAZ
465
466
467
468
469
470
475
476
477
478
479
480
482
483
484
486
487
489
490
491
492
493
494
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505

Dwelling
Units
1,920
1,140
1,710
486
-708
2,172
1,386
--1,134
1,482
565
1,944
256
508
1,458
767
402
1,973
2,106
1,280
1,254
918
4,753
733
1,242
5,408
3,456
2,076
2,268
3,096
1,260

Total Study
Area

49,861

Gross Commercial Acreage
Commercial Commercial
/ Residential
/ Trade
Commercial
(C-RC)
(C-CT)
14.85
--12.58
-----7.02
-14.52
7.04
-34.01
---17.16
--58.30
**
-14.80
-26.00
43.00
-26.00
26.18
**
-35.00
-19.20
38.40
-6.40
51.00
-----6.40
--19.20
-----38.40
-28.57
32.00
--30.71
-3.80
---23.80
--2.00
--------41.27
-45.25
6.40
--18.39
----19.20
12.80
-----25.60
---

582.30

0.00

222.95

Total
14.85
12.58
0.00
21.54
41.05
0.00
17.16
58.30
40.80
69.00
26.18
54.20
44.80
51.00
0.00
6.40
19.20
0.00
66.97
32.00
34.51
0.00
23.80
2.00
0.00
0.00
86.52
6.40
18.39
19.20
12.80
0.00
25.60

Employment
(12 Emps/Ac)
178
151
0
258
493
0
206
700
490
828
314
650
538
612
0
77
230
0
804
384
414
0
286
24
0
0
1,038
77
221
230
154
0
307

805.25

9,663

** This area is fully developed with residential units and, therefore, counted in DUs.
Source:
Densities used to derive this table of values were taken from Foothills Planning Area Background Study, "Comprehensive Plan,"
and calibrated against actual ground conditions using Bing Maps. The general assumption was that 20% of the area is and will be
devoted to roads and common areas and the lot coverage for one dwelling unit (based on the remaining area) is 50%.
Prepared by: Wilson & Company, 06/16/2011.

Page | 5-10
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 5.3
COMPARISON OF 2011, 2020, 2030, AND BUILDOUT ESTIMATES
OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE STUDY AREA

TAZ

Estimated 2011
Population
(DUs)
Employment

Interim 2020 (1)
Population
(DUs)
Employment

Interim 2030 (2)
Population
(DUs)
Employment

County Recommended (3)
Population
(DUs)
Employment

465

1,600

257

1,920

257

1,920

257

1,920

257

466

555

2

1,140

151

1,140

151

1,140

151

467

1,100

30

1,710

30

1,710

30

1,710

30

468

460

1

695

258

695

258

695

258

469

0

180

54

493

54

493

54

493

470

450

636

708

636

708

636

708

636

475

1,540

148

2,172

216

2,172

216

2,172

216

476

770

369

376

700

376

700

376

700

477

0

567

--

567

--

567

--

567

478

0

243

16

828

16

828

16

828

479

930

122

1,134

314

1,134

314

1,134

314

480

510

61

1,482

650

1,482

650

1,482

650

482

0

12

0

12

0

12

565

538

483

0

13

0

13

0

13

1,944

612

484

0

0

0

0

0

0

256

0

486

0

0

0

0

0

0

508

77

487

20

0

20

0

20

0

1,458

230

489

710

147

767

147

767

322

767

322

490

50

24

50

24

402

804

402

804

491

1,440

17

1,973

17

1,973

384

1,973

384

492

1,025

738

2,106

738

2,106

738

2,106

738

493

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,280

0

494

870

154

1,254

280

1,254

280

1,254

280

496

540

15

540

15

918

24

918

24

497

2,160

7

3,457

7

4,753

7

4,753

7

498

20

0

20

0

350

0

350

0

499

505

239

1,242

1,038

1,242

1,038

1,242

1,038

500

0

41

0

41

5,408

77

5,408

77

501

2,500

101

3,456

221

3,456

221

3,456

221

502

30

0

2,076

0

2,076

230

2,076

230

503

1,500

11

2,268

11

2,268

154

2,268

154

504

1,600

2

3,096

2

3,096

2

3,096

2

505

1,100

50

1,260

50

1,260

307

1,260

307

TOTAL

21,985

4,187

34,992

7,716

42,756

9,713

48,747

11,144

Prepared by: Wilson & Company, 08/25/2011.
Notes:
TAZ = Transportation Analy sis Zone.
DUs = Dw elling Units, w hich prov ides an measure of dev elopment for a giv en area that can be translated into population (Persons/DU) for modeling purposes.
Source:
(1) YMPO Trav el Demand Model 2009 Update
(2) Assumes 75% of the potential dev elopment w ill hav e occurred by 2030, if the TAZ is not fully dev eloped prior to that time.
(3) Values deriv ed through assessment of potential dev elopment w ith Buildout based on land use and zoning. Bold highlighting identifies v alues different from Estimated Buildout prov ided by Yuma

Page | 5-11
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

5.3 FUTURE ROADWAY FACILITIES
This section establishes the definition of the future roadway network to be the basis for
testing network performance and evaluating potential deficiencies.
5.3.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE ROADWAY NETWORK
The functional classification of streets forming the base study area roadway network
was depicted in Figure 4.1. Functional classification of roadways is a critical component
of effective transportation planning. The functional classification designations adopted
in the YMPO RTP guide future mobility and access decisions regarding the location and
type of new facilities.
Functional classification of the roadway network is meant to establish a balance among
the various facilities serving the community, assuring connectivity where it is needed
and an acceptable level of accessibility to surrounding land uses. Thus, each physical
roadway segment forming the E+C roadway network must be characterized by type and
size, the purpose it serves, and how traffic is controlled. If appropriate, bridges
necessary to establish connectivity also must be identified.
Definition of the E+C network also reflects overarching responsibilities for maintenance
and operations, which are divided up between ADOT and Yuma County. As
alternatives are developed, tested, and assessed, the current functional classification of
roadways in the network will be assessed to ensure performance, system role, and
classification are consistent. It is important to note that the local street system, which
facilitates direct access to abutting properties, is not part of this transportation needs
assessment.
5.3.2 YEARS 2020, 2030, AND BUILDOUT EXISTING-PLUS-COMMITTED
ROADWAY NETWORK
The base future E+C roadway network is made up of varying types of facilities that
provide a hierarchy of mobility and access. As development within the Foothills and
Mesa Del Sol progresses, there will be an increase in the population and commercial
activity. The roadway network must change and grow, as appropriate, to meet
additional travel demands. The roadway network of the study area and its capacity to
move automobile and truck traffic must increase to accommodate increasing traffic
volumes, particularly on major arterial facilities. Due to the high concentration of traffic
in certain sectors of the study area and the role of I-8 to support interstate travel, the
timing and adequacy of street improvements are critical. In addition, the central nature
of I-8 and its major role as a high-capacity, east-west travel corridor creates a potential
need for additional capacity on arterial and collector roadways.

5.4 TRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION POTENTIAL
As noted earlier, YCAT provides public transportation to the citizens of the Greater
Yuma Area. Both the YCAT service and DAR/ADA service are administered and
funded by the YMPO. YMPO owns all transit service vehicles and leases the transit
system maintenance facility at East 14th Street and South Atlantic Avenue. The system
is operated under a private contract with First Transit, which resides in and operates the
Page | 5-12
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
maintenance center. As discussed earlier, it is anticipated that YCIPTA will assume
administration of transit services after anticipated grantee status in June/July 2012.
5.4.1 FORECAST DEMAND
The YMPO 2033 RTP identifies a level of need for local and regional transit services in
Yuma County. The need was determined through the use of three transit demand
forecasting models. The results of applying the three models are presented in
Table 5.4.
TABLE 5.4
POPULATION GROWTH AND TRANSIT DEMAND FORECAST
2000

2033

Population Growth Projection
Elderly (Above Age 60)
Disabled (Below Age 60)
Poverty (Below Age 60)

33,855 (1)
149,687 (1)
157,758 (1)

67,356 (2)
297,810 (2)
313,868 (2)

Annual Trip Demand Forecast
Ridership
APTNA Model
Peterson & Smith Model
Elderly & Disabled Model

341,300
4,136,009
3,276,025
10,382,910

679,034
8,228,799
6,517,817
20,657,325

(1) U.S. Census Bureau.
(2) 2033 Population calculated by extrapolating 2000 figures, based on projected growth identified by the Yuma
Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO) for the period 2000-2033.
Source: Table II-14, 20333 Regional Transportation Plan

5.4.2 PROPOSED SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
The YMPO RTP Update, finalized April, 2010, contains short-term and long-range plans
for improving the regional transit system. Despite extreme actions undertaken in
August, 2010, as noted earlier, these plans offer a reasonable roadmap for future transit
services subsequent to recovery of the local economy from the recent recession.
Operational recommendations in the two plans offer incremental service improvements,
which can be reevaluated and adjusted according to the level of success of each plan to
ensure transit service effectiveness in the long term.
The recommended RTP improvements in the short-term plan include two routes
operating in the Foothills and two routes serving the Mesa Del Sol area, as shown in
Figures 5.3 and 5.4. The RTP recognizes these routes are preliminary and can be
implemented one at a time as funding becomes available and priorities are established.

Page | 5-13
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.3
PLANNED FUTURE FOOTHILLS CIRCULATOR ROUTES

FIGURE 5.4
PLANNED FUTURE MESA DEL SOL CIRCULATOR ROUTES

Page | 5-14
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

5.5 PROPOSED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The YMPO RTP recognizes that non-motorized transportation modes can reduce
congestion and enhance mobility within the region. Thus, there is an objective to create
bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly facilities to provide transportation choices.
5.5.1 PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS
The YMPO RTP cites the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities as the source for facility design to accommodate pedestrian travel.
Along arterials not in a central business district (CBD), the Guide recommends sidewalk
widths of six to eight feet with a buffer strip provided between the sidewalk and the curb.
The buffer strip would be developed with indigenous, drought-tolerant landscaping and
various hardscape elements (e.g., pavers, furniture, etc.). Sidewalk widths of eight to
ten feet are desirable in locations where the sidewalk is flush against the curb. The
recommended design parameters for the buffer is two to four feet along local or
collector streets and five to six feet along arterial or major streets. The following
improvement goals are applicable to new facilities identified through this needs
assessment:
Provide a system that connects residential origin points with regional destination
points.
Identify the need for sidewalks or sidewalk upgrades along major and minor
arterials in urban areas.
Encourage the coordination of pedestrian facilities with public transit.
Coordinate with area schools to establish Safe Routes to School.
Incorporate local standards for pedestrian facilities as appropriate.
5.5.2 BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS
The YMPO RTP identifies goals and actions “…to establish a system of linear facilities
and nodes that will provide for safe and convenient travel in the YMPO region.” The
recommendations for new facilities build on existing plans and facilities. The following
improvement actions are applicable to new facilities identified through this needs
assessment:
Connect the Foothills with downtown Yuma and regional shopping centers by
supporting City of Yuma plans.
Provide a continuous route from the Foothills area to the border in San Luis.
This should be in the form of shared use paths or bike lanes.
Coordinate bicycle facilities with public transit.
Connect to alternative transportation modes with nodes in San Luis, Foothills,
Wellton, Somerton, and Yuma Palms Center. A node shall provide parking,
water, bike lockers, and other amenities, as deemed appropriate.
Incorporate national standards for bicycle facilities, as appropriate.

Page | 5-15
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

5.6 TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section is to present the travel forecasts for future roadway
networks. Future year traffic forecasts were developed for the study area using the
travel demand model, as described in Section 5.2. Output from the travel demand
model permits evaluation and analysis of roadway segments.
Information presented includes Year 2020, Year 2030, and Buildout traffic assignments
on the Existing Plus Committed (E+C) base networks. These assignments are based
on the corresponding projections of households and employment. Travel demand
model assignments have been developed to reveal where future deficiencies may exist,
if additional improvements are not implemented beyond those defined by the E+C
roadway network. The assignments also provide a basis for testing and evaluating
different network improvement scenarios, which will be the subject Chapter 6.
5.6.1 YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND NETWORK PERFORMANCE
Table 5.5 provides a detailed comparison of Year 2020 forecast volumes to roadway
capacity for key study area roadway segments. Figure 5.5 depicts Year 2020 traffic
forecasts throughout the study area. Figure 5.6 shows the expected performance of the
E+C roadway network in Year 2020, reflecting the results shown in Table 5.5. Forecast
traffic volumes will be at or exceeding the capacity of the following facilities:
I-8 North Frontage Road between South Avenue 10E and South Foothills
Boulevard
I-8 South Frontage Road between South Fortuna Road and South Foothills
Boulevard
I-8 South Frontage Road between South Avenue 14E and South Avenue 15E
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street between South Fortuna Road and South
Avenue 12E
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street between South Foothills Boulevard and
South Avenue 15E
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street between South Foothills Boulevard &
South Avenue 15E
South Fortuna Road between the I-8 frontage roads
South Foothills Boulevard between the I-8 frontage roads
South Foothills Boulevard between East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street
South Avenue 15E between the I-8 South Frontage Road and East 48th
Street/East County 13th Street.

Page | 5-16
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 5.5
NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2020
E+C ROADWAY NETWORK
Road Name

From

To

N Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Eastbound
I-8 Eastbound
I-8 Eastbound
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
48th St/Co 13th St
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St
56th St/Co 14th St

Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Avenue 12E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E

Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 15 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 15 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E
Fortuna Rd
Avenue 12E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E

Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E
Avenue 15 E
Avenue 15 E

S Frontage Rd
E County 10 St
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St
56th St/Co 14th St
S Frontage Rd
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St

CO 12th
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/ Co 12th St
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
48th St/Co 13th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St

Lanes
Class
East-West Facilities
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Minor Collector
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
2
Minor Collector
2
Minor Collector
2
Major Collector
2
Collector
4
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Major Collector
2
Major Collector
North-South Facilites
2
Major Collector
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector

Lane Capacity

Daily Volume

Capacity

v/c Ratio

LOS

6,700
6,700
5,400
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
9,000
6,700
5,400
5,400
7,000
6,700
9,000
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
7,000
7,000

15,700
12,400
6,300
34,500
32,000
16,400
36,000
32,000
16,400
10,900
15,700
8,000
12,100
7,000
14,900
23,000
12,300
2,900
1,400
16,400
15,300
12,500
11,100

13,400
13,400
10,800
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
18,000
13,400
10,800
10,800
14,000
13,400
36,000
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
14,000
14,000

1.17
0.93
0.58
0.81
0.75
0.38
0.85
0.75
0.38
0.61
1.17
0.74
1.12
0.50
1.11
0.64
0.92
0.22
0.10
1.22
1.14
0.89
0.79

F
E
B
D
D
A
E
D
A
B
F
D
F
A
F
C
E
A
A
F
F
E
D

7,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700

7,500
22,200
34,100
22,900
43,700
27,800
32,900
16,900
4,600
12,600
16,700
9,200

14,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400

0.54
0.62
0.95
0.64
1.21
0.77
0.91
1.26
0.34
0.94
1.25
0.69

B
C
E
C
F
D
E
F
A
E
F
C

Prepared by Wilson & Company, November 2011.
Indicates segments operating at LOS E
Indicates segments operating at LOS F

Page | 5-17
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 5-18
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.5
STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: YEAR 2020 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-19
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.6
STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2020 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-20
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

5.6.2 YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND NETWORK PERFORMANCE
Table 5.6 provides a comparison of Year 2030 forecast volumes to the capacity of key
study area roadway segments.
Figure 5.7 depicts Year 2030 traffic forecasts
throughout the study area. Figure 5.8 shows the expected performance of the E+C
roadway network in Year 2030, reflecting the results shown in Table 5.6.
Forecast traffic volumes will be at or exceeding the capacity of the following facilities:
I-8 North Frontage Road between South Avenue 10E and South Avenue 14E
I-8 South Frontage Road between South Fortuna Road and South Avenue 15E
East 40th Street/East Count 12th Street between South Fortuna Road and South
Avenue 12E
East 48th Street/East Count 13th Street between South Fortuna Road and South
Avenue 15E
East 56th Street/East Count 14th Street between South Foothills Boulevard and
South Avenue 15E
South Fortuna Road between the I-8 frontage roads
South Fortuna Road between East 40th Street/East Count 12th Street and East
48th Street/East Count 13th Street
South Foothills Boulevard between the north and south frontage roads
South Foothills Boulevard between East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street
South Avenue 15E between the I-8 South Frontage Road and East 56th
Street/East County 14th Street.

Page | 5-21
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 5.6
NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2030
E+C ROADWAY NETWORK
Road Name

From

To

N Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Eastbound
I-8 Eastbound
I-8 Eastbound
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
48th St/Co 13th St
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St
56th St/Co 14th St

Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Avenue 12 E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E

Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 15 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 15 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E
Fortuna Rd
Avenue 12 E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E

Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14 E
Avenue 15 E
Avenue 15 E
Avenue 15 E

S Frontage Rd
County 10th E
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
48th St/Co 13th St
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St

CO 12th
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St
56th St/Co 14th St
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St

Lanes
Class
East-West Facilities
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Minor Collector
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Minor Arterial
2
Major Collector
2
Minor Collector
2
Minor Collector
2
Major Collector
2
Major Collector
4
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Major Collector
2
Major Collector
North-South Facilites
2
Major Collector
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Collector

Lane Capacity

Daily Volume

Capacity

v/c Ratio

LOS

6,700
6,700
5,400
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
9,000
6,700
5,400
5,400
7,000
7,000
9,000
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
7,000
7,000

18,100
12,400
9,900
38,100
34,500
19,400
39,700
34,600
19,400
11,700
13,700
9,900
16,200
8,300
13,700
23,200
10,900
1,600
13,300
13,700
22,200
16,900
15,400

13,400
13,400
10,800
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
18,000
14,000
10,800
10,800
14,000
14,000
36,000
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
14,000
14,000

1.35
0.93
0.92
0.89
0.81
0.46
0.93
0.81
0.46
0.65
0.98
0.92
1.50
0.59
0.98
0.64
0.81
0.12
0.99
1.02
1.66
1.21
1.10

F
E
E
E
D
A
E
D
A
C
E
E
F
B
E
C
D
A
E
F
F
F
F

7,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
6,700
9,000
9,000
9,000
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700

8,800
21,500
36,600
25,200
13,400
45,400
28,300
30,600
21,500
8,200
22,900
28,200
15,400

14,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
13,400
36,000
36,000
36,000
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400

0.63
0.60
1.02
0.70
1.00
1.26
0.79
0.85
1.60
0.61
1.71
2.10
1.15

C
B
F
C
E
F
D
E
F
C
F
F
F

Prepared by Wilson & Company, November 2011.
Indicates segments operating at LOS E
Indicates segments operating at LOS F

Page | 5-22
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.7
STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: YEAR 2030 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-23
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.8
STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2030 E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-24
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
5.6.3 BUILDOUT TRAFFIC FORECASTS & NETWORK PERFORMANCE
Table 5.7 compares forecast Buildout volumes to the roadway capacity of key study
area roadway segments. Figure 5.9 depicts Buildout traffic forecasts throughout the
study area. Figure 5.10 shows the expected performance of the E+C roadway network
at Buildout, reflecting the results shown in Table 5.7.
Forecast traffic volumes will be at or exceeding the capacity of the following facilities:
I-8 North Frontage Road between South Avenue 10E and South Fortuna Road
South Frontage Road between South Avenue 10E and South Avenue 14E
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street between Avenue 10E and South Fortuna
Road
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street between South Foothills Boulevard and
South Avenue 14E
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street between South Foothills Boulevard and
South Avenue 15E
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street between South Avenue 10E and South
Fortuna Road
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street between South Foothills Boulevard and
South Avenue 14E
South Fortuna Road between the I-8 frontage roads
South Foothills Boulevard between the I-8 frontage roads
South Avenue 15E between South Frontage Road and CO 13th Street
In addition to the segment-based capacity analysis performed for the Buildout condition,
a detailed analysis of peak-hour intersection operations also was conducted. Daily
segment volumes from the Buildout travel demand model were used to calculate AM
(morning) and PM (late afternoon-evening) peak-hour entry and exit volumes at each
study area intersection using assumptions for peak hour (k) and directional distribution
(D) factors. The 'k' and 'D' factors were calculated from existing turning movement
counts and segment counts. For cases where segment counts were missing, an
average of all the known 'k' factors was calculated to arrive at a six percent k-factor for
AM and PM conditions. The resulting volumes and existing turning movement counts at
each intersection were used to estimate future turning movements based on
methodologies published in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NHCRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and
Design, published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). A consistency check
was performed to ensure estimated Buildout turning-movement volumes were equal to
or higher than existing turning movement counts. Finally, the Buildout turning-movement
volumes were adjusted to minimize volume differences between adjacent intersections.

Page | 5-25
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 5.7
NETWORK PERFORMANCE: BUILDOUT
E+C ROADWAY NETWORK
Road Name

From

To

N Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Westbound
I-8 Eastbound
I-8 Eastbound
I-8 Eastbound
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
48th St/Co 13th St
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St
56th St/Co 14th St
56th St/Co 14th St
56th St/Co 14th St

Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E

Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 15E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 15E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Avenue 15E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Avenue 15E
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Avenue 15E
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Avenue 15E

Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Fortuna Rd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Foothills Blvd
Avenue 14E
Avenue 14E
Avenue 15E
Avenue 15E
Avenue 15E

S Frontage Rd
E County 10th St
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
S Frontage Rd
48th St/Co 13th St
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St

40th St/Co 12th St
N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St
S Frontage Rd
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St
40th St/Co 12th St
56th St/Co 14th St
40th St/Co 12th St
48th St/Co 13th St
56th St/Co 14th St

Lanes
Class
East-West Facilities
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Collector
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Interstate
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Collector
2
Minor Collector
2
Major Collector
4
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
North-South Facilites
2
Major Collector
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
4
Minor Arterial
2
Collector
2
Collector
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial
2
Minor Arterial

Lane Capacity

Daily Volume

Capacity

v/c Ratio

LOS

9,000
9,000
5,400
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
21,300
9,000
9,000
5,400
5,400
7,000
9,000
6,700
6,700
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000

16,400
12,700
8,900
34,500
29,400
17,000
34,500
29,600
17,000
15,200
15,100
13,800
8,300
13,000
23,800
18,100
10,000
11,400
15,300
16,600
16,500
11,200
16,200
14,300

18,000
18,000
10,800
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
42,600
18,000
18,000
10,800
10,800
14,000
36,000
13,400
13,400
18,000
18,000
18,000
18,000
18,000
18,000
18,000

0.91
0.71
0.82
0.81
0.69
0.40
0.81
0.69
0.40
0.84
0.84
1.28
0.77
0.93
0.66
1.35
0.75
0.63
0.85
0.92
0.92
0.62
0.90
0.79

E
C
D
D
C
A
D
C
A
E
E
F
D
E
C
F
D
C
E
E
E
C
E
D

7,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
6,700
6,700
9,000
9,000
9,000

5,900
26,600
36,600
28,100
20,400
7,800
40,900
24,200
24,600
13,200
10,400
3,400
15,800
17,700
11,000

14,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
18,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
13,400
13,400
18,000
18,000
18,000

0.42
0.74
1.02
0.78
0.57
0.43
1.14
0.67
0.68
0.37
0.78
0.25
0.88
0.98
0.61

A
D
F
D
B
A
F
C
C
A
D
A
E
E
C

Prepared by Wilson & Company, November 2011.
Indicates segments operating at LOS E
Indicates segments operating at LOS F

Page | 5-26
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.9
STUDY AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTS: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-27
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.10
STUDY AREA NETWORK PERFORMANCE: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-28
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
The resulting turning-movement volumes are displayed in Figure 5.11. Table 5.8
provides a summary of anticipated level of service (LOS) at signalized intersections in
the study area, while unsignalized intersection performance is documented in Table 5.9.
As indicated in these tables, the following intersections are anticipated to operate with
unacceptable LOS E or F delays:
East 28th Street at South Fortuna Road (AM peak)
I-8 North Frontage Road at South Fortuna Road (AM and PM peaks)
I-8 South Frontage Road at South Fortuna Road (PM peak)
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street at South Fortuna Road (AM and PM
peaks)
I-8 North Frontage Road at South Foothills Boulevard (AM and PM peaks)
I-8 Eastbound On/Off Ramps at South Foothills Boulevard (AM and PM peaks)
I-8 South Frontage Road at South Foothills Boulevard (AM and PM peaks)
East 28th Street at South Camino Del Sol (AM and PM Peaks).

Page | 5-29
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.11
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENTS: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-30
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.11 (CONT.)
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENTS: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-31
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 5.11 (CONT.)
PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENTS: BUILDOUT E + C ROADWAY NETWORK

Page | 5-32
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 5.8
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: BUILDOUT
E+C ROADWAY NETWORK
ID

Signalized
Intersection Name

Metric
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

AA

North Frontage Rd &
S. Fortuna Rd

Northbound
Left-Turn

Southbound

Through Right-Turn Left-Turn

Eastbound

Through Right-Turn Left-Turn

1.069 (0.628) 0.391 (0.517) 0.202 (0.254) 0.23 (1.52) 0.366 (0.992) 0.634 (1.005) 0.877 (1.768)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

71.7 (57)

38.5 (144.1)

Approach LOS

E (E)

D (F)

I-8 WB On/Off Ramps &
S. Fortuna Rd

1.057 (0.669) 0.416 (0.267)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.322 (0.452) 0.544 (0.553)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

45.5 (12.5)

32.7 (40.4)

Approach LOS

D (B)

C (D)

0 (0)

0.353 (0.315) 0.243 (0.288) 0.759 (0.578) 0.283 (0.591)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

34.3 (42.5)

23.1 (31.5)

Approach LOS

C (D)

C (C)

0 (0)

South Frontage Rd &
S. Fortuna Rd

16.2 (53.6)

31.8 (56.4)

Approach LOS

B (D)

C (E)

EE

E. 40th Street &
S. Fortuna Rd

8 (9.1)

7.7 (9.8)

Approach LOS

A (A)

A (A)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.928 (2.316)

0 (0)

0.094 (0.121)

0.451 (0.791)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.216 (0.27) 0.907 (1.078)

0 (0)

73.2 (55.7)

106.9 (113.6)

E (E)

F (F)

0.91 (0.262)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.351 (0.087) 0.413 (0.081)

0 (0)

80.7 (99.1)

58 (54.4)

F (F)

E (D)

0.484 (0.481)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.463 (0.354) 0.208 (0.458) 0.257 (0.172) 0.905 (0.54)
C (C)

278.6 (658.3)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

F (F)
0.518 (0.363) 0.402 (0.297) 0.056 (0.132) 0.183 (0.063) 0.202 (0.125) 0.145 (0.127)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

23 (7)

9.1 (4.1)

Approach LOS

C (A)

A (A)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.417 (2.193) 4.534 (2.556)

0 (0)

244.7 (726.6)

1157 (458)

F (F)

F (F)

0.355 (0.599)

246.7 (263.8)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

F (F)
0.71 (0.778) 0.322 (0.241)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.49 (0.35) 0.753 (0.381)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

24.2 (27.6)

27.8 (16.6)

Approach LOS

C (C)

C (B)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.299 (0.916)

0 (0)

-

45.1 (109.6)

-

D (F)

0.408 (1.034)

27.3 (37.9)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

C (D)
0 (0)

0.459 (0.411) 0.461 (0.411) 0.822 (0.285) 0.164 (0.28)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

0.1 (10.5)

15.5 (12.6)

Approach LOS

A (B)

B (B)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

3.099 (2.16)

0 (0)

0 (0)

842.3 (481.2)

-

F (F)

-

0 (0)

255.1 (184.5)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

F (F)
0.129 (0.215) 0.336 (0.287) 0.336 (0.288) 0.503 (0.715) 0.408 (0.556) 0.413 (0.56)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

9.5 (16)

12.2 (15.1)

Approach LOS

A (B)

B (B)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.271 (0.316) 0.849 (0.51)

0 (0)

2899.7 (2571.9)

375 (56.7)

F (F)

F (E)

1.74 (0.761)

492.8 (453)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

F (F)
0.108 (0.055) 0.504 (0.337) 0.505 (0.313) 0.187 (0.121) 0.163 (0.294) 0.166 (0.294)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.109 (0.389) 0.699 (0.616) 0.049 (0.03) 0.112 (0.066)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

19.4 (13.3)

11.9 (9.2)

38.4 (45.6)

48.3 (51.5)

Approach LOS

B (B)

B (A)

D (D)

D (D)

22.9 (17.6)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

C (B)

Intersection LOS

E. 40th Street &
S. Foothills Blvd

-

31.9 (20.7)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
LL

F (D)

B (B)

Intersection LOS

E. 38th Street &
S. Foothills Blvd

-

F (F)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
KK

0 (0)

F (F)

Intersection LOS

South Frontage Rd &
S. Foothills Blvd

0 (0)

Approach LOS

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
JJ

0.982 (0.733)

17.6 (18.6)

Intersection LOS

I-8 EB On/Off Ramps &
S. Foothills Blvd

0 (0)
88.2 (42.8)

407 (549.7)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
II

D (E)

580 (1414.4)

Intersection LOS

I-8 WB On/Off Ramps &
S. Foothills Blvd

-

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
HH

0.033 (0)
36.4 (56.3)

C (C)
2.214 (4.076)

Intersection LOS

North Frontage Rd &
S. Foothills Blvd

0.206 (0.402)

22 (20.8)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )
GG

0 (0)

0.329 (0.3) 0.165 (0.235) 0.258 (0.44) 0.259 (0.44)

Intersection LOS

FF

0 (0)

-

D (E)
0.105 (0.074) 0.329 (0.3)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

0 (0)

42.6 (62.6)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Intersection LOS

E. 35th Place &
S. Fortuna Rd

0 (0)

0.169 (1.158) 0.416 (0.379) 0.042 (0.172) 0.564 (0.329) 0.332 (0.648) 0.129 (0.354) 0.705 (0.725)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

F (D)

D (D)

Intersection LOS

DD

E (F)

0.982 (0.677)

42.5 (37.9)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

80.7 (54.4)

D (C)

Intersection LOS

I-8 EB On/Off Ramps &
CC
S. Fortuna Rd

0 (0)

69.9 (288.8)

39.2 (33.4)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

Through Right-Turn

0.728 (0.312) 0.605 (0.243)

E (F)

Intersection LOS

BB

0 (0)

63.5 (142.9)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

Westbound

Through Right-Turn Left-Turn

0.751 (0.422) 0.545 (0.287) 0.545 (0.287) 0.113 (0.21) 0.531 (0.63) 0.361 (0.631)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

18 (12.3)

15.6 (16.9)

Approach LOS

B (B)

B (B)

0 (0)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

21.4 (34.1)

Intersection LOS

C (C)

0 (0)

0.564 (1.108) 0.018 (0.074)

0 (0)

35.2 (76.2)

20.1 (18.6)

D (E)

C (B)

0.677 (0.429)

Source: Synchro 7 Traffic Simulation based on model generated traffic forecasts.

Page | 5-33
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 5.9
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: BUILDOUT
E+C ROADWAY NETWORK
ID

Signalized
Intersection Name

Metric
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

South Frontage Rd &
A
S. Avenue 10E

Northbound
Left-Turn
0.8 (0.41)

Southbound

Through Right-Turn Left-Turn
0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

Eastbound

Through Right-Turn Left-Turn
0 (0)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

55.6 (25.8)

-

Approach LOS

F (D)

-

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

0 (0)

B

E. 28th Street &
S. Camino Del Sol

0.26 (0.34)

0 (0)

0.02 (0.13) 0.21 (0.47)

-

0.2 (0.5)

Approach LOS

-

-

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

0 (0)

E. Calle Ventana &
S. Camino Del Sol

0.05 (0.03)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

North Frontage Rd &
S. Camino Del sol

5.5 (4.4)

0.2 (0.6)

Approach LOS

-

-

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

South Frontage Rd
& Far West Ave

0.01 (0.01)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.01 (0.01)

1.5 (0.7)

1.2 (1.2)

Approach LOS

-

-

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

F

0 (0)

0 (0)

-

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.69 (1.94)

0 (0)

-

339.6 (473.6)

-

F (F)

0 (0)

0.32 (0.64)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.61 (0.28)

12.9 (17.9)

20 (12.9)

B (C)

C (B)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.07 (0.06)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.16 (0.05)

10.2 (10)

10.7 (9.9)

B (A)

B (A)

0 (0)

A (A)
0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.31 (0.23)

0 (0)

-

16 (15.9)

Approach LOS

-

C (C)

0.14 (0.09) 0.04 (0.09) 0.14 (0.17)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.25 (0.24)

1.2 (2.2)

-

-

-

0 (0)

4 (3.2)

Intersection LOS

E. 28th Street &
S. Fortuna Rd

-

0 (0)

5.8 (3.4)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

1.7 (1.2)

B (B)
0 (0)

Intersection LOS

E

-

14.1 (14.8)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

0 (0)

0 (0)

Intersection LOS

D

Through Right-Turn
0.06 (0.04)

F (F)
0 (0)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

0 (0)

111.5 (65.9)

Intersection LOS

C

0 (0)

B (A)
0 (0)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

0.32 (0.43)

10.6 (2.9)

Intersection LOS
Volume-to-Capacity (v/c )

0 (0)

Westbound

Through Right-Turn Left-Turn

A (A)
1.16 (1)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

Avg. Approach Delay (sec/veh)

119.7 (85.9)

-

Approach LOS

F (F)

-

0 (0)

0 (0)

Avg. Intersection Delay (sec/veh)

54.1 (26.2)

Intersection LOS

F (D)

Source: Synchro 7 Traffic Simulation based on model generated traffic forecasts.

0.24 (0.32)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.11 (0.21)

-

4.6 (6.8)

-

-

0 (0)

Prepared by Wilson & Company, November, 2011.

Page | 5-34
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

5.7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The information and analysis presented in the previous section reveals that certain
roadway segments and intersections in the study area will be overcapacity during the
planning horizon. These capacity issues must be addressed by identifying practical
alternative improvement scenarios to provide anticipated congestion relief. In addition,
there are deficiencies associated with alternative travel modes that should be
addressed. Improvement actions will be identified for each modal alternative for
purposes of developing a plan of improvements that can be evaluated by applying an
objective set of criteria. The results of this evaluation and recommended actions to
meet future transportation needs are reported in Chapters 6 and 7.

Page | 5-35
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 5-36
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVES

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

6.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Project Team prepared updated travel demand models for Year 2030 and Buildout
roadway networks to address deficiencies identified and documented in Working
Paper #1 – Existing and Future Conditions. Outside the project study area, network
characteristics documented in the YMPO 2033 Regional Transportation Plan were
assumed to be in place. Network definition and design within the study area were
based on feedback received at Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings on
September 14, 2011 and December 14, 2011, as well as subsequent comments and
input from the Yuma County Planning and Engineering staff.

6.1 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES
Five study area roadway network alternatives representing Buildout conditions were
developed and evaluated:
Alternative A: Buildout Conditions – Existing + Committed (E+C) Network with
Limited Additional Connectivity;
Alternative B: Buildout Conditions with Proposed County Improvements;
Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 1 – Introduces a new traffic interchange
(TI) on I-8 at South Avenue 15E to support an extension of South Avenue 15E
north of I-8, which would connect with East 28th Street/ East County 10½ Street
(Masterson Avenue) and, ultimately, East 24th Street/ East County 10th Street;
Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 2 – Incorporates an extension of South
Foothills Boulevard north to US 95; and
Buildout Condition: Network Alternative 3 – Combines attributes of both Buildout
Conditions Alternatives 1 and 2. Similar to Buildout Conditions Alternative 1, it
incorporates the new TI on I-8 at South Avenue 15E.
Each network was subjected to analysis using the TransCAD travel demand modeling
software.
The following model data are provided, reflecting the operational
characteristics of each improvement alternative:
Number of through lanes and roadway functional classification;
Forecast daily traffic volumes (in thousands); and
Roadway segment level of service (LOS) A – F, based on forecast daily traffic
volumes.
Table 6.1 summarizes proposed capacity and connectivity improvements associated
with each Buildout alternative relative to the existing 2011 roadway network. Graphics
displaying the physical and operational characteristics of the five alternative Buildout
transportation networks, as well as detailed descriptions of each alternative, are
presented in the following subsections.

Page | 6-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 6.1
COMPARISON OF BUILDOUT IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES TO EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

Roadway
Segment

From

To

BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A:
Alternative B:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Existing + Committed
Augmented
I-8/Ave 15E to
I-8/Foothills Blvd to
(E+C) Network
w/Proposed County
24th St
US 95
w/Limited Additional
Improvements
Connectivity

Alternative 3:
I-8/Ave 15E to
US 95

No. of Functional No. of Functional No. of Functional No. of Functional No. of Functional
Lanes Classification Lanes Classification Lanes Classification Lanes Classification Lanes Classification
East-West Roadways
US 95

Avenue 10 E

Fortuna Rd

6

Expressway

6

Expressway

6

Expressway

6

Expressway

6

Expressway

24th/Co 10th

Fortuna Rd

Foothills Blvd

4

Collector

2

Collector

4

Minor Arterial

2

Collector

2

Collector

28th St

E. of Avenue 10E

Avenue 10E

4

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

28th St

Foothills Blvd

Avenue 15E

4

Minor Arterial

Frontage_North

Avenue 10 E

Fortuna Rd

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

Frontage_North

Fortuna Rd

Foothills Blvd

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

Frontage_North

Foothills Blvd

Avenue 14E

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

I-8 WB

Avenue 10 E

Fortuna Rd

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

I-8 WB

Fortuna Rd

Foothills Blvd

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

I-8 WB

Foothills Blvd

Avenue 15E

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

I-8 EB

Avenue 10 E

Fortuna Rd

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

I-8 EB

Fortuna Rd

Foothills Blvd

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

I-8 EB

Foothills Blvd

Avenue 15E

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

2

Interstate

Frontage South

Avenue 10 E

Fortuna Rd

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

Frontage South

Fortuna Rd

Foothills Blvd

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

2

Minor Arterial

Frontage South

Foothills Blvd

Avenue 14E

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

Frontage South

Avenue 14E

Avenue 15E

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

2

Minor Collector

40th/Co 12th

Avenue 10 E

Fortuna Rd

2

Major Collector

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

40th/Co 12th

Fortuna Rd

Foothills Blvd

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

40th/Co 12th

Foothills Blvd

Avenue 14E

2

Collector

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

40th/Co 12th

Avenue 14E

Avenue 15E

2

Collector

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

48thCo 13th

Avenue 10 E

Fortuna Rd

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

48thCo 13th

Fortuna Rd

Foothills Blvd

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

48thCo 13th

Foothills Blvd

Avenue 14E

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

48thCo 13th

Avenue 14E

Avenue 15E

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

56th/Co 14th

Avenue 10 E

Fortuna Rd

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

56th/Co 14th

Fortuna Rd

Foothills Blvd

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

56th/Co 14th

Foothills Blvd

Avenue 14E

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

56th/Co 14th

Avenue 14E

Avenue 15E

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

North-South Roadways
Avenue 10 E

24th/Co 10th

Frontage North

4

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

Avenue 10 E

Frontage South

40th/Co 12th

2

Major Collector

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Avenue 10 E

40th/Co 12th

56th/Co 14th

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

US 95

Fortuna Rd

E. of Fortuna Rd

4

Principal Arterial

4

Principal Arterial

4

Principal Arterial

4

Principal Arterial

4

Principal Arterial

Fortuna Rd

US 95

24th/Co 10th

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Fortuna Rd

24th/Co 10th

28th St

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Fortuna Rd

28th St

Frontage North

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Fortuna Rd

Frontage North

Frontage South

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Fortuna Rd

Frontage South

40th/Co 12th

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Fortuna Rd

40th/Co 12th

48th/Co 13th

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Fortuna Rd

48th/Co 13th

56th/Co 14th

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Avenue 12E

Frontage South

40th/Co 12th

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Avenue 12E

40th/Co 12th

56th/Co 14th

2

Collector

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Camino del Sol

24th/Co 10th

Frontage North

4

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

4

Minor Arterial

4

Collector

2

Collector

4

Collector

4

Collector

2

Collector

4

Minor Arterial

Foothills Blvd

US 95

24th/Co 10th

Foothills Blvd

24th/Co 10th

Frontage North

Foothills Blvd

24th/Co 10th

28th St/Co 10 1/2

Foothills Blvd

2

Collector

Foothills Blvd

28th St/Co 10 1/2 Frontage North
Frontage North

Frontage South

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Foothills Blvd

Frontage South

40th/Co 12th

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Foothills Blvd

40th/Co 12th

48th/Co 13th

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Foothills Blvd

48th/Co 13th

56th/Co 14th

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Avenue 14E*

Frontage South

40th/Co 12th

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

Avenue 14E*

40th/Co 12th

48th/Co 13th

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

Avenue 14E

48th/Co 13th

56th/Co 14th

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

2

Collector

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

2

Collector

Avenue 15E

US 95

I-8

Avenue 15E

24th/Co 10th

Frontage North

Avenue 15E

Frontage North

Frontage South

4

Minor Arterial

Avenue 15E

Frontage South

40th/Co 12th

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Avenue 15E

40th/Co 12th

48th/Co 13th

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Avenue 15E

48th/Co 13th

56th/Co 14th

2

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

4

Minor Arterial

Prepared by Wilson & Company , September 2011.
Notes:
* Roadw ay Segment assumes discontinuity at Wash C, as identified in Drainage Facility Inv entory Memorandum for Foothills Master Drainage Plan Update, Yuma County Project No. 12-89.
Ex isting Roadw ay Segment
New or Upgraded Roadw ay Segment
Roadw ay Segment, as defined, not included in this Alternativ e

Page | 6-3
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-4
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

6.1.1 ALTERNATIVE A: BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – EXISTING + COMMITTED
(E+C) NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL NETWORK CONNECTIVITY
This alternative represents an updated version of the Buildout E+C Network introduced
in Working Paper No. 1. The revised network includes additional detail on roadway
connectivity required to serve the forecast study area development at Buildout. The
following figures are provided for reference:
Figure 6.1

Buildout Conditions:
Existing + Committed Network with Limited
Additional Connectivity – Number of Lanes

Figure 6.2

Buildout Conditions:
Existing + Committed Network with Limited
Additional Connectivity – Forecast Daily Traffic Volumes

Figure 6.3

Buildout Conditions:
Existing + Committed Network with Limited
Additional Connectivity – Roadway Segment LOS Based on Daily Traffic
Volumes.

This network has been conceived and analyzed as a means to display deficiencies that
would result should only limited investment be made to the study area grid network
beyond currently programmed funds. Identification of these deficiencies assists in
highlighting areas where additional improvements will be most needed under Buildout
conditions. The deficiencies suggest areas where future investments should be
prioritized.
It should be noted that the analyses performed for this study focused primarily on the
Year 2030 and Buildout Conditions. Projects identified as part of the 2033 Scenario and
included in the YMPO RTP, were incorporated in all modeling efforts conducted in
conjunction with this study. Thus, RTP projects outside of the study area would be
assumed to be in place for future Year 2030 and Buildout Conditions.

Page | 6-5
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-6
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.1
ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL CONNECTIVITY – NUMBER OF LANES

Page | 6-7
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.2
ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL CONNECTIVITY – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-8
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.3
ALTERNATIVE A. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: EXISTING + COMMITTED NETWORK WITH LIMITED ADDITIONAL CONNECTIVITY – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-9
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-10
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

6.1.2 ALTERNATIVE B: BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH
PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS
This alternative network augments the Buildout E+C Network with additional roadway
capacity the County anticipates may be constructed to accommodate forecast travel
demand under Buildout conditions. The following figures are provided for reference:
Figure 6.4

Buildout Conditions Augmented with Proposed County Improvements –
Number of Lanes

Figure 6.5

Buildout Conditions Augmented with Proposed County Improvements –
Forecast Daily Traffic Volumes

Figure 6.6

Buildout Conditions Augmented with Proposed County Improvements –
Roadway Segment LOS Based on Daily Traffic Volumes.

Funds currently are not dedicated or identified to implement these improvements. This
network incorporates feedback received on the Buildout Network from the TAC, as well
as additional comments received from the County staff at follow-up meetings.

Page | 6-11
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-12
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.4
ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – NUMBER OF LANES

Page | 6-13
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.5
ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-14
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.6
ALTERNATIVE B. BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGMENTED WITH PROPOSED COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-15
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-16
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

6.1.3 BUILDOUT CONDITION: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1
Buildout Alternative 1 introduces a new traffic interchange (TI) on I-8 at South
Avenue 15E. The new TI would serve the extension of South Avenue 15E north of I-8,
which would connect with East 28th Street/East County 10½ Street (Masterson Avenue)
and, ultimately, East 24th Street/East County 10th Street.
Thus, an alternative
connection would be achieved between I-8, South Fortuna Road, and ultimately US 95
via East 24th Street/East County 10th Street. This network modification also would
provide an alternative route to the I-8 frontage roads, particularly east of South Foothills
Boulevard. The following figures are provided for reference:
Figure 6.7

Buildout Conditions: Network Alternative 1 – Number of Lanes

Figure 6.8

Buildout Conditions:
Volumes

Figure 6.9

Buildout Conditions: Network Alternative 1 – Roadway Segment LOS
Based on Daily Traffic Volumes.

Network Alternative 1 – Forecast Daily Traffic

Page | 6-17
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-18
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.7
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – NUMBER OF LANES

Page | 6-19
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.8
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-20
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.9
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 1 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-21
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-22
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

6.1.4 BUILDOUT CONDITION: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2
This network incorporates an extension of South Foothills Boulevard north to US 95.
The extension will also provide an alternative route to South Fortuna Road via East
24th Street/East County 10th Street, improving connectivity of the study area with
external origins/destinations. Improved east-west connectivity also would be attained
between South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard, providing relief for the I-8
North Frontage Road.
This alternative presents the connection of I-8 to US 95 through extension of South
Foothills Boulevard as a concept only. It does not intend to propose a specific route.
The route identified for implementation, should this alternative be selected, would be
subject to subsequent more detailed studies.
The following figures are provided for reference:
Figure 6.10

Buildout Conditions: Network Alternative 2 – Number of Lanes

Figure 6.11

Buildout Conditions:
Volumes

Figure 6.12

Buildout Conditions: Network Alternative 2 – Roadway Segment LOS
Based on Daily Traffic Volumes.

Network Alternative 2 – Forecast Daily Traffic

Page | 6-23
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-24
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.10
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – NUMBER OF LANES

Page | 6-25
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.11
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-26
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.12
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 2 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-27
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-28
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

6.1.5 BUILDOUT CONDITION: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3
This network combines attributes of both Buildout Condition Alternatives 1 and 2.
Similar to Buildout Condition Alternative 1, it incorporates the new TI on I-8 at South
Avenue 15E. The new TI would support extension of South Avenue 15E north of I-8 to
US 95.
In contrast to Buildout Conditions Alternative 1, Alternative 3 contemplates South
Avenue 15E continuing north with a direct connection to US 95. This connection would
provide an alternate route north of the study area in addition to South Fortuna Road. It
also represents a direct continuation of the proposed East 56th Street/East
County 14th Street Outer Loop. In addition, South Foothills Boulevard would be
extended north of I-8 to East 24th Street/East County 10th Street, establishing improved
east-west connectivity between South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard.
This improvement would provide relief for the I-8 North Frontage Road.
This alternative presents the connection of I-8 to US 95 through extension of South
Avenue 15E as a concept only. It does not intend to propose a specific route. The
route identified for implementation, should this alternative be selected, would be subject
to subsequent more detailed studies.
The following figures are provided for reference:
Figure 6.13

Buildout Conditions: Network Alternative 2 – Number of Lanes

Figure 6.14

Buildout Conditions:
Volumes

Figure 6.15

Buildout Conditions: Network Alternative 2 – Roadway Segment LOS
Based on Daily Traffic Volumes.

Network Alternative 2 – Forecast Daily Traffic

Page | 6-29
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-30
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.13
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – NUMBER OF LANES

Page | 6-31
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.14
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – FORECAST DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-32
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 6.15
BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: NETWORK ALTERNATIVE 3 – ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Page | 6-33
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-34
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

6.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The information and analyses presented herein provides a rational basis for evaluating
the advantages and disadvantages of the five alternative Buildout roadway networks.
Criteria were identified to facilitate such an evaluation. The criteria give focus to the
improvement scenario that will best address capacity needs and provide relief from
congestion forecast by the model runs of future Buildout traffic conditions. The criteria
also assist in identifying where deficiencies still exist relative to future travel demand
and long-term growth and development expected in the study area.
6.2.1 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL STATISTICS
Table 6.2 below provides a summary of key operational aspects of the five Buildout
alternatives. The table reveals that Total Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) ranges from
913,000 to 970,000, while Total Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) ranges from 1,850,000
to 4,593,000. Clearly, there are significant differences in operational efficiency
associated with the alternatives evaluated. The alternative defined as Buildout
Conditions: E+C w/Limited Additional Network Connectivity exhibits the highest (by
several orders of magnitude) VMT, VHT, as well as Congested VMT, VHT, and Lane
Miles. These operational statistics demonstrate that improvement alternatives to create
new linkages and add capacity where needed have the potential to significantly upgrade
the efficiency of the study area roadway network.
TABLE 6.2
PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVES
Network Physical and
Operational Characteristics

Alternative A:
E+C Network
w/Limited
Additional
Connectivity

Alternative B: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3:
Augmented I-8/Ave 15E to I-8/Foothills I-8/Ave 15E
w/Proposed
24th St
Blvd to US 95 to US 95
County
Improvements

Total Road Miles

60.16

62.79

66.85

65.04

68.85

Total Lane Miles

152.77

188.53

207.80

201.93

211.22

0.0*

35.76

55.03

49.16

58.45

Total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

New Lane Miles

969,957

913,431

949,157

934,266

966,638

Total Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT)

4,592,711

2,019,681

1,868,546

1,805,204

1,823,362

Congested VMT

139,617

19,101

3,925

13,395

6,143

Congested VHT

1,824,929

189,483

18,436

86,639

24,408

Congested Lane Miles

17.31

2.45

0.46

1.85

0.67

Congested VMT/Total VMT

14.4%

2.1%

0.4%

1.4%

0.6%

VHT/Total Lane Miles

30,063

10,713

8,992

8,940

8,633

Prepared by Wilson & Company, December 2011.
*

NOTE: The E+C w/Limited Additional Network Connectivity” is the base Buildout condition to which “New Lane Miles” is being referenced for all other
alternatives.

Page | 6-35
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

6.2.2 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
The following key objectives were established to guide development and evaluation of
the alternatives presented in the previous chapter.
Address the needs of the Mesa Del Sol and Foothills areas
Identify roadway and potential multimodal improvements coupled with flood
control requirements to meet the growing population and changing land uses to:
o Improve mobility and safety
o Encourage sensible and sustainable development that supports current and
projected uses
Assess the feasibility of funding and implementing the needed improvements for
five-, ten- and twenty-year periods
Actively solicit input from stakeholders and the public, and incorporate their
priorities into the plan and program for improvements
Outline a refined plan for improvements for five-, ten-, and twenty-year periods.
6.2.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
The following evaluation matrix (Table 6.3) provides an assessment of the five Buildout
alternatives relative to 17 evaluation criteria identified with respect to five
Goals/Objectives. The evaluation criteria were presented to and approved by the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for use in this study.
Each alternative was
assessed a measure of effectiveness in the following manner:
The alternative least compatible with Goals/Objectives was awarded zero (0)
points, symbolized by a ○;
The alternative most or very compatible with Goals/Objectives was awarded two
(2) points, symbolized by a ●;
The alternatives lying between the two extremes, being somewhat or moderately
compatible with Goals/Objectives, were awarded one (1) point each, symbolized
by a ●.
If two or more alternatives effectively satisfied or did not satisfy a criterion equally
relative to meeting Goals/Objectives, then each was awarded the same number of
points.
The evaluation matrix shows that Buildout Alternative 1 is the preferred improvement
scenario with a total of 22 points. This alternative is anticipated to:
Most strongly support existing, expanding, or new development
Minimize the number of lane miles on all facilities operating at LOS E or F
Minimize impacts to areas containing known or likely habitat for Threatened,
Endangered and other sensitive species
Maximize the likelihood of acceptance by local elected officials, and
Maximize the likelihood of acceptance by outside agencies, stakeholders and the
community.

Page | 6-36
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

Buildout Alternative 1 is somewhat or moderately compatible with all other criteria.
Although this alternative would not minimize daily VMT, such as its next closest
competitor, Buildout Alternative Augmented with Proposed County Improvements, it
would perform very well with respect to establishing quality LOS. Buildout Alternative 1
is also not the best performing with respect to Environmental Compatibility nor Cost.
However, it is strongly rated with respect to Ease of Implementation. The Buildout
Alternative 1:
Incorporates the new interchange on I-8 at South Avenue 15E that has been
included in adopted regional transportation plans;
Establishes improved regional connectivity that would be useful to the core
residents of the study area; and
Provides an alternative route of travel for the eastern portion of the study area
that would ease the traffic burden on I-8 and the I-8 frontage roads.

Page | 6-37
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 6.3
EVALUATION OF BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVES
Buildout Alternatives
Goals/Objectives

Alt B: Augmented
w/Proposed County
Improvements

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

○

●

●

●

●

○

●

●

●

●

2

3

2

2

Alt A: E+C w/Limited
Additional Connectivity

Local Plan Consistency
Support existing, expanding or
new development
Projects are identified in existing
corridor study or comprehensive
plan
Subtotal
0
Safety & Mobility
Minimize daily vehicle miles
970,000
traveled
Minimize the number of lane
miles on all facilities operating at
17.31
LOS E or F
Provide additional sub-regional
connectivity
Minimize the percent of
congested (LOS E or F) daily
14.4%
vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Subtotal
0
Environmental Compatibility
Minimize impacts associated
●
with crossing of floodplains or
1 new wash crossings
disturbance of drainage features
Minimize impacts to resources
●
protected under Section 4(f) –
Existing travel corridors; no
Parks – and 6(f) – Historic and
apparent impacts
Archaeological Sites

○

●

913,000

●

949,000

●

934,000

●

967,000

○

●

2.45

●

0.5

●

1.9

●

0.7

○

○

Minimize impacts to areas
containing known or likely
habitat for Threatened,
Endangered and other sensitive
species

●

Not likely to be intrusive

●
●

●
2.1%

●

●

●
0.4%

●

1.4%

5

6

5

●

○

●

2 new wash crossings

●

Existing travel corridors; no
apparent impacts

●

Not likely to be intrusive

8 new wash crossings

●

Moderate visual impact
relative to Gila Mountains
Open Space and
Recreational Area

●

Not likely to be intrusive

3 new wash crossings

○

Bisecting traverse of Yuma
County Desert Preserve

●

Not likely to be intrusive

●

0.6%
4

○

9 new wash crossings

○

Potential conflict with Arizona
State Land Department
(ASLD) holdings and Gila
Mountains Open Space and
Recreational Area

●

Potentially intrusive

Page | 6-38
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
TABLE 6.3 EVALUATION OF BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
Buildout Alternatives
Goals/Objectives
Minimize impacts to wildlife
corridors
Minimize daily VHT

Alt A: E+C w/Limited
Additional Connectivity

●

5 new travel corridors

○
Subtotal

Cost
Minimize capital cost

4,593,000
8

●

Includes at-grade arterial
roadways only
Minimize operating and
maintenance cost (Total Lane
Miles)
Minimize right-of-way cost (Total
Road Miles)
Minimize VHT per Lane Mile Maximize roadway network
productivity
Subtotal
Ease of Implementation
Maximize the likelihood of
acceptance by local elected
officials
Maximize the likelihood of
acceptance by outside
agencies, stakeholders and the
community
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL

Alt B: Augmented
w/Proposed County
Improvements

Alt 1

7 new travel corridors

9 new travel corridors

●

●

2,020,000
7

●

●

1,869,000
5

●

●

Includes at-grade arterial
roadways only

Alt 2

Includes new traffic
interchange (TI) on I-8 at
South Avenue 15E

Alt 3

●

○

8 new travel corridors

●

1,805,000
6

●

8 new travel corridors;
potential impact on Gila
Mountains Habitat Block

●

1,823,000
2

○

Includes crossing of Union
Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and
major intersection at US 95

Includes new TI at South
Avenue 15E; crossing of
UPRR; and major
intersection at US 95

●

152.8

●

188.5

●

207.8

●

201.9

○

211.2

●

60.2

●

62.8

●

66.9

●

65.0

○

68.9

○

30,063

●

10,713

●

8,992

●

8,940

●

8,633

6

5

4

4

2

○

●

●

●

●

○

●

●

●

●

0
14

2
21

4
22

2
19

2
12

Notes:
○ Least compatible with Goals/Objectives – zero points
Somewhat or Moderately compatible with Goals/Objectives – one (1) point
● Very compatible with Goals/Objectives – two (2) points

●

Page | 6-39
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 6-40
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

RECOMMENDED
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

7.0 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
7.1 ROADWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Two roadway networks have been defined and recommended for implementation: Year
2030 and Buildout. This section provides a description of specific improvements
recommended for implementation by Year 2030 and, ultimately, to serve travel needs at
Buildout.
7.1.1 YEAR 2030 ROADWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended Year 2030 roadway network would establish new connections within
the existing network to relieve anticipated congestion. Figure 7.1 shows the changes
from existing conditions associated with the recommended Year 2030 roadway network,
which are highlighted below:
North of I-8
Reconstruct South Fortuna Road as a four-lane Minor Arterial from
East 28th Street/ East County 10½ Street to US 95;
Fully construct East 24th Street/East County 10th Street between South Fortuna
Road and South Camino Del Sol to a two-lane Collector;
Fully construct South Camino Del Sol north of East 28th Street/ East County
10½ Street to East 24th Street/East County 10th Street as a two-lane Collector.
South of I-8
Fully construct South Avenue 10E as a two-lane Major Collector between the I-8
South Frontage Road and East 40th Street/East County 12th Street;
Build out East 40th Street/ East County 12th Street to a four-lane Minor Arterial
between South Fortuna Road and South Avenue 15E;
Extend South Fortuna Road south to East 48th Street/East County 13th Street as
a four-lane Minor Arterial;
Build out South Avenue 12E south of East 36th Street to East 40th Street/
East County 12th Street as four-lane Minor Arterial;
Extend South Avenue 12E south to East 48th Street/East County 13th Street as a
two-lane Collector;
Extend East 48th Street/East County 13th Street west from South Foothills
Boulevard to South Fortuna Road as a two-lane Collector;
Build out to four-lane Minor Arterials –
o South Foothills Boulevard south of East 50th Street to 56th Street/East County
14th Street;
o East 56th Street/East County 14th Street between South Foothills Boulevard
and South Avenue 15E; and
o South Avenue 15E between I-8 South Frontage Road and
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street.
Page | 7-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 7-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

FIGURE 7.1
YEAR 2030 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

Page | 7-3
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 7-4
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

7.1.2 BUILDOUT NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the conclusions presented in the previous section, the recommended Buildout
roadway network is Alternative 1. This alternative would add necessary capacity to the
principal roadway system in the study area. It also would create a viable linkage
connecting South Fortuna Road at East 24th Street/East County 10th Street with a new
I-8 TI at South Avenue 15E. This new linkage would create a continuous east-west
route north of I-8 providing relief for this Interstate facility. It also would integrate the
eastern portion of the study area, i.e., Fortuna Hills, Foothills North, and Foothills
Mountain Estates, with the central portion of the study area and establish direct access
to US 95. Access to US 95 will provide an alternate route to the City of Yuma to the
west, as well as points north, such as the Yuma Proving Grounds, Quartzite, and
ultimately recreation opportunities in Parker. Figure 7.2 shows the changes from
existing conditions associated with the recommended Buildout roadway network, which
are highlighted below:
North of I-8
Construct East 24th Street/East County 10th Street as a four-lane Minor Arterial
between South Fortuna Road and South Foothills Boulevard;
Construct a four-lane Minor Arterial facility (likely along the
East 28th Street/East County 10½ Street alignment) between South Foothills
Boulevard and South Avenue 15E;
Extend Foothills Boulevard as a two-lane collector to intersect with the new eastwest connector arterial (likely on the East 28th Street alignment);
Construct South Avenue 15E between I-8 and new east-west connector (likely
the East 28th Street/East County 10½ Street alignment) as a four-lane Minor
Arterial;
Construct a new traffic interchange on I-8 at South Avenue 15E.
South of I-8
Construct four-lane Minor Arterials all north-south and east-west roadways
forming the mile-road grid, except South Avenue 14E between
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street and East 56th Street/East County
14th Street which will remain a two-lane collector;
Construct South Avenue 14E as a two-lane collector south from the I-8 South
Frontage Road to Wash C;
Construct South Avenue 14E as a two-lane Collector south of Wash C to
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street.

Page | 7-5
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 7-6
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

FIGURE 7.2
RECOMMENDED BUILDOUT IMPROVEMENTS

Page | 7-7
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 7-8
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

7.2 PERFORMANCE OF THE YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT ROADWAY
NETWORKS
Based on modeling results of the Year 2030 and Buildout roadway networks, key
intersections were identified and evaluated for system performance. Figure 7.3 shows
the location of intersections selected and identifies which were evaluated relative to
Year 2030 Recommended Improvements and which were added to the evaluation
relative to Buildout Conditions: Alternative 1. The information in this section highlights
intersection-related improvements associated with the two roadway networks identified
in Section 7.1 above. Recommended changes (compared to 2011) to intersection
operations and geometrics for Year 2030 and Buildout are depicted in Figure 7.4.
All improvements noted are identified relative to existing 2011 conditions. Detailed
LOS analyses for Year 2030 (modeled and mitigated) and Buildout roadway networks
are provided in the Technical Appendices. The analyses in these appendices reveal
that each analyzed intersection would operate at LOS D with forecast traffic volumes,
provided the proposed improvements are implemented. LOS D or better is an
acceptable operating environment for urbanized areas. A tabular summary of changes
to the number of lanes at each intersection, as modeled for the two roadway networks,
is provided in the Technical Appendices.
7.2.1 YEAR 2030 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Operational and geometric modifications needed relative to existing 2011 conditions
have been identified for 18 intersections analyzed for the roadway network defined by
Year 2030 Recommended Improvements. Forecast LOS deficiencies have been
mitigated by segment improvements and intersection modifications, as specified.
7.2.2 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS: ALTERNATIVE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
Operations and geometry modifications needed beyond those implemented for
Year 2030 have been identified for 24 of the 40 intersections analyzed for the Buildout
Conditions: Alternative 1 roadway network. No additional mitigation actions were
necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service for intersections in the network.
7.2.3 SOUTH FOOTHILLS BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL PHASING AT I-8
EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND I-8 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
The South Foothills Boulevard/I-8 Eastbound Off-Ramp and South Foothills Boulevard/
I-8 South Frontage Road intersections are very closely spaced, and the two traffic
signals are operated with a single controller. In order to mitigate Year 2030 congestion
conditions at these two intersections, due to forecasted traffic levels being higher than
existing conditions, the existing signal phasing had to be modified. The phasing
scheme implemented for Year 2030 mitigation strategy is illustrated in Figure 7.5.
Deficiencies at the two intersections also could be alleviated using two separate signal
controllers that are coordinated. This approach has been applied elsewhere by ADOT.
Page | 7-9
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.3
LOCATION OF INTERSECTIONS SELECTED FOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT ROADWAY NETWORKS

Page | 7-10
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.4
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT

Page | 7-11
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.4 (CONTINUED)
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT

Page | 7-12
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.4 (CONTINUED)
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT

Page | 7-13
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.4 (CONTINUED)
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT

Page | 7-14
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.4 (CONTINUED)
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT

Page | 7-15
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.4 (CONTINUED)
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT

Page | 7-16
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.4 (CONTINUED)
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT

Page | 7-17
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.4 (CONTINUED)
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL AND GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS: 2030 AND BUILDOUT

Page | 7-18
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

FIGURE 7.5
RECOMMENDED SIGNAL PHASING OF I-8 EASTBOUND OFF-RAMP AND SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AT
SOUTH FOOTHILLS BOULEVARD
EXISTING PHASING

MODIFIED PHASING

Prepared by Wilson & Company, January, 2012.

Page | 7-19
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

7.3 RECOMMENDED INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS
The analyses of transportation network alternatives focused on Year 2030 and Buildout
development conditions and associated travel demand. However, evaluations of interim
needs for the near-term and mid-term (five- and ten-year) timeframes also were
conducted. These supporting evaluations served to identify the highest priority
components of the Year 2030 Recommended Network that should be prioritized for
implementation.
7.3.1 NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS (5-YEAR TIMEFRAME)
Recommended near-term (5-year) projects have been identified to align with those
projects already programmed in the study area. A summary of projects documented in
Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs)
through 2016 is provided in Table 7.3.
TABLE 7.1
ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Source

Project Name
FY 2012
Reconstruct I-8 South Frontage Road, South
2,072
Avenue 9E - South Avenue 11E
ADOT STIP
I-8/South Fortuna Road Traffic Interchange
636
Improvements
I-8 North & South Frontage Road Widening,
2,897
South Avenue 10E – South Avenue 13E
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street
Yuma County CIP Reconstruction,
2,721
South Avenue 12E – South Avenue 13E
Signal at South Foothills Boulevard and East
113
48th Street/East County 13th Street

Funding (000’s)
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

FY 2016

1,020

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

400

600

400

500

--

--

150

--

--

--

--

Prepared by Wilson & Company, December, 2011.
.

7.3.2 MID-TERM IMPROVEMENTS (10-YEAR TIMEFRAME)
Previously, an analysis of Year 2020 forecasted volumes on the E+C Improvements
network was conducted and documented in Section 5.0 of this document. Based on
deficiencies identified in the analysis of Year 2020 conditions, the following
improvement components of the Year 2030 Recommended Network are recommended
to supplement the programmed CIP projects:
Upgrade the north and south frontage roads of I-8 between South Avenue 10E
and South Avenue 15E to provide three travel lanes – one through lane in each
direction and a center turn lane;
Reconstruct East 40th Street/East County 12th Street as a 4-lane minor arterial
between South Fortuna Road and South Avenue 12E; and
Extend East 40th Street/East County 12th Street as a 4-lane minor arterial
between South Foothills Boulevard and South Avenue 15E.
Page | 7-20
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

7.4 RECOMMENDED PUBLIC TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
The YMPO RTP Update contains short- and long-range plans for improving the regional
transit system. A follow-on study, the Yuma Regional Transit Study, continues the
regional transit planning process by more closely examining the ability to fund and
implement planned short-range transit service improvements. The 2011 Yuma
Regional Transportation Coordination Plan completed in 2011 was a separate project
addressing the need to coordinate the several services available to persons in the
YMPO region with special transportation needs. Recommendations and guidance
provided in the RTP, Yuma Regional Transit Study, and 2011 Yuma Regional
Transportation Coordination Plan are included by reference as key elements of this
Transportation Needs Study for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas. The general
focus of these plans is presented below.
7.4.1 FIXED-ROUTE PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
The Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) public transit service has experienced strong
growth since its inception, demonstrating high potential for regional support of transit
services. Although the recent recession has had severe impacts on the ability of the
region to maintain service levels, planning continues to focus on enhancing and
expanding this system.
7.4.2 YCAT SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
The Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) of the YCAT system provides guidelines for
meeting the near-term needs of transit users in the City of Yuma and southwestern
Yuma County. The SRTP covers a period of five years with the principal thrust to build
a strong foundation for implementation of the Long-Range Transit Plan (LRTP). The
SRTP depicts two circulator routes operating in the Foothills and two routes serving the
Mesa Del Sol area, as shown in Figure 7.6 and Figure 7.7. The RTP recognizes these
routes are preliminary, to be implemented as funding is available and priorities are
established.
7.4.3 LONG-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
The Long-Range Transit Plan (LRTP) in the YMPO RTP outlines a region-focused
course of action to ensure transit will be supported by Yuma County communities and
that ridership is encouraged over time. To be successful, transit services must become
an integral part of overall planning for the YMPO region. The LRTP establishes the
necessary regional perspective for this to happen and highlights means to enhance
travel between neighboring cities and expand transportation choices within the regional
transportation system.
To this end, the LRTP is goal-oriented, setting out unambiguous transit mode share
objectives that will be supportive of the desired land-use, lifestyle, and transportation
vision for the region. It is anticipated that transit mode share objectives will become part

Page | 7-21
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.6
PLANNED YCAT FOOTHILLS CIRCULATOR ROUTES

FIGURE 7.7
PLANNED YCAT MESA DEL SOL CIRCULATOR ROUTES

Page | 7-22
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

of the region’s process for approving major transportation and land development
projects. Implementation of this transit strategy will be accomplished in conjunction with
improvements to the roadway network and will help to achieve the overall goal of an
integrated multi-modal system. The Yuma Regional Transit Study (see below) has
been undertaken to clarify, enhance, and expand the plans, goals, and objectives set
forth in the YMPO RTP.
7.4.4 YUMA REGIONAL TRANSIT STUDY
The principal focus of this regional study, which followed completion of the YMPO RTP,
was identification of feasible transit corridors that would permit development of a
regional transit system design and implementation plan. The study included evaluation
of three funding scenarios. The focus of the study included the jurisdictions of Yuma
County, Cocopah Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, the Town of Wellton,
and the cities of Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis. The major points of emphasis for this
study were:
Transit system design options;
Evaluation of a member agency cost apportionment policy;
Public transportation division organizational structure;
Public transportation funding opportunities; and
Operating contract requirements.
Subsequent to substantive public involvement, regional transit alternatives were
developed to address service deficiencies and special needs.
Three service
alternatives for the YCAT system were developed and presented for public review prior
to finalizing the study and preparing firm recommendations.
Implementation
recommendations derived through this study assumed current funding levels, a
1/10 cent county-wide sales tax, and a 1/5 cent county-wide sales tax. A corresponding
5-year financial plan was formulated to support the recommendations. The Yuma
County Transit Study did not result in a final recommendation as to route structure or
service, but, rather, provided a decision framework within which community leaders
could refine and make more viable regional transit services. This has been a dynamic
process ongoing in the region for several years.
As stated earlier, service on the Orange Route was suspended east of South Fortuna
Road. This suspension of service was effective January 9, 2012. The Orange Route in
the past continued east to Wellton along the I-8 Frontage Roads and I-8. It served the
core portion of the study area, even operating along South Far West Avenue and
East 34th Street between the I-8 South Frontage Road and South Foothills Boulevard.
Service east of South Fortuna Road is now provided via a new Gold Route, which is
routed along the I-8 South Frontage Road to South Foothills Boulevard, then on to
Wellton. The route is designated as offering flexible, deviated fixed-route service – or
“Flex Route” – within the study area. Such service permits prospective users to call at
least 60 minutes in advance (and up to 7 days) for pick-up/drop-off at a location up to
Page | 7-23
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

one and one-half miles from the designated route. Service to the East 34th Street area,
therefore, still is possible with advanced reservations.
The Yuma Regional Transit Study Final Report, published January 2012, states:
Service Alternative 1 could potentially be implemented during the fiscal
year 2012-2013 as it is based on current funding levels with the addition of
partnerships with several institutions.
Service Alternatives 2 and 3 require higher capital and operating funding,
and are based on the establishment of a transit-dedicated sales tax. Such
a tax is subject to voters’ approval and would not be in place before a
couple of fiscal years.
Given the route descriptions provided for each service alternative, the
transit agency could sequentially implement the routes or combine
solutions from the three service alternatives, to provide the service that is
appropriate given transit demand and available funding.
Service Alternative 1 is based on current funding levels and comprised of seven routes,
three of which are Flex Routes that can deviate in response to customer request, as
described above. Service Alternative 2 assumes a network of eight routes, including
Flex Route service in the evening. The coverage area and route network is similar to
that provided by Service Alternative 1 with the addition of an exclusive route serving the
Fortuna Foothills area, a downtown loop in the City of San Luis, and two-way circulators
in downtown Yuma. The coverage and route network of Service Alternative 3 is
identical to Service Alternative 2. The principal difference is an increase in the
frequency of service in areas with the most population.
Service Alternative 1 is comparable to current YCAT service as outlined at the Web site
YCIPTA. In the study area, this means transit service west of South Fortuna Road is
provided via the Orange Route, and service east of South Fortuna Road is provided via
the Gold Route, as described above. In light of the findings of the Yuma County Transit
Study and recent local actions creating the YCIPTA as the administrative and operating
entity of YCAT, this route service is concluded to constitute the existing transit service.
7.4.5 RECOMMENDED PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE NETWORK
Future transit service in the near-term (0 to 5 years), funding permitting, would include
the base service defined as Yuma Regional Transit Study Service Alternative 1 and a
seasonal, one-way circulator route serving the southern portion of the study area.
Beyond the near-term, implementation of Service Alternatives 2 and 3, as funding
permits, is recommended as a mid-term, 10-year development initiative. This action
would be consistent with the 5-year Financial Plan adopted as part of the Yuma
Regional Transit Study. The deviated, fixed-route service shown in Figure 7.8 would
provide linkages for the southeastern portion of the study area to shopping opportunities
along South Foothills Boulevard, South Fortuna Road, and the Walmart at
Page | 7-24
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.8
FUTURE NEAR- TO MID-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATION
(BASED ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING)

Orange Route

Gold Route

Purple Route

Seasonal Route

Source: Extracted from Figure 24: Service Alternative 2, Service Alternatives and
Recommendations, Yuma Regional Transit Study, January 2012.

* Bus stops may be located between
Time Points.

South Avenue 8E and the I-8 South Frontage Road. Therefore, it is assumed the transit
services shown in Figure 7.8 would be implemented as soon as funding becomes
available.
Under Buildout conditions, as defined in Section 7.1.2, the full complement of transit
services presented in the YMPO RTP and Yuma Regional Transit Study would
constitute the minimum long-term transit component for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol
Areas. The transit service network under Buildout conditions would reflect the routes
shown earlier in Figures 7.5 and 7.6. At this time, no plans include consideration of
transit service to the southwestern portion of the study area. Therefore, extending
transit service to the southwestern portion of the study area will need to be reviewed
and its viability assessed, as development moves toward Buildout conditions.
Page | 7-25
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

7.4.6 DIAL-A-RIDE/PARATRANSIT SERVICE
The 2011 Yuma Regional Transportation Coordination Plan identifies local and regional
transportation and mobility coordination gaps and barriers that exist in the YMPO
planning area. YMPO and participating agencies developed a regional coordination
process to address local and regional gaps in transportation services, as well as any
barriers, that may be prohibiting potential users from accessing regional destinations.
The Plan satisfies the planning requirements for a Coordinated Public Transit-Human
Services Transportation Plan, specifically mandated in Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) legislation and
subsequent guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). As such, it is
incorporated by reference into this assessment of the Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol area and represents the recommended Dial-a-Ride (DAR)
and paratransit component of this study.

7.5 RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Recommended improvements for pedestrian and bicycle movements have been
adapted from adopted plans developed by the YMPO and Yuma County.
7.5.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
Because every trip has a walking component of some length, there is a need to provide
a safe and effective mobility environment for pedestrian movements. Therefore, the
YMPO RTP includes a Pedestrian Element that calls for consideration of the following
pedestrian-related design elements during the course of developing the transportation
system:
Continuous sidewalks;
Comfortable [and safe] access to shopping, schools, and other activity centers;
and
Requirements specified in the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).
The YMPO RTP points out that most new urban street design and construction includes
sidewalks for pedestrians. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there are many streets
in the study area lacking adequate pedestrian facilities
The Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, published
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
recommends a minimum sidewalk width of five feet. However, there are conditions that
merit additional area for the accommodation of sidewalks and pedestrian environments
to improve safety and enhance the pedestrian experience:
A sidewalk width of six to eight feet with a buffer (or planting) strip between the
sidewalk and the roadway is desirable along arterials not located in a central
business district (CBD). The AASHTO Guide recommends the buffer be five to
six feet wide along arterial or major roads (two to four feet along collector
facilities).
Page | 7-26
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

A sidewalk width of eight to ten feet is preferred where the sidewalk is flush
against the roadside curb.
The YMPO RTP includes the goal to increase the availability of pedestrian facilities in
the region and improve pedestrian safety. Objectives adopted in conjunction with this
goal have been adapted to the situations and conditions in the Foothills and Mesa Del
Sol study area:
Provide safe and systematic connections between residential areas and key
community destination points.
Identify the need for sidewalks or sidewalk upgrades along major and minor
arterials in the study area.
Encourage the creation of transit-accessible designs for pedestrian facilities.
Coordinate development and enhancement of pedestrian facilities with the Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) Program established in August 2005 as part of
Section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU.
Incorporate recommendations of the AASHTO Guide and other relevant national
standards, as appropriate into development of pedestrian facilities.
7.5.2 BICYCLE FACILITIES
The Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan states “there is a need to incorporate
provisions [for bicycle facilities] into existing infrastructure, roadway and non-motorized
plans to accommodate this mode of transportation.” The YMPO RTP responds to this
need by incorporating a Bicycle Element to guide development of a safe and convenient
system of linear facilities and nodes. The 2033 Bicycle Facilities Plan is shown in
Figure 7.9. Of particular note with regard to the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol study area
is the shared-use path planned along Fortuna Wash north of East 40 th Street/East
County 12th Street. This path will link to the Anza historic trail, which is a route followed
by members of the Spanish Expedition that generally corresponds to the Gila River
approximately three miles north of the study area. Three other roadways in the study
area have been designated for development with Bike Lanes:
South Avenue 10E (two segments) – from East 24th Street/East County
10th Street to the I-8 North Frontage Road and from the I-8 South Frontage Road
to East 48th Street/East County 13th Street;
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street between South Avenue 10E and Fortuna
Wash, where it would connect with the planned shared-use path heading north to
the Gila River; and
South Foothills Boulevard between East 40th Street/East County 12th Street and
I-8.
Goals and objectives adopted in the YMPO RTP regarding development of bicycle
facilities have been adapted to the situations and conditions in the Foothills and Mesa
Del Sol study area and are presented below as recommendations for the transportation
system of the study area:
Page | 7-27
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

FIGURE 7.9
PLANNED STUDY AREA BICYCLE FACILITIES

Provide safe and systematic connections between residential areas and key community
and regional destination points, such as the City of Yuma and Yuma Palms Center;
Encourage the creation of transit-accessible designs for bicycle facilities and
routes, including the provision of parking, water, bike lockers, and other
amenities, as deemed appropriate;
Coordinate development of bicycle facilities with the Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Program;
Establish viable, safe bicycle routes that minimize conflicts with motorized traffic
and are appropriately marked and signed; and
Incorporate recommendations of the AASHTO Guide and other relevant national
standards, as appropriate, into development of bicycle facilities.
Consistent with the information and guidance outlined above, Figures 7.10 and 7.11
show recommended bicycle facilities for the Year 2030 and Buildout roadway networks
in the study area. The recommended bicycle facilities recognize the desire to establish
Page | 7-28
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

a network that provides access throughout the community and connects with key
community and regional destinations as well as the transit system.
7.5.3 ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAVEL
Bike lanes, as recommended in Figures 7.10 and 7.11, currently are not integral to the
typical roadway cross-sections required for arterials in Yuma County. Therefore, two
alternative arterial cross-sections that accommodate bicycle lanes and pedestrians have
been developed for review and possible adoption by the County in the future
(Figure 7.12):
Alternative Arterial Cross-Section 1 – Bike Lane and Sidewalk
Alternative Arterial Cross-Section 2 – Multi-Use Path.
Both cross-sections anticipate a four-lane roadway with center left-turn lane constructed
within a right-of-way of 100 feet. Alternative 1 would provide for separation of bicycle
and pedestrian modes of travel by having vehicular traffic share the roadway with
bicyclists in a dedicated lane and creating sidewalk for a distinct pedestrian
environment. Alternative 2 would involve developing the roadway shoulder to create a
10-foot wide multi-use path separated from traffic to be shared by pedestrians and
bicyclists.

Page | 7-29
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 7-30
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

FIGURE 7.10
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES YEAR 2030

Page | 7-31
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

FIGURE 7.11
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES FOR BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1

Page | 7-32
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
FIGURE 7.12
ALTERNATIVE ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION 1

FIGURE 7.13
ALTERNATIVE ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION 2

Page | 7-33
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 7-34
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS OF
RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

8.0 PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS OF RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS
8.1 DERIVATION OF PLANNING-LEVEL COST COMPONENTS
Table 8.1 shows how planning-level costs, in constant 2012 dollars, were calculated for
the Year 2020, 2030 and Buildout Recommended Improvements. Costs used were
derived from review of recent cost estimates prepared in similar studies in Yuma
County, including costs published in the YMPO RTP and national averages. Ultimately,
estimated costs were presented to and approved by the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC). All unit costs are likely to change substantially during subsequent planning and
design concept work. They also will vary by location according to terrain, drainage, soil
conditions, and other characteristics.
TABLE 8.1
DERIVATION OF PLANNING-LEVEL COST
Improvement Type

Cost Unit

New Traffic Signal
Intersection Widening – Additional Turn Lane
New Two-Lane Collector
New Four-Lane Arterial
Roadway Widening – One Additional Lane
Roadway Widening - Two Additional Lanes
Shared-Use Path
New Wash Crossing (Bridge)
New Traffic Interchange

Each
Each
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
Mile
100 Feet
Each

* 2012 Dollars

Estimated Cost
per Unit*
$250,000
$350,000
$2,000,000
$5,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,500,000
$700,000
$1,000,000
$25,000,000

Prepared by Wilson & Company, March, 2012.

8.2 YEAR 2030 AND BUILDOUT PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS
Table 8.2 provides a summary of cost by improvement type for Year 2020, 2030 and
Buildout Recommended Improvements. Detailed calculations are provided in the
Technical Appendices.

Page | 8-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

TABLE 8.2
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT COSTS
Improvement Type
New Traffic Signal
Intersection Widening – Additional Turn Lane
New Two-Lane Collector
New Four-Lane Arterial
Roadway Widening – One Additional Lane
Roadway Widening - Two Additional Lanes
Shared-Use Path
New Wash Crossing (Bridge)
New Traffic Interchange

Year 2020*
n/a
n/a
n/a
$8,000,000
$21,750,000
$6,300,000
n/a
$6,000,000
n/a

Year 2030*
$1,750,000
$3,850,000
$6,500,000
$5,000,000
$1,200,000
$24,980,000
$3,150,000
n/a
n/a

Buildout*
$2,000,000
$4,900,000
$2,200,000
$59,500,000
n/a
$39,380,000
n/a
$28,000,000
$25,000,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COSTS

$42,050,000

$46,430,000

$160,980,000

New Transit Circulators
* 2012 Dollars
n/a = Not Applicable

$143, 095 Annually
(per Yuma Regional Transit
Study)

TBD

Prepared by Wilson & Company, March, 2012.

Page | 8-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
ACTIVITIES

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

9.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public and stakeholder outreach during the Transportation Needs Study for the Foothills
and Mesa Del Sol Area emphasized achievement of community input on a vision for the
study area that will guide future decision-making. Thus, decisions made during this
study were based on a process that reached out not only to those living in the study
area but also those outside stakeholders interested in effecting transportation
improvements in the area.
The Public Involvement Program adopted for this study was oriented to satisfying the
information needs of a diverse audience that was fully engaged and actively involved
throughout the study, including: agency staff, residents, area stakeholders, and elected
officials, To accomplish this ambitious outreach effort, the Public Involvement Program
included the following elements:
Committee Structure – A strong advisory committee is critical to the success of
studies addressing broad community interests. A Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), including representatives from the County, ADOT, City of Yuma, YMPO,
YCIPTA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Arizona State Land
Department (ASLD), and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AzGFD), was
formed and met to guide, evaluate, and critique the process and products of the
Project Study Team.
One-on-One Meetings/Interviews – Formal meetings with key stakeholders,
including representatives from Yuma County Planning and Public Works, Marine
Corps Air Station (MCAS), U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), Yuma
County Sherriff’s Office, and Rural Metro, were conducted to gain an
understanding of issues, perspectives, and ideas.
Public Outreach– Two stages of public outreach activities provided the general
citizenry an opportunity to: 1) understand and provide feedback on project
scope, expectations, vision, and opportunities/constraints, and 2) review and
receive feedback on the recommended improvement program. The first stage
consisted of introduction of a project fact sheet, accompanied by a public survey
on transportation in the study area. The second stage consisted of a public open
house which included a presentation of study elements, graphic displays, and an
opportunity to engage in dialogue with planners.
Commission/City Council Briefings/Public Hearings – Detailed summaries of
study results, findings, and conclusions/recommendations will be presented to
the County.
Details regarding the public outreach activities and all stakeholder/public input received
during the course of the study is included in the Public Involvement Report in the
Technical Appendices.

Page | 9-1
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | 9-2
Final Report

Transportation Needs for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

Final Report

Appendix A
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Special Status Species List for Yuma County

APPENDIX C-2

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Special Status Species List for Yuma County
Scientific Name Common Name

ESA

Ardea alba
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
Egretta thula
Empidonax
traillii extimus
Glaucidium
brasilianum
cactorum
Himantopus
mexicanus
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
Rallus
longirostris
yumanensis
Anodonta
californiensis
Euderma
maculatum
Eumops perotis
californicus
Macrotus
californicus
Myotis
yumanensis

Great Egret

-

Critical
Taxonomic
USFS WSCA NPL NESL
Habitat
Group
S
WC Bird

Western YellowBilled Cuckoo

-

-

S

WC

-

-

-

S

WC

-

WC

-

WC

-

-

Bird

-

-

Bird

WC

-

-

Bird

WC

-

-

Bird

-

-

Invertebrate

-

-

Mammal

-

-

Mammal

-

-

Mammal

-

-

-

Mammal

-

-

-

-

Mammal

-

-

-

-

Mammal

-

-

-

-

Mammal

Snowy Egret
Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher
Cactus Ferruginous
Pygmy-Owl
Black-Necked Stilt

-

LE

Y

LE

P

S

-

S

California Black
Rail

SC -

Yuma Clapper Rail

LE -

California Floater

SC --

Spotted Bat

SC -

S

SC -

S

SC -

S

SC -

S

Great Western
Mastiff Bat
California LeafNosed Bat
Yuma Myotis

see:
Peromyscus
Peromyscuseremicus SC eremicuspapensis
eremicus
Plecotus
Pale Townsend's
townsendii
SC Big-Eared Bat
pallescens
Sigmodon
Yuma Hispid
SC Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan

-

-

S
-

WC
WC

4
-

Bird
Bird

2

Bird

C2-1

APPENDIX C-2

Scientific Name Common Name
hispidus
eremicus
Allium parishii
Chamaesyce
platysperma
Colubrina
californica
Cryptantha
ganderi
Helianthus
niveus ssp
tephrodes
Lophocereus
schotti
Opuntia
wigginsii
Pholisma
sonorae
Rhus kearneyi
Triteleiopsis
palmeri
Washingtonia
filifera
Charina
trivirgata gracia
Gopherus
agassizii
(sonoran
population)
Heloderma
suspectum
Phrynosoma
mcalli
Thamnophis
eques megalops
Uma notata
rufopunctata
Xyrauchen

ESA

Critical
Taxonomic
USFS WSCA NPL NESL
Group
Habitat

Cotton Rat
Parish Onion

SC -

-

-

-

-

Plant

Dune Spurge

SC -

-

-

-

-

Plant

-

-

-

Plant

California
Snakewood

-

-

S

Gander's Cryptantha SC -

-

-

-

-

Plant

Dune Sunflower

SC -

-

-

-

-

Plant

Senita

-

-

-

-

SR -

Plant

Wiggin's Cholla

-

-

-

-

SR -

Plant

SC -

-

-

HS -

Plant

Sand Food
Kearny Sumac

-

-

-

-

SR -

Plant

Blue Sand Lily

-

-

-

-

SR -

Plant

California Fan Palm -

-

-

-

SR -

Plant

Desert Rosy Boa

SC -

-

-

Sonoran Desert
Tortoise

SC -

S

Gila Monster

SC -

S

SC -

S

SC -

S

Flat-tailed Horned
Lizard
Mexican Garter
Snake
Cowels Fringe-toed
Lizard
Razorback sucker

Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan

SC LE -

Y

-

-

Reptile

-

-

Reptile

-

-

Reptile

WC

-

-

Reptile

WC

-

-

Reptile

WC

-

-

Reptile

WC

-

WC

-

2

Fish
C-2-2

APPENDIX C-2

Scientific Name Common Name

ESA

Critical
Taxonomic
USFS WSCA NPL NESL
Group
Habitat

texanus
Myotis
Yuma Myotis
SC Mammal
Yumanensis
Antilocapra
Americana
Sonoran Pronghorn SC S WC
Mammal
sonoriensis
Legend:
ESA - Endangered Species Act; LE - Listed Endangered, imminent jeopardy of extinction; SC Species of Concern; USFS; S - Sensitive, those taxa occurring on National Forests in Arizona
which are considered sensitive by the Regional Forester; WSCA - Wildlife of Special Concern in
Arizona, if a "y" is indicated, critical habitat has been designated or proposed for the species;
NPL - Native Plant Law; SR-Salvage Restricted collection only with permit; NESL - Navajo
Endangered Species List Group.

Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan

C-2-3

Appendix B
Detailed Crash Data for Key Roadway
Segments

North Frontage Road, Ave 10E – Ave 11E (Fortuna Road)
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
Headon
Leftturn
Other
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1
1
1
3

1
1

1

2

1

1
1

1
1

1
1
8

3
5

4

0

6

4

3

1

1
1
8

1
5

1
4

1

1
3

2

0

0

1
3

0

1
1

2

1

6

3

1
3

2

1

1
8

5

4

3

1

6
1

5

3

0

3

1

1

1
8

5

4

3

0

TOTAL

3
0
4
1
5
0
1
1
6
21
TOTAL

15
0
3
3
21
TOTAL

0
1
3
1
15
0
1
21
TOTAL

0
18
1
1
0
1
21

North Frontage Road, Ave 11E – Ave 13E (Foothills Blvd)
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
Headon
Leftturn
Other
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

2

1
3
9

1

2

2

6
1
1
1
9

1
2
5

2
4

3
2

3
1

5

4

0

1

1

0

1

1
2

2

1

2

7

3

3

2

9

5

4

2

9

3
2

4

2

9

5

4

0

1

1

0

1

TOTAL

0
0
4
0
7
0
1
2
7
21
TOTAL

15
4
1
1
21
TOTAL

1
0
5
0
15
0
0
21
TOTAL

0
19
2
0
0
0
21

North Frontage Road, Ave 13E – Ave 15E
YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
1
1
1
Headon
Leftturn
Other
1
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
1
1
2
2
Total
1
1
2
2
1
3

TOTAL

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

TOTAL

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1

1

1

1

1

1
2

1

1

1
1

1

2
1

2

1

3

2
1

1
1

1

2

2

1

2
1

1

3

1

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

2

2

1

3

3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
10

7
2
0
1
10
TOTAL

0
0
3
1
5
1
0
10
TOTAL

0
10
0
0
0
0
10

South Frontage Road, Ave 10E – Ave 11E (Fortuna Road)
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
Headon
Leftturn
Other
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Fatal
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

2
3

5

3

6
1
8
6
1

3
25

21
1

1
1

3

5

25

5

4

2

1
1

2
1
2

5

4
12

1
2
1
15

7
1
2
1
1
12

1

1
6
9

11
1
1
2

7

15

9

1
1
5

3
1

2
1
5

1
1

2

3

4

1

5

21

8

14

6
1

3

5

1
25

12

15

9

5

5

23
1
1

11
1

15

8
1

5

5

25

12

15

9

5

TOTAL

18
2
12
1
17
1
1
4
15
71
TOTAL

52
4
6
8
1
71
TOTAL

3
1
8
0
57
1
1
71
TOTAL

0
67
3
1
0
0
71

South Frontage Road, Ave 11E – Ave 13E (Foothills Blvd)
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
Headon
Leftturn
Other
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Fatal
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1
1

2

1
5

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

6

6

3

2
4

3

1
2
8

7

1

1

1

1
1
3

5

1

4

3

8

4

6

1

2
1
5

5

6

4

8

TOTAL

3

24
0
1
2

1

3

27

1
6

7
1
3
0
8
0
0
2
6
27

1

1
1

TOTAL

1

3

1

3

2
2

1
3
2

4

8

1

3

1
5

6

4

8

1

3

TOTAL

0
0
6
1
20
0
0
27
TOTAL

1
21
4
0
0
1
27

South Frontage Road, Ave 13E – Ave 15E
YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
1
Headon
Leftturn
1
Other
Rear End
1
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
1
Total
1
2
0
0
0
1

TOTAL

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Fatal
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

TOTAL

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1
1

1

1

2

0

0

0

1

2
0
2
0

1

4

1
1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
4

1

TOTAL

0
0
1
0
3
0
0
4
TOTAL

0
4
0
0
0
0
4

Fortuna Road, south of South Frontage Road
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
Headon
Leftturn
Other
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Fatal
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

5

1

1

1
1
5

1

1

1

3

2

1

2

1

11

10

4

9
1

9

3

1

1

1

11

10

4

2

1

2

4

2

4

2

4

4
1
6

1
9

4

2

4

11

10

4

2

4

1

10
1

9
1

4

2

4

1

11

10

4

2

4

TOTAL

9
0
4
1
12
0
0
6
0
32
TOTAL

28
1
0
3
0
32
TOTAL

0
0
6
1
25
0
0
32
TOTAL

0
30
2
0
0
0
32

Fortuna Road, between North and South Frontage Roads
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
Headon
Leftturn
Other
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Fatal
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1

4

6

1

6

4
1
4

7

4
1

10
1
7
2

3
1
16

4
1
29

4
2
21

14

7
2

17

4
2
5
1
14

5

5
1
32

2
1
16

1
7

16

13

25

11

1
1

22
1
4
2

2
3

1
3

6
1

3
2

16

29

21

17

32

16

5
1
2

2

6

3

14

7
1
20

15

14

1
22
3

13
1

16

1
29

21

17

32

16

16

26
2

19
2

16
1

1
30

15
1

1
16

1
29

21

17

32

16

TOTAL

21
2
33
3
43
5
0
18
6
131
TOTAL

101
1
17
12
0
131
TOTAL

7
1
18
2
98
4
1
131
TOTAL

1
122
6
0
1
1
131

Fortuna Road, north of North Frontage Road
YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
2
2
2
2
Headon
Leftturn
1
Other
Rear End
1
2
2
1
1
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
1
1
Single Vehicle
1
1
1
Total
2
4
4
5
3
3

TOTAL

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Fatal
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

TOTAL

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

2

3

4

1
2

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

3

2
4

5

1
1

4

4

5

3

3

2

4

4

5

3

3

2

4

4

5

3

3

2

4

4

5

3

3

8
0
1
0
7
0
0
2
3
21

15
0
3
3
0
21
TOTAL

0
0
1
0
20
0
0
21
TOTAL

0
21
0
0
0
0
21

Foothills Blvd, south of South Frontage Road
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
Headon
Leftturn
Other
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Fatal
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1

2
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1

2

2

1
1
4

4

4

3

1
1

1

1

1

2

1

1

4

4

2

1
1
2

4

2

4

4

3

2
1

1

3

1

1

2

4

1
3

1

2

4

4

3

1

3

1

3

1

3

TOTAL

4
1
3
1
1
0
0
3
2
15
TOTAL

13
0
2
0
0
15
TOTAL

0
0
2
2
11
0
0
15
TOTAL

1
14
0
0
0
0
15

Foothills Blvd, between North and South Frontage Roads
ACCIDENT MANNER
Angle
Headon
Leftturn
Other
Rear End
Rear to Side
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Sideswipe Same Direction
Single Vehicle
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT SEVERITY
No Injury
Incapacitating Injury
Non_Incapacitating Injury
Possible Injury
Fatal
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT LIGHTING
Dark_Lighted
Dark_Not Lighted
Dark_Unknown Lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Reported
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

ACCIDENT WEATHER
Blowing Sand Soil Dirt
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
Severe Crosswinds
Unkown
Total

YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006 YEAR 2007 YEAR 2008 YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010

1
2
1

2

1

3

4

1

1

3
1

6

2

4

2

2

1

1

2

1

8

2

6

2

2
1

1

2

2
2

1
1

1
1

6

4

8

1
2

2

2
2

6

2

8

2

2

2

6

4

8

2

2

2

5
1

4

8

1
1

2

2

6

4

8

2

2

TOTAL

10
0
4
0
6
1
0
3
0
24
TOTAL

13
1
5
5
0
24
TOTAL

0
0
2
0
22
0
0
24
TOTAL

0
22
2
0
0
0
24

Appendix C
Projected Future Growth Patterns

Appendix D
Year 2030 and Buildout Intersection Level of
Service w ith Recommended Improvements

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Year 2030 Recommended Improvements
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Intersection Name

Fortuna Rd &
North Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
I‐8 Westbound
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
I‐8 Eastbound
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
35th Place
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
40th Street
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
E. North Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
I‐8 Westbound
(Signal)

9

Foothills Blvd &
I‐8 Eastbound
(Signal)

10

Foothills Blvd &
E. South Frontage Rd/
E. South Fronatge Rd
(Signal)

11

Foothills Blvd &
38th Street
(Signal)

2030_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
2030Base_AM(PM) Report

Operations Metric
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

NBL
NBT
297 (163)
589 (669)
0.933 (0.901) 0.414 (0.96)
51.3 (78.1)
27.7 (97.2)
D (E)
C (F)
34.6 (89.7)
C (F)

NBR
83 (127)
0.13 (0.407)
24 (64.9)
C (E)

395 (357)
816 (603)
0.866 (0.855) 0.515 (0.378)
29.2 (24.8)
22.1 (13.8)
C (C)
C (B)
24.4 (17.9)
C (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

1143 (771)
277 (216)
0.704 (0.555) 0.548 (0.499)
18.8 (20)
17.7 (19.8)
B (C)
B (B)
18.6 (20)
B (B)

58 (95)
896 (692)
21 (105)
0.202 (0.383) 0.679 (0.381) 0.679 (0.385)
16.6 (16.6)
23.1 (16)
23.4 (16.1)
B (B)
C (B)
C (B)
22.8 (16.1)
C (B)

33 (24)
737 (637)
0.073 (0.082) 0.533 (0.43)
8.2 (10.5)
12.9 (13.7)
A (B)
B (B)
12.7 (13.6)
B (B)

41 (64)
0.901 (1.249)
45.9 (153)
D (F)

227 (242)
0.58 (0.604)
18.6 (21.2)
B (C)

224 (290)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
45.9 (153)
D (F)

27 (68)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

295 (357)
51 (138)
0.426 (0.646) 0.087 (0.294)
12.4 (18.1)
10.6 (15.5)
B (B)
B (B)
14.7 (18.6)
B (B)

905 (779)
435 (431)
0.937 (0.921) 0.201 (0.235)
40.1 (37)
6.6 (10.4)
D (D)
A (B)
29.2 (27.5)
C (C)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

56 (48)
0.533 (0.431)
12.9 (13.7)
B (B)

1282 (862)
0.538 (0.52)
12 (21.1)
B (C)
12.1 (21.1)
B (C)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

347 (199)
0.54 (0.523)
12.1 (21.2)
B (C)

43 (49)
867 (534)
12 (21)
0.159 (0.278) 0.548 (0.297) 0.548 (0.297)
22 (35)
16.1 (15.5)
16.1 (15.5)
C (D)
B (B)
B (B)
16.3 (17.1)
B (B)

154 (112)
945 (488)
182 (239)
0.297 (0.338) 0.682 (0.473) 0.684 (0.475)
8.6 (9.8)
9.5 (8.2)
9.5 (8.2)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
9.4 (8.4)
A (A)

AM (PM)
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
54 (538)
528 (1228)
438 (603)
208 (556)
151 (105)
360 (157)
0.157 (1.125) 0.521 (1.002) 0.926 (1.054) 0.756 (1.256)
0 (0)
0.901 (0.291)
29.5 (140.9)
39.3 (83.1) 66.8 (108.9)
38.8 (194.4)
41.4 (40.3) 57.7 (42.5)
E (D)
C (F)
D (F)
E (F)
D (F)
D (D)
50.6 (102.8)
48.8 (145.5)
D (F)
D (F)
44.5 (107.9)
D (F)
0 (0)
667 (874)
323 (299)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.536 (0.699) 0.833 (0.768)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
39.4 (28.7)
47.1 (30.2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
D (C)
D (C)
‐
‐
‐
41.9 (29.1)
‐
D (C)
‐
70.5 (76.7)
E (E)
142 (157)
567 (929)
0 (0)
236 (220)
14 (4)
418 (501)
0.445 (0.44) 0.343 (0.625)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.889 (0.912)
13.1 (13.8)
9.7 (14.1)
0 (0)
17.9 (15.2)
15.2 (13.1)
23.4 (23)
B (B)
A (B)
‐
B (B)
B (B)
C (C)
10.4 (14)
21.3 (20.6)
B (B)
C (C)
17.2 (17.8)
B (B)
196 (139)
713 (1199)
113 (264)
216 (193)
89 (138)
83 (106)
0.605 (0.348) 0.691 (0.825) 0.245 (0.406) 0.446 (0.507)
0 (0)
0.204 (0.467)
16.3 (11.4)
21.6 (21.1)
18.1 (16.1)
14.7 (25.9)
19.6 (33.6) 19.7 (33.3)
B (B)
C (C)
B (B)
B (C)
B (C)
B (C)
20.2 (19.4)
16.9 (30.1)
B (C)
C (B)
21.5 (21.5)
C (C)
69 (163)
535 (831)
53 (200)
122 (152)
24 (17)
45 (21)
0.171 (0.359) 0.37 (0.597) 0.372 (0.598)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.122 (0.055)
7.9 (8.3)
10.5 (13.2)
10.5 (13.2)
24 (30.8)
17.1 (20.9)
17.4 (21)
A (A)
B (B)
B (B)
C (C)
B (C)
B (C)
10.2 (12.6)
21.6 (28.8)
B (B)
C (C)
13.5 (15)
B (B)
388 (643)
199 (103)
107 (102)
70 (60)
134 (232)
127 (63)
2.296 (2.819)
0 (0)
0.151 (0.132)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.246 (0.311)
617.8 (849.2)
0 (0)
10 (7.5)
18.8 (18.9)
16 (17.4)
16.2 (17.5)
F (F)
‐
B (A)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
524.1 (748)
16.7 (17.7)
F (F)
B (B)
209.8 (334.3)
F (F)
105 (59)
206 (168)
190 (41)
58 (200)
26 (37)
348 (320)
0.271 (0.245) 0.297 (0.192) 0.323 (0.199)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.697 (0.537)
16.8 (24)
11.7 (14.9)
11.8 (15)
29.9 (437.6)
0 (0)
17.4 (11.1)
B (C)
B (B)
B (B)
C (F)
‐
B (B)
12.8 (16.9)
19 (164.2)
B (B)
B (F)
55.4 (68.8)
E (E)
0 (0)
347 (475)
395 (281)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.353 (0.624) 0.898 (0.825)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
28 (32.8)
42.6 (36.2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
C (C)
D (D)
‐
‐
‐
35.7 (34)
‐
D (C)
‐
43.9 (42.6)
D (D)
100 (89)
128 (548)
0 (0)
241 (215)
0 (0)
822 (1006)
0.603 (0.48) 0.061 (0.387)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2.153 (1.519)
32.2 (34.6)
8.1 (19.6)
0 (0)
1726.8 (1120.4)
0 (0)
573.6 (268.4)
C (C)
A (B)
‐
F (F)
‐
F (F)
18.7 (21.6)
835.1 (418.4)
B (C)
F (F)
312.2 (187.4)
F (F)
113 (313)
411 (949)
308 (207)
338 (331)
22 (51)
43 (76)
0.485 (0.789) 0.511 (0.632) 0.451 (0.636)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.117 (0.248)
27.6 (36.1)
15.7 (20.1)
15.1 (20.1) 1539.6 (2511.7)
0 (0)
16 (28.4)
C (D)
B (C)
B (C)
F (F)
‐
B (C)
17.1 (23.5)
1293.9 (1823.1)
B (C)
F (F)
214.8 (321.6)
F (F)
15 (46)
315 (781)
14 (39)
29 (26)
6 (11)
122 (161)
0.062 (0.127) 0.231 (0.554) 0.233 (0.554)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.486 (0.694)
15.5 (12.3)
9 (9.7)
9 (9.7)
16.8 (16.5)
16.3 (16.1) 18.2 (19.3)
B (B)
A (A)
A (A)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
9.3 (9.8)
17.9 (18.7)
A (A)
B (B)
10.9 (10.6)
B (B)

1 of 3

WBL
220 (116)
0.485 (0.371)
31.7 (63.1)
C (E)

WBT
227 (85)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
45.1 (104.3)
D (F)

134 (192)
2.531 (2.499)
800.1 (751.8)
F (F)

25 (0)
277 (313)
0.034 (0)
0.446 (0.561)
20.9 (0)
25.6 (21.6)
C‐
C (C)
263.4 (299.2)
F (F)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

WBR
142 (170)
0.826 (0.971)
53.2 (123)
D (F)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

40 (146)
113 (83)
276 (146)
0.086 (0.443) 0.292 (0.366) 0.839 (0.758)
18.4 (28.2)
23 (34.1)
28.4 (37.8)
B (C)
C (C)
C (D)
26.1 (33.2)
C (C)

88 (19)
0.21 (0.046)
18.8 (21.4)
B (C)

27 (67)
0.07 (0.21)
18.2 (20.6)
B (C)

29 (8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
19.1 (23.3)
B (C)

121 (139)
0.395 (0.382)
19.3 (23.5)
B (C)

146 (101)
543 (352)
0.241 (0.202) 1.053 (0.829)
16.2 (16.9)
75.4 (25.1)
B (B)
F (C)
61.2 (22.9)
E (C)

200 (114)
1.733 (1.047)
389.6 (126.2)
F (F)

58 (32)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
230.1 (59.9)
F (E)

88 (116)
0.258 (0.219)
11.6 (8.8)
B (A)

95 (103)
1.468 (1.471)
323.7 (317.2)
F (F)

31 (152)
163 (152)
0 (0)
0.636 (0.669)
0 (0)
39 (30.8)
‐
D (C)
132.6 (103.3)
F (F)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

23 (23)
0.459 (0.442)
22.6 (65.6)
C (E)

31 (39)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
29.3 (34.1)
C (C)

417 (167)
0.805 (0.416)
30 (30.6)
C (C)

158 (102)
9 (8)
0.441 (0.296) 0.03 (0.029)
18.9 (17.7)
16.3 (16.1)
B (B)
B (B)
18.5 (17.5)
B (B)

26 (11)
0.104 (0.047)
16.6 (16.1)
B (B)

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:08 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Year 2030 Recommended Improvements
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Intersection Name

Foothills Blvd &
40th Street
(Signal)

S. Ave 10 E &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Stop)

Fortuna Rd &
E. 28th Street
(Stop)

S. Camino Del Sol &
E. 28th Street
(Stop)

E. Camino Del Sol/
E. Camiono Del Sol &
E. Calle Ventana
(Stop)

E. North Frontage Rd &
E. Camino Del Sol
(Stop)

Far West Ave &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Stop)

Ave 12E &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Stop)

Ave 12E &
40th Street
(Stop)

Ave 12E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Stop)

Foothills Blvd &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Stop)

2030_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
2030Base_AM(PM) Report

Operations Metric
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

AM (PM)
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
280 (161)
764 (413)
22 (4)
66 (173)
372 (654)
215 (223)
222 (267)
0.961 (0.719) 0.747 (0.397) 0.747 (0.397) 0.409 (0.455) 1.131 (0.858) 0.769 (0.858)
0 (0)
83.5 (34.3)
47.5 (33)
47.5 (33)
44.3 (25.3) 143.4 (46.5)
62.9 (47.1)
97.3 (42.6)
F (C)
D (C)
D (C)
D (C)
F (D)
E (D)
F (D)
57 (33.3)
106.9 (43.3)
E (C)
F (D)
58.9 (37.1)
E (D)
299 (149)
0 (0)
10 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1.37 (0.8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
230.8 (61.4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
F (F)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
230.8 (61.4)
‐
F (F)
‐
54.7 (8.2)
F (A)
0 (0)
846 (538)
51 (473)
53 (70)
701 (1554)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.28 (0.32)
0 (0)
0.08 (0.12)
0.22 (0.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
10.6 (11.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
‐
0.7 (0.5)
‐
‐
107.5 (4.6)
F (A)
323 (189)
14 (26)
8 (12)
1 (1)
29 (17)
48 (8)
6 (40)
0 (0)
0.23 (0.13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7.7 (6.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.1 (0.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
7.7 (6.5)
0.1 (0.3)
‐
‐
9 (10.8)
A (B)
12 (7)
158 (222)
27 (54)
15 (27)
262 (196)
0 (25)
25 (13)
0 (0)
0.01 (0.01)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.01 (0.02)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.6 (0.2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.5 (1.1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
0.6 (0.2)
0.5 (1.1)
‐
‐
3.8 (1.8)
A (A)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
254 (192)
0 (0)
82 (56)
36 (92)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.62 (0.61)
0 (0)
0.13 (0.09)
0.04 (0.09)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
25.3 (30.4)
0 (0)
11.1 (10.7)
8.4 (8.7)
‐
‐
‐
D (D)
‐
B (B)
A (A)
‐
21.8 (26)
‐
C (D)
8 (7.4)
A (A)
41 (29)
0 (0)
68 (42)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.17 (0.13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11.3 (11.7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
11.3 (11.7)
‐
B (B)
‐
3.2 (2.8)
A (A)
213 (231)
0 (0)
145 (203)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.69 (0.5)
0 (0)
0.23 (0.32)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
36.6 (19)
0 (0)
11.9 (12.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
E (C)
‐
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
‐
26.6 (15.9)
‐
D (C)
‐
10.1 (7.7)
B (A)
6 (6)
20 (26)
3 (4)
57 (142)
160 (209)
121 (109)
232 (154)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
14.13 (17.31)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
F (F)
‐
‐
F (F)
‐
‐
‐
‐
F (F)
F (F)
0 (0)
A (A)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 (16)
0 (0)
24 (31)
83 (115)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.08 (0.1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13.2 (12.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
13.2 (12.5)
A (A)
B (B)
1.9 (2.7)
A (A)
162 (90)
594 (343)
77 (44)
54 (91)
300 (531)
52 (63)
116 (149)
0.15 (0.1)
0.22 (0.12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.07 (0.09)
0.03 (0.04)
0 (0)
8.6 (9.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2.1 (2.2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
A (A)
‐
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
1.7 (1.8)
1.8 (2)
‐
‐
2310.9 (0)
F (A)

2 of 3

EBT
EBR
WBL
253 (284)
167 (368)
8 (13)
0 (0)
0.478 (0.875) 0.021 (0.104)
0 (0)
19.1 (36.4)
26 (49.3)
‐
B (D)
C (D)
46.2 (38.2)
D (D)

WBT
350 (180)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
25 (22.1)
C (C)

WBR
267 (168)
0.707 (0.461)
25 (21.1)
C (C)

378 (451)
0.38 (0.53)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

222 (375)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

55 (29)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

354 (332)
0.06 (0.04)
1.9 (1.3)
A (A)
1.9 (1.3)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

250 (167)
1.76 (0.84)
376.9 (67.5)
F (F)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
376.9 (67.5)
F (F)

407 (15)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

8 (23)
0.28 (0.51)
11 (13.4)
B (B)
11 (13.4)
B (B)

198 (338)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

15 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

21 (7)
0.22 (0.08)
27.7 (20.3)
D (C)
27.7 (20.3)
D (C)

4 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

2 (2)
0.09 (0.05)
13.4 (12.6)
B (B)
13.4 (12.6)
B (B)

12 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

69 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

5 (0)
0.23 (0.08)
14 (13.2)
B (B)
14 (13.2)
B (B)

38 (10)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

146 (183)
0.09 (0.12)
0 (0)
‐
1.7 (2.9)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

232 (187)
0.28 (0.29)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

207 (271)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

158 (200)
0.12 (0.17)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

27 (62)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

48 (77)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

168 (124)
0.04 (0.07)
2 (3.4)
A (A)
2 (3.4)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

214 (216)
0.29 (0.27)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

242 (199)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

117 (47)
0.12 (0.05)
8.8 (8.4)
A (A)

118 (52)
0.08 (0.03)
0 (0)
‐
4.4 (4)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

599 (827)
0.3 (0.17)
7.2 (4.7)
A (A)
7.2 (4.7)
‐

80 (99)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

105 (82)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

640 (493)
0.13 (0.13)
3.3 (3.3)
A (A)
3.3 (3.3)
‐

70 (55)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

220 (297)
0.08 (0.09)
2.8 (2.8)
A (A)
2.8 (2.8)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

272 (141)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

82 (43)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

219 (325)
5.93 (2.43)
0 (683.4)
F (F)
(683.4)
F (F)

76 (146)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

33 (23)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

174 (98)
2.99 (0)
1006.2 (0)
F (F)
1006.2 ‐
F (F)

22 (13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:08 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Year 2030 Recommended Improvements
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

23

24

25

26

27

Intersection Name

Ave 14E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Stop)

CO 14th St (56th St) &
Ave 14E
(Stop)

Ave 15E &
S. Frontage Rd
(Stop)

Ave 15E &
40th Street
(Stop)

Ave 15E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Stop)

2030_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
2030Base_AM(PM) Report

Operations Metric
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

AM (PM)
NBL
48 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

NBT
57 (24)
0.28 (0.13)
16.3 (15)
C (B)
16.3 (15)
C (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

NBR
8 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

SBL
3 (5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

37 (48)
0.13 (0.16)
11.3 (11.1)
B (B)

SBT
15 (25)
0.06 (0.1)
12.8 (12.8)
B (B)
12.8 (12.8)
B (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
11.3 (11.1)
B (B)

SBR
8 (19)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

EBL
27 (41)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

4.6 (3.4)
A (A)
44 (55)
60 (75)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐

EBT
137 (206)
0.02 (0.03)
1.3 (1.2)
A (A)
1.3 (1.2)
‐

EBR
29 (75)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

WBL
32 (20)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

WBT
202 (123)
0.02 (0.02)
1.2 (1.1)
A (A)
1.2 (1.1)
‐

WBR
21 (13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

108 (145)
0.05 (0.06)
3.1 (2.9)
A (A)
3.1 (2.9)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

157 (88)
0.15 (0.08)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

70 (37)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

83 (265)
0.12 (0.41)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

110 (375)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

480 (434)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

355 (306)
0.38 (0.52)
7.3 (11.4)
A (B)
7.3 (11.4)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
F (F)

333 (414)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

108 (130)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

3 (4)
A (A)
442 (307)
7.06 (8.45)
0 (0)
F (F)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
F (F)

474 (434)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

250 (113)
0.42 (0.23)
14.5 (13.5)
B (B)

584 (267)
0.37 (0.17)
0 (0)
‐
4.3 (4)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

492 (698)
0.31 (0.45)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

145 (74)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

442 (229)
0.15 (0.08)
3.6 (2.9)
A (A)
3.6 (2.9)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

260 (402)
0.28 (0.37)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

4714.6 (3497.3)
F (F)
495 (476)
565 (576)
0.32 (0.3)
11.29 (5.62)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
F (F)

3303.7 (3891.7)
F (F)
196 (217)
1.36 (1.14)
225.4 (126.6)
F (F)

183 (169)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
225.4 (126.6)
F (F)

52.9 (36.7)
F (E)

3 of 3

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:08 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Year 2030 Recommended Improvements ‐ Mitigated
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

1*

2*

3*

4*

5

6

7*

8*

9*

Intersection Name

Fortuna Rd &
North Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
I‐8 Westbound
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
I‐8 Eastbound
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
35th Place
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
40th Street
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
E. North Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
I‐8 Westbound
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
I‐8 Eastbound
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
E. South Frontage Rd/
10*
E. South Fronatge Rd
(Signal)

11

Foothills Blvd &
38th Street
(Signal)

2030_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
2030Mitigated_AM(PM) Report

Fields
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

NBL
347 (163)
‐
22 (26)
C (C)

463 (357)
‐
50 (42)
D (D)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

58 (95)
‐
15 (23)
B (C)

NBT
663 (669)
‐
11 (20)
B (B)
12 (17)
B (B)

916 (634)
‐
24 (31)
C (C)
28 (33)
C (C)

1143 (771)
‐
5 (4)
A (A)
6 (6)
A (A)

928 (692)
‐
21 (18)
C (B)
22 (21)
C (C)

NBR
183 (127)
‐
4 (6)
A (A)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

277 (260)
‐
16 (13)
B (B)

21 (105)
‐
14 (11)
B (B)

SBL
54 (488)
‐
39 (53)
D (D)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

202 (157)
‐
35 (29)
C (C)

196 (139)
‐
4 (11)
A (B)

SBT
528 (1028)
‐
27 (43)
C (D)
19 (35)
B (C)

685 (966)
‐
24 (22)
C (C)
16 (17)
B (B)

617 (1051)
‐
19 (21)
B (C)
21 (21)
C (C)

713 (1199)
‐
12 (15)
B (B)
11 (12)
B (B)

AM (PM)
SBR
EBL
438 (603)
208 (556)
‐
‐
9 (26)
40 (46)
A (C)
D (D)

18 (30)
B (C)
423 (335)
0 (0)
‐
‐
7 (8)
‐
A (A)
A (A)

22 (24)
C (C)
0 (0)
236 (220)
‐
‐
‐
30 (30)
A (A)
C (C)

13 (15)
B (B)
126 (264)
216 (193)
‐
‐
15 (6)
25 (23)
B (A)
C (C)

16 (16)
B (B)
33 (24)
737 (637)
56 (48)
69 (163)
535 (831)
53 (200)
122 (152)
0.074 (0.087) 0.561 (0.555) 0.561 (0.556) 0.175 (0.365) 0.387 (0.705) 0.388 (0.706)
0 (0)
8.5 (10.9)
13.3 (14.7)
13.3 (14.7)
8.1 (8.2)
10.8 (15)
10.8 (15.2)
22.4 (21.7)
A (B)
B (B)
B (B)
A (A)
B (B)
B (B)
C (C)
13.1 (14.5)
10.5 (14.1)
B (B)
B (B)
13.5 (15)
B (B)
41 (64)
224 (290)
27 (68)
388 (643)
199 (103)
107 (102)
70 (60)
0.385 (0.538)
0 (0)
0.428 (0.626) 0.874 (0.903) 0.266 (0.113) 0.168 (0.132)
0 (0)
20.8 (21)
0 (0)
21.2 (21.7)
43.2 (37.3)
11.6 (7.3)
11.1 (7.4)
15.3 (18.7)
C (C)
‐
C (C)
D (D)
B (A)
B (A)
B (B)
21 (21.4)
29.2 (30.1)
C (C)
C (C)
28.3 (24.6)
C (C)
285 (242)
345 (357)
151 (138)
105 (59)
206 (331)
190 (41)
58 (200)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
10 (9)
5 (4)
2 (1)
34 (33)
32 (31)
17 (17)
39 (42)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
C (C)
C (C)
B (B)
D (D)
5 (5)
24 (28)
A (A)
C (C)
15 (17)
B (B)
905 (779)
618 (585)
0 (0)
0 (0)
347 (534)
407 (281)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
39 (38)
20 (16)
‐
‐
33 (28)
11 (8)
‐
D (D)
B (B)
A (A)
A (A)
C (C)
B (A)
A (A)
29 (25)
19 (19)
C (C)
B (B)
25 (23)
C (C)
0 (0)
1282 (1099)
347 (199)
150 (89)
292 (548)
0 (0)
241 (265)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
19 (16)
12 (9)
40 (23)
19 (16)
‐
35 (32)
A (A)
B (B)
B (A)
D (C)
B (B)
A (A)
C (C)
16 (15)
23 (17)
B (B)
C (B)
17 (17)
B (B)
43 (49)
874 (700)
12 (21)
213 (313)
543 (984)
358 (257)
338 (331)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
23 (37)
29 (22)
21 (19)
46 (25)
11 (10)
6 (7)
59 (47)
C (D)
C (C)
C (B)
D (C)
B (A)
A (A)
E (D)
26 (21)
12 (11)
C (C)
B (B)
23 (19)
C (B)
154 (112)
945 (488)
182 (239)
15 (46)
315 (781)
14 (39)
29 (26)
0.31 (0.353) 0.72 (0.505) 0.723 (0.507) 0.064 (0.133) 0.249 (0.597) 0.25 (0.597)
0 (0)
8.9 (10.2)
9.8 (8.5)
9.9 (8.6)
16 (12.8)
9.2 (10.1)
9.2 (10.1)
15.6 (15.2)
A (B)
A (A)
A (A)
B (B)
A (B)
A (B)
B (B)
9.7 (8.8)
9.5 (10.2)
A (A)
A (B)
11 (10.6)
B (B)

1 of 3

EBT
151 (105)
‐
34 (30)
C (C)
22 (35)
C (C)

EBR
360 (157)
‐
10 (10)
A (A)

WBL
220 (116)
‐
29 (22)
C (C)

WBT
227 (85)
‐
32 (38)
C (D)
24 (19)
C (B)

WBR
142 (170)
‐
8 (10)
A (A)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
A (A)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

134 (242)
‐
31 (40)
C (D)

25 (0)
‐
37 ‐
D (A)
19 (23)
B (C)

277 (325)
‐
14 (13)
B (B)

14 (4)
‐
35 (26)
C (C)
17 (19)
B (B)

418 (551)
‐
12 (15)
B (B)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
A (A)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

89 (138)
‐
28 (28)
C (C)
17 (16)
B (B)

83 (106)
‐
2 (4)
A (A)

40 (146)
‐
18 (21)
B (C)

113 (83)
‐
28 (29)
C (C)
12 (18)
B (B)

276 (146)
‐
8 (6)
A (A)

29 (8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
17.8 (16.6)
B (B)

121 (139)
0.382 (0.368)
17.9 (16.7)
B (B)

24 (17)
0 (0)
15.9 (14.8)
B (B)
20.1 (20.4)
C (C)

45 (21)
88 (19)
0.118 (0.053) 0.203 (0.041)
16.2 (14.9)
17.5 (15.2)
B (B)
B (B)

134 (232)
0 (0)
13 (17.3)
B (B)
13.6 (17.6)
B (B)

127 (63)
27 (67)
0.224 (0.313) 0.062 (0.21)
13.2 (17.4)
14.8 (20.5)
B (B)
B (C)

146 (101)
543 (352)
0.219 (0.203) 0.957 (0.834)
13.1 (16.7)
44.8 (25.6)
B (B)
D (C)
37.2 (23.2)
D (C)

26 (37)
‐
32 (35)
C (C)
12 (20)
B (B)

348 (320)
‐
8 (7)
A (A)

200 (164)
‐
38 (33)
D (C)

58 (32)
‐
36 (34)
D (C)
30 (25)
C (C)

88 (116)
‐
17 (14)
B (B)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
A (A)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

95 (103)
‐
32 (12)
C (B)

31 (152)
‐
32 (31)
C (C)
17 (22)
B (C)

163 (152)
‐
7 (30)
A (C)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)
15 (18)
B (B)

822 (1006)
‐
12 (19)
B (B)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
A (A)

0 (0)
‐
‐
A (A)

22 (51)
‐
49 (40)
D (D)
50 (44)
D (D)

43 (76)
‐
43 (42)
D (D)

23 (23)
‐
57 (49)
E (D)

31 (39)
‐
50 (47)
D (D)
19 (15)
B (B)

417 (267)
‐
20 (8)
B (A)

6 (11)
0 (0)
15.1 (14.8)
B (B)
16.6 (17.2)
B (B)

122 (161)
0.48 (0.686)
16.9 (17.7)
B (B)

158 (102)
9 (8)
0.425 (0.284) 0.03 (0.029)
17.5 (16.3)
15.1 (14.8)
B (B)
B (B)
17.1 (16.1)
B (B)

26 (11)
0.102 (0.047)
15.4 (14.8)
B (B)

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:08 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Year 2030 Recommended Improvements ‐ Mitigated
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Intersection Name

Foothills Blvd &
40th Street
(Signal)

S. Ave 10 E &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
E. 28th Street
(Signal)

S. Camino Del Sol &
E. 28th Street
(Stop)

E. Camino Del Sol/
E. Camiono Del Sol &
E. Calle Ventana
(Stop)

E. North Frontage Rd &
E. Camino Del Sol
(Stop)

Far West Ave &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Stop)

Ave 12E &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Stop)

Ave 12E &
40th Street
(Signal)

Ave 12E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Stop)

Foothills Blvd &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Signal)

2030_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
2030Mitigated_AM(PM) Report

Fields
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

AM (PM)
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
280 (161)
764 (413)
22 (4)
66 (173)
372 (654)
215 (223)
222 (267)
253 (284)
0.821 (0.573) 0.517 (0.263) 0.517 (0.264) 0.275 (0.475) 0.876 (0.904) 0.596 (0.904) 0.727 (0.69)
0 (0)
30.3 (14.9)
14.4 (9.9)
14.4 (9.9)
22.7 (19)
41.5 (38)
25.1 (39.3)
26 (22.6)
14.9 (15)
C (B)
B (A)
B (A)
C (B)
D (D)
C (D)
C (C)
B (B)
18.5 (11.3)
34.2 (35.4)
18.6 (18)
B (B)
C (D)
B (B)
23.7 (23.7)
C (C)
299 (149)
0 (0)
10 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
378 (451)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.493 (0.641)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
1.1 (1.3)
‐
‐
A (A)
0.9 (1.1)
A (A)
0 (0)
846 (638)
51 (473)
53 (70)
701 (1554)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.336 (0.42) 0.336 (0.366) 0.073 (0.131) 0.274 (0.539)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.336 (0.42)
0 (0)
0.7 (0.5)
0.7 (0.5)
0.9 (0.8)
0.6 (0.6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
‐
0.7 (0.5)
0.6 (0.6)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
‐
0.7 (0.6)
A (A)
323 (189)
14 (26)
8 (12)
1 (1)
29 (17)
48 (8)
6 (40)
8 (23)
0 (0)
0.23 (0.13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.28 (0.51)
0 (0)
7.7 (6.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.1 (0.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (13.4)
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
B (B)
7.7 (6.5)
0.1 (0.3)
11 (13.4)
‐
‐
B (B)
9 (10.8)
A (B)
12 (7)
158 (222)
27 (54)
15 (27)
262 (196)
0 (25)
25 (13)
2 (2)
0 (0)
0.01 (0.01)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.01 (0.02)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.09 (0.05)
0 (0)
0.6 (0.2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.5 (1.1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13.4 (12.6)
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
B (B)
0.6 (0.2)
0.5 (1.1)
13.4 (12.6)
B (B)
‐
‐
3.8 (1.8)
A (A)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
254 (192)
0 (0)
82 (56)
36 (92)
146 (283)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.62 (0.7)
0 (0)
0.13 (0.09)
0.04 (0.09)
0.09 (0.18)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
25.3 (41.5)
0 (0)
11.1 (10.7)
8.4 (8.7)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐
D (E)
‐
B (B)
A (A)
‐
‐
21.8 (34.6)
1.7 (2.1)
‐
C (D)
‐
8 (8.7)
A (A)
41 (29)
0 (0)
68 (42)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
158 (200)
0.17 (0.13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.12 (0.17)
11.3 (11.7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
11.3 (11.7)
‐
‐
B (B)
‐
‐
3.2 (2.8)
A (A)
213 (231)
0 (0)
145 (203)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
214 (216)
0.69 (0.5)
0 (0)
0.23 (0.32)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.29 (0.27)
36.6 (19)
0 (0)
11.9 (12.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
E (C)
‐
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
26.6 (15.9)
‐
‐
D (C)
‐
‐
10.1 (7.7)
B (A)
6 (6)
20 (26)
3 (4)
57 (142)
160 (209)
121 (109)
232 (154)
599 (827)
0.092 (0.113)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.611 (0.903)
0 (0)
0.423 (0.19) 0.577 (0.512) 0.309 (0.586)
17.6 (12.9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
21.5 (39.8)
0 (0)
19.6 (11.8)
13.6 (14.1)
4.1 (12.2)
B (B)
‐
‐
C (D)
‐
B (B)
B (B)
A (B)
17.6 (12.9)
20.8 (33.1)
6.6 (12.5)
B (B)
C (C)
A (B)
8.3 (19.2)
A (B)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 (16)
0 (0)
24 (31)
83 (115)
220 (297)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.08 (0.1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.08 (0.09)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13.2 (12.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2.8 (2.8)
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
B (B)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
13.2 (12.5)
2.8 (2.8)
A (A)
B (B)
‐
1.9 (2.7)
A (A)
162 (90)
594 (343)
77 (44)
54 (91)
300 (531)
52 (63)
116 (149)
219 (325)
0.337 (0.281) 0.469 (0.289) 0.47 (0.293) 0.159 (0.222) 0.245 (0.445) 0.25 (0.447) 0.701 (0.957)
0 (0)
11.3 (16.2)
9.4 (10.8)
9.4 (10.8)
12.4 (13.6)
8.2 (11.8)
8.2 (11.8)
13.4 (38.5)
0 (0)
B (B)
A (B)
A (B)
B (B)
A (B)
A (B)
B (D)
‐
9.8 (11.8)
8.7 (12)
13.4 (38.5)
A (B)
A (B)
B (D)
10.3 (20.3)
B (C)

2 of 3

EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
167 (368)
8 (13)
350 (180)
267 (168)
0.284 (0.703) 0.026 (0.063) 0.825 (0.597) 0.74 (0.655)
14.3 (17.1)
20.2 (22.5)
28.1 (23.4)
25.6 (24)
B (B)
C (C)
C (C)
C (C)
26.9 (23.7)
C (C)

222 (375)
0.493 (0.641)
1.1 (1.3)
A (A)

55 (29)
0.3 (0.249)
0.8 (0.6)
A (A)

354 (332)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
0.8 (0.6)
A (A)

0 (0)
250 (267)
0 (0)
0.336 (0.366) 0.073 (0.131) 0.274 (0.539)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

407 (15)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

198 (338)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

15 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

21 (7)
0.22 (0.08)
27.7 (20.3)
D (C)
27.7 (20.3)
D (C)

4 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

12 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

69 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

5 (0)
0.23 (0.08)
14 (13.2)
B (B)
14 (13.2)
B (B)

38 (10)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

232 (187)
0.28 (0.29)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

207 (271)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

27 (62)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

48 (77)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

168 (124)
0.04 (0.07)
2 (3.4)
A (A)
2 (3.4)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

242 (199)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

117 (47)
0.12 (0.05)
8.8 (8.4)
A (A)

118 (52)
0.08 (0.03)
0 (0)
‐
4.4 (4)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

80 (99)
0.31 (0.586)
4.2 (12.2)
A (B)

105 (82)
0.611 (0.903)
4.3 (18.4)
A (B)

640 (493)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
4.8 (20.8)
A (C)

70 (55)
0.505 (0.754)
5.1 (22.4)
A (C)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

272 (141)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

82 (43)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

76 (146)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

33 (23)
174 (98)
0.159 (0.222) 0.245 (0.445)
9.6 (8.6)
0 (0)
A (A)
‐
9.6 (8.6)
A (A)

22 (13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:08 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Year 2030 Recommended Improvements ‐ Mitigated
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

23

24

25

26

27

Intersection Name

Ave 14E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Stop)

CO 14th St (56th St) &
Ave 14E
(Stop)

Ave 15E &
S. Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Ave 15E &
40th Street
(Signal)

Ave 15E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Signal)

Fields
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

AM (PM)
NBL
48 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

NBT
57 (24)
0.28 (0.13)
16.3 (15)
C (B)
16.3 (15)
C (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

NBR
8 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

SBL
3 (5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

37 (48)
0.13 (0.16)
11.3 (11.1)
B (B)

SBT
15 (25)
0.06 (0.1)
12.8 (12.8)
B (B)
12.8 (12.8)
B (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
11.3 (11.1)
B (B)

SBR
8 (19)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

EBL
27 (41)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

4.6 (3.4)
A (A)
44 (55)
60 (75)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐

EBT
137 (206)
0.02 (0.03)
1.3 (1.2)
A (A)
1.3 (1.2)
‐

EBR
29 (75)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

WBL
32 (20)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

WBT
202 (123)
0.02 (0.02)
1.2 (1.1)
A (A)
1.2 (1.1)
‐

WBR
21 (13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

108 (145)
0.05 (0.06)
3.1 (2.9)
A (A)
3.1 (2.9)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

157 (88)
0.15 (0.08)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

70 (37)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

3 (4)
A (A)
442 (307)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

474 (434)
0.367 (0.714)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

250 (113)
584 (267)
0.224 (0.119) 0.202 (0.108)
0.8 (0.8)
0.4 (0.5)
A (A)
A (A)
0.5 (0.6)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

145 (74)
442 (229)
0.207 (0.123) 0.355 (0.172)
0.7 (0.7)
0.9 (0.8)
A (A)
A (A)
0.8 (0.8)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0.258 (0.204)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

208 (521)
0.072 (0.21)
0.3 (0.6)
A (A)
0.9 (0.8)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

2.3 (4.7)
A (A)
495 (476)
565 (576)
0.382 (0.429)
0 (0)
1.1 (0.9)
0 (0)
A (A)
‐

0.7 (0.7)
A (A)
260 (402)
183 (169)
196 (217)
0.207 (0.254) 0.171 (0.257)
0 (0)
0.7 (0.9)
0.7 (0.9)
0 (0)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
0.7 (0.9)
A (A)
0.8 (0.8)
A (A)

83 (265)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
5.5 (5.8)
A (A)

110 (375)
480 (434)
355 (306)
0.367 (0.714) 0.468 (0.639) 0.258 (0.204)
5.5 (5.8)
2.2 (6.2)
0.6 (0.4)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
1.5 (3.8)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

101 (252)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

108 (130)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

Note:
* indicates intersection simulated with VISSIM software to accurately measure queues and code complex signal phasing.

2030_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
2030Mitigated_AM(PM) Report

3 of 3

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:08 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Buildout Improvements ‐ Alternative 1
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

1*

2*

3*

4*

5

6

7*

8*

9*

Intersection Name

Fortuna Rd &
North Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
I‐8 Westbound
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
I‐8 Eastbound
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
35th Place
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
40th Street
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
E. North Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
I‐8 Westbound
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
I‐8 Eastbound
(Signal)

Foothills Blvd &
E. South Frontage Rd/
10*
E. South Fronatge Rd
(Signal)

11

Foothills Blvd &
38th Street
(Signal)

BO_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
BOMitigated_AM(PM) Report

Fields
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

AM (PM)
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
241 (163)
557 (536)
148 (127)
54 (464)
418 (966)
295 (379)
131 (372)
0.534 (0.522) 0.534 (0.662) 0.317 (0.351) 0.259 (0.861) 0.336 (0.641) 0.762 (0.808) 0.408 (0.859)
14 (20.2)
21 (27.5)
19.4 (25.1)
33.5 (41.1)
22.2 (23.8)
27.5 (32.5)
31.8 (48)
B (C)
C (C)
B (C)
C (D)
C (C)
C (C)
C (D)
19 (25.7)
25.1 (30)
B (C)
C (C)
23.4 (30.4)
C (C)
250 (190)
783 (622)
0 (0)
0 (0)
634 (886)
302 (353)
0 (0)
0.437 (0.396) 0.387 (0.316)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.337 (0.481) 0.515 (0.615)
0 (0)
6 (6.9)
4.7 (4.9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
10.3 (11.5)
11.4 (12.6)
0 (0)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
B (B)
B (B)
‐
5 (5.4)
10.6 (11.8)
A (A)
B (B)
9.1 (10.8)
A (B)
0 (0)
893 (614)
173 (215)
143 (124)
545 (851)
0 (0)
140 (198)
0 (0)
0.513 (0.366) 0.319 (0.411) 0.33 (0.257) 0.297 (0.484)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13.2 (13.2)
12.2 (13.6)
8 (8.1)
6.2 (8)
0 (0)
17.7 (17.7)
‐
B (B)
B (B)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
B (B)
13 (13.3)
6.6 (8)
B (B)
A (A)
12.4 (12.6)
B (B)
58 (76)
692 (511)
23 (96)
166 (123)
526 (781)
125 (264)
145 (193)
0.156 (0.23) 0.494 (0.391) 0.495 (0.4) 0.438 (0.282) 0.489 (0.698) 0.26 (0.527) 0.325 (0.461)
13.9 (12.4)
19.2 (15.9)
19.3 (16.1)
13.2 (10.8)
17.9 (17.6)
16.4 (16.4)
15.1 (19.1)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
18.8 (15.6)
16.7 (16.6)
B (B)
B (B)
19 (18.1)
B (B)
65 (33)
387 (354)
34 (34)
44 (86)
292 (438)
76 (233)
204 (170)
0.126 (0.093) 0.322 (0.307) 0.325 (0.31) 0.091 (0.159) 0.3 (0.614) 0.307 (0.384)
0 (0)
8.4 (9.8)
12 (12.2)
12 (12.2)
9.2 (7.3)
12.5 (13.1)
12.6 (11.3)
20 (20)
A (A)
B (B)
B (B)
A (A)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
11.5 (12)
12.2 (11.9)
B (B)
B (B)
13.6 (13.2)
B (B)
133 (189)
182 (231)
52 (112)
196 (316)
135 (71)
88 (91)
47 (53)
0.432 (0.613)
0 (0)
0.536 (0.709) 0.632 (0.788) 0.169 (0.081) 0.13 (0.122)
0 (0)
16.8 (23.4)
0 (0)
15.7 (22.4)
24.3 (37.7)
8 (8.5)
7.8 (8.7)
18.9 (20.5)
B (C)
‐
B (C)
C (D)
A (A)
A (A)
B (C)
16.1 (22.8)
15.6 (27.8)
B (C)
B (C)
15.5 (22.3)
B (C)
354 (226)
399 (325)
65 (148)
47 (21)
212 (169)
76 (13)
15 (75)
0.756 (0.478) 0.558 (0.461) 0.107 (0.247) 0.23 (0.077) 0.647 (0.313) 0.674 (0.318)
0 (0)
21.4 (15.2)
16.8 (12.7)
13.4 (11.4)
30 (20.7)
31.9 (21.5)
32.3 (21.5)
12.4 (11.9)
C (B)
B (B)
B (B)
C (C)
C (C)
C (C)
B (B)
18.5 (13.2)
31.8 (21.4)
B (B)
C (C)
21.2 (15.1)
C (B)
525 (418)
679 (526)
0 (0)
0 (0)
475 (501)
255 (120)
0 (0)
0.792 (0.746) 0.343 (0.29)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.551 (0.638) 0.661 (0.342)
0 (0)
17.6 (17.6)
4.4 (5.1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
14.4 (15)
15.4 (13.8)
0 (0)
B (B)
A (A)
‐
‐
B (B)
B (B)
‐
10.2 (10.6)
14.7 (14.8)
B (B)
B (B)
12.7 (13.3)
B (B)
0 (0)
1007 (755)
260 (180)
223 (152)
341 (491)
0 (0)
197 (189)
0 (0)
0.801 (0.738) 0.801 (0.744) 0.698 (0.513) 0.204 (0.356)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
20.6 (21.9)
21.1 (22.4)
17 (16.5)
8.9 (12.6)
0 (0)
17.8 (13.1)
‐
C (C)
C (C)
B (B)
A (B)
‐
B (B)
20.8 (22)
12.1 (13.5)
C (C)
B (B)
19.3 (20.1)
B (C)
43 (49)
656 (415)
12 (21)
101 (206)
348 (599)
321 (237)
338 (346)
0.105 (0.145) 0.515 (0.312) 0.515 (0.313) 0.358 (0.5) 0.282 (0.448) 0.581 (0.396) 0.6 (0.687)
13 (13.4)
12.4 (9.5)
12.4 (9.6)
18.1 (14.7)
11 (10.2)
12.9 (10)
15.9 (19.2)
B (B)
B (A)
B (A)
B (B)
B (B)
B (A)
B (B)
12.5 (9.9)
12.8 (11)
B (A)
B (B)
14.1 (12.9)
B (B)
69 (46)
505 (238)
218 (264)
36 (109)
148 (400)
14 (39)
29 (26)
0.152 (0.137) 0.577 (0.371) 0.579 (0.484) 0.118 (0.274) 0.13 (0.326) 0.133 (0.328)
0 (0)
10 (10.2)
10.3 (9.2)
10.3 (9.8)
14.5 (13.7)
8.7 (8.4)
8.7 (8.4)
13.9 (13.9)
A (B)
B (A)
B (A)
B (B)
A (A)
A (A)
B (B)
10.3 (9.6)
9.8 (9.5)
B (A)
A (A)
11.4 (10.9)
B (B)

1 of 4

EBT
145 (122)
0 (0)
24.1 (24.6)
C (C)
28.1 (38.3)
C (D)

EBR
WBL
272 (157)
246 (116)
0.792 (0.435) 0.523 (0.256)
28.4 (25.8)
18.1 (21.4)
C (C)
B (C)

WBT
213 (112)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
23.8 (29.2)
C (C)

WBR
128 (151)
0.833 (0.827)
28 (32.6)
C (C)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

54 (89)
0.37 (0.464)
21.7 (21.4)
C (C)

9 (0)
0.034 (0)
17.7 (0)
B‐
21.2 (21.6)
C (C)

163 (204)
0.716 (0.784)
21.3 (21.6)
C (C)

7 (2)
0 (0)
16.1 (15.3)
B (B)
20.1 (20)
C (B)

272 (317)
0.818 (0.841)
21.5 (21.4)
C (C)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

89 (126)
0 (0)
20.3 (25.3)
C (C)
18 (22.2)
B (C)

83 (88)
41 (131)
113 (81)
229 (125)
0.237 (0.443) 0.093 (0.344) 0.339 (0.371) 0.808 (0.674)
20.4 (24.8)
18.6 (19.2)
23.3 (24.8)
27.5 (26.9)
C (C)
B (B)
C (C)
C (C)
25.3 (23.4)
C (C)

48 (42)
0 (0)
13.8 (14.4)
B (B)
17.7 (18.3)
B (B)

76 (28)
44 (15)
0.173 (0.069) 0.094 (0.033)
14.2 (14.3)
14.7 (14.9)
B (B)
B (B)

56 (20)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
14.7 (15.4)
B (B)

66 (94)
0.259 (0.274)
14.7 (15.5)
B (B)

223 (427)
0 (0)
14 (19.1)
B (B)
15.1 (19.3)
B (B)

282 (136)
41 (99)
307 (177)
0.612 (0.533) 0.165 (0.427) 0.566 (0.32)
15.4 (19.2)
19.7 (26.8)
15 (17.6)
B (B)
B (C)
B (B)
15.5 (19.7)
B (B)

284 (164)
0.616 (0.349)
15.4 (17.8)
B (B)

26 (37)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
15.5 (13.9)
B (B)

307 (328)
211 (124)
58 (25)
25 (50)
0.534 (0.622) 0.639 (0.442) 0.056 (0.037) 0.061 (0.086)
15.9 (14.5)
27.2 (22.4)
12.4 (10.8)
12.4 (11)
B (B)
C (C)
B (B)
B (B)
23 (18.1)
C (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

89 (142)
0.435 (0.681)
18 (17.4)
B (B)

13 (68)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
18.9 (17.3)
B (B)

139 (173)
0.668 (0.645)
19.5 (17.2)
B (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
22.8 (23.4)
C (C)

429 (551)
0.922 (0.941)
25.1 (27)
C (C)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

22 (51)
0 (0)
9.3 (10.3)
A (B)
14.8 (16.9)
B (B)

43 (76)
23 (23)
0.074 (0.148) 0.057 (0.07)
9.5 (10.5)
15.7 (17)
A (B)
B (B)

35 (49)
0 (0)
12.8 (13.6)
B (B)
13.3 (14.2)
B (B)

70 (114)
0.22 (0.411)
13.3 (14.6)
B (B)

31 (39)
273 (174)
0.042 (0.073) 0.834 (0.728)
15.5 (16.8)
20.9 (20.3)
B (B)
C (C)
20 (19.4)
B (B)

179 (133)
66 (31)
82 (31)
0.431 (0.358) 0.176 (0.095) 0.258 (0.112)
15.5 (15.8)
13.1 (13.4)
13.4 (13.5)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
14.5 (15)
B (B)

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:07 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Buildout Improvements ‐ Alternative 1
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Intersection Name

Foothills Blvd &
40th Street
(Signal)

S. Ave 10 E &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
E. 28th Street
(Signal)

S. Camino Del Sol &
E. 28th Street
(Stop)

E. Camino Del Sol/
E. Camiono Del Sol &
E. Calle Ventana
(Stop)

E. North Frontage Rd &
E. Camino Del Sol
(Stop)

Far West Ave &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Stop)

Ave 12E &
E. South Frontage Rd
(Stop)

Ave 12E &
40th Street
(Signal)

Ave 12E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Stop)

Foothills Blvd &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Signal)

BO_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
BOMitigated_AM(PM) Report

Fields
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

AM (PM)
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
201 (113)
507 (277)
12 (52)
31 (88)
241 (432)
135 (140)
144 (166)
0.448 (0.315) 0.321 (0.212) 0.322 (0.216) 0.092 (0.211) 0.509 (0.574) 0.335 (0.58) 0.422 (0.403)
11.3 (10.5)
9 (8)
9 (8.1)
14.8 (13.4)
16.8 (15)
15.8 (15.1)
16.2 (15)
B (B)
A (A)
A (A)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
B (B)
9.6 (8.7)
16.3 (14.8)
A (A)
B (B)
14.3 (13.7)
B (B)
202 (72)
0 (0)
28 (64)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.397 (0.527)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
0.9 (0.9)
A (A)
0 (0)
512 (280)
151 (485)
78 (70)
289 (722)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.278 (0.207) 0.279 (0.423) 0.087 (0.092) 0.123 (0.282)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.8 (0.6)
0.8 (0.9)
1 (1.1)
0.6 (0.6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
0.8 (0.8)
0.7 (0.6)
A (A)
A (A)
0.8 (0.7)
A (A)
23 (17)
50 (57)
35 (35)
8 (8)
78 (75)
49 (12)
8 (38)
0 (0)
0.02 (0.01)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.01 (0.01)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1.7 (1.2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.5 (0.7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
1.7 (1.2)
0.5 (0.7)
‐
‐
3.9 (6.4)
A (A)
5 (2)
52 (75)
27 (54)
13 (25)
104 (73)
0 (14)
10 (6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.01 (0.02)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.5 (0.1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.9 (1.8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
A (A)
‐
‐
0.5 (0.1)
0.9 (1.8)
‐
‐
4.4 (2.6)
A (A)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
108 (71)
0 (0)
82 (56)
36 (92)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.26 (0.25)
0 (0)
0.13 (0.08)
0.03 (0.08)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
15.9 (20.9)
0 (0)
10.8 (10.3)
8.1 (8.3)
‐
‐
‐
C (C)
‐
B (B)
A (A)
‐
13.7 (16.2)
‐
B (C)
3.9 (3.2)
A (A)
41 (29)
0 (0)
51 (29)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.15 (0.11)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11.3 (11.8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
11.3 (11.8)
‐
B (B)
‐
2.7 (2.3)
A (A)
167 (181)
0 (0)
98 (199)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.42 (0.32)
0 (0)
0.13 (0.25)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
19.3 (13.5)
0 (0)
9.8 (10.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
C (B)
‐
A (B)
‐
‐
‐
‐
15.8 (11.9)
‐
C (B)
‐
7.2 (7.1)
A (A)
119 (166)
200 (255)
16 (36)
28 (60)
250 (220)
87 (103)
201 (118)
0.334 (0.362) 0.197 (0.203) 0.2 (0.207) 0.325 (0.291)
0 (0)
0.38 (0.334) 0.427 (0.26)
15.7 (11.4)
11 (7.2)
11 (7.3)
11.7 (7.5)
0 (0)
12 (7.9)
11.2 (11.2)
B (B)
B (A)
B (A)
B (A)
‐
B (A)
B (B)
12.6 (8.7)
11.8 (7.7)
B (A)
B (A)
9.3 (9.2)
A (A)
254 (150)
183 (86)
22 (11)
15 (23)
97 (174)
88 (106)
188 (206)
0.496 (0.329) 0.16 (0.082) 0.164 (0.084) 0.156 (0.243)
0 (0)
0.187 (0.297) 0.411 (0.357)
12.8 (11.2)
8.6 (7.6)
8.6 (7.6)
8.6 (8.2)
0 (0)
8.8 (8.5)
11.9 (8.8)
B (B)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
A (A)
B (A)
10.9 (9.8)
8.7 (8.3)
B (A)
A (A)
9.3 (8)
A (A)
87 (49)
341 (162)
22 (11)
26 (39)
170 (329)
127 (137)
222 (258)
0.189 (0.118) 0.312 (0.142) 0.315 (0.144) 0.06 (0.069) 0.291 (0.396) 0.255 (0.405) 0.417 (0.429)
9.9 (9.6)
8.3 (6.9)
8.4 (7)
9.4 (7.5)
8.3 (8)
8.1 (8)
9.6 (9)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
8.7 (7.5)
8.3 (8)
A (A)
A (A)
7.9 (7.6)
A (A)

2 of 4

EBT
132 (250)
0 (0)
13.3 (13.5)
B (B)
14.4 (14.1)
B (B)

EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
121 (255)
5 (8)
186 (93)
134 (84)
0.252 (0.542) 0.018 (0.034) 0.677 (0.416) 0.574 (0.442)
13.4 (14.1)
19.2 (19)
22.5 (20.3)
21.8 (20.5)
B (B)
B (B)
C (C)
C (C)
22.2 (20.3)
C (C)

378 (451)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
1 (1.1)
A (A)

102 (214)
102 (86)
0.397 (0.527) 0.359 (0.327)
1 (1.1)
0.9 (0.7)
A (A)
A (A)

354 (332)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
0.9 (0.7)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
367 (284)
0 (0)
0.278 (0.207) 0.279 (0.423) 0.087 (0.092) 0.123 (0.282)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

58 (15)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

10 (25)
0.05 (0.25)
10.2 (10.7)
B (B)
10.2 (10.7)
B (B)

15 (133)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

30 (25)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

20 (7)
0.11 (0.1)
10.7 (11.3)
B (B)
10.7 (11.3)
B (B)

22 (23)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

5 (3)
0.03 (0.02)
10.2 (10)
B (B)
10.2 (10)
B (B)

5 (5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

69 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

6 (0)
0.15 (0.06)
10.5 (10)
B (B)
10.5 (10)
B (B)

29 (16)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

178 (317)
0.11 (0.2)
0 (0)
‐
1.4 (1.9)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

264 (223)
0.22 (0.22)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

77 (116)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

172 (212)
0.13 (0.18)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

27 (62)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

35 (59)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

179 (137)
0.03 (0.05)
1.5 (2.7)
A (A)
1.5 (2.7)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

79 (79)
0.17 (0.15)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

193 (152)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

139 (65)
0.12 (0.05)
8.2 (7.9)
A (A)

63 (32)
0.04 (0.02)
0 (0)
‐
5.7 (5.3)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

38 (25)
0.325 (0.291)
6.7 (8.7)
A (A)

424 (279)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
6.8 (8.7)
A (A)

24 (15)
0.326 (0.279)
6.9 (8.8)
A (A)

210 (288)
120 (267)
30 (17)
0.286 (0.401) 0.192 (0.437) 0.156 (0.243)
7.8 (7.3)
7.4 (7.6)
7.8 (6.3)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
9.2 (7.8)
A (A)

359 (203)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
7.9 (6.4)
A (A)

19 (11)
0.307 (0.176)
8 (6.4)
A (A)

355 (607)
143 (61)
0.305 (0.531) 0.31 (0.532)
6.8 (10.2)
6.8 (10.2)
A (B)
A (B)
8.1 (10.4)
A (B)

145 (204)
30 (72)
24 (13)
0.123 (0.212) 0.128 (0.221) 0.06 (0.069)
6 (6.6)
6 (6.6)
6.4 (6.3)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
8 (7.7)
A (A)

266 (139)
29 (13)
0.291 (0.396) 0.246 (0.135)
0 (0)
6.5 (6.3)
‐
A (A)
6.4 (6.3)
A (A)

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:07 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Buildout Improvements ‐ Alternative 1
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Intersection Name

Ave 14E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Stop)

CO 14th St (56th St) &
Ave 14E
(Stop)

Ave 15E &
S. Frontage Rd
(Signal)

Ave 15E &
40th Street
(Signal)

Ave 15E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Signal)

S. Ave 10E &
40th Street
(Signal)

S. Ave 10E &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Signal)

CO 14th St (56th St) &
S. Ave 10E
(Stop)

Fortuna Rd &
CO 13th (48th St)
(Signal)

CO 14th St (56th St) &
Fortuna Rd
(Stop)

CO 14th St (56th St) &
12E Ave
(Stop)

BO_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
BOMitigated_AM(PM) Report

Fields
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

NBL
96 (44)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

69 (43)
0.166 (0.427)
22.3 (13.7)
C (B)

NBT
49 (20)
0.55 (0.34)
31.1 (19.3)
D (C)
31.1 (19.3)
D (C)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

682 (433)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
27.4 (14.2)
C (B)

NBR
7 (53)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

173 (99)
0.892 (0.617)
32.3 (14.7)
C (B)

207 (94)
544 (301)
0.186 (0.103) 0.199 (0.11)
0.8 (0.7)
0.5 (0.4)
A (A)
A (A)
0.6 (0.5)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

201 (89)
297 (145)
0.247 (0.107) 0.256 (0.135)
1.3 (1.1)
0.7 (0.7)
A (A)
A (A)
1 (0.9)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

66 (83)
0.598 (0.752)
37.9 (53)
D (D)

103 (137)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
23.1 (26.8)
C (C)

11 (44)
0.223 (0.346)
14.6 (14.8)
B (B)

48 (52)
0.355 (0.362)
26 (24.5)
C (C)

42 (73)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
17.8 (13.6)
B (B)

5 (19)
0.079 (0.134)
9.5 (7.4)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

4 (6)
0.042 (0.057)
10.5 (8.6)
B (A)

23 (38)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
10.6 (8.7)
B (A)

3 (12)
0.061 (0.077)
10.6 (8.7)
B (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

SBL
4 (5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

25 (25)
0.06 (0.06)
9.2 (9.1)
A (A)

SBT
19 (25)
0.13 (0.18)
14.5 (13.7)
B (B)
14.5 (13.7)
B (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
9.2 (9.1)
A (A)

AM (PM)
SBR
EBL
29 (54)
74 (87)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐

7.3 (4.9)
A (A)
25 (25)
12 (17)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐

EBT
195 (248)
0.08 (0.12)
1.95 (1.8)
‐
‐
‐

EBR
48 (134)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

WBL
26 (15)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

WBT
313 (187)
0.06 (0.04)
0.65 (0.6)
‐
‐
‐

WBR
16 (10)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

80 (97)
0.02 (0.02)
1.15 (1.3)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

74 (39)
0.02 (0.02)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

8 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

244 (229)
0.542 (0.6)
18 (17.7)
B (B)

234 (164)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
21.9 (15.5)
C (B)

234 (159)
0.849 (0.605)
24 (13.9)
C (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

41 (30)
0 (0)
31.9 (31.2)
C (C)

448 (329)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
12 (11.1)
B (B)

25 (19)
0.574 (0.436)
10.3 (9.4)
B (A)

41 (31)
0 (0)
9.1 (10.6)
A (B)

482 (361)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
9.3 (10.8)
A (B)

26 (19)
0.406 (0.365)
9.4 (10.9)
A (B)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

528 (416)
0.19 (0.15)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

53 (43)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

2.5 (2.8)
A (A)
160 (199)
289 (576)
21 (39)
6 (15)
56 (120)
3 (9)
0.594 (0.507) 0.181 (0.369) 0.183 (0.37) 0.166 (0.427)
0 (0)
0 (0)
15.8 (10.5)
7.5 (7.7)
7.5 (7.7)
18.2 (18.6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
B (B)
A (A)
A (A)
B (B)
‐
‐
10.3 (8.4)
18.2 (18.6)
B (B)
B (A)
21.6 (12.6)
C (B)
0 (0)
237 (486)
215 (206)
256 (274)
0 (0)
106 (202)
0 (0)
0.087 (0.178) 0.176 (0.168)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.4 (0.5)
0.7 (0.6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
‐
0.5 (0.5)
‐
A (A)
‐
0.6 (0.5)
A (A)
0 (0)
121 (255)
236 (240)
296 (305)
0 (0)
94 (199)
0 (0)
0.095 (0.216) 0.218 (0.239)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.6 (0.8)
0.7 (0.9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
‐
0.7 (0.8)
‐
A (A)
‐
0.8 (0.8)
A (A)
16 (53)
123 (109)
39 (40)
105 (56)
403 (616)
86 (35)
0.21 (0.48)
0 (0)
0.305 (0.286) 0.951 (0.507)
0 (0)
0.606 (0.816)
17.2 (33)
0 (0)
15.2 (14.4)
96.8 (33.5)
0 (0)
10.9 (18.2)
B (C)
‐
B (B)
F (C)
‐
B (B)
15.5 (19.2)
26 (19.4)
B (B)
C (B)
19.5 (18.6)
B (B)
13 (51)
62 (60)
57 (48)
130 (66)
426 (662)
63 (38)
0.137 (0.355)
0 (0)
0.201 (0.164) 0.342 (0.174) 0.323 (0.554) 0.326 (0.555)
12.9 (24.4)
0 (0)
10.1 (7.5)
13.9 (13.4)
8.9 (12.2)
9 (12.2)
B (C)
‐
B (A)
B (B)
A (B)
A (B)
10.6 (12.9)
10 (12.3)
B (B)
A (B)
10.3 (12.1)
B (B)
5 (23)
0 (0)
46 (55)
111 (121)
530 (742)
0 (0)
0.03 (0.15)
0 (0)
0.07 (0.08)
0 (0)
0.18 (0.22)
0 (0)
26.6 (29.8)
0 (0)
10.7 (10.2)
0 (0)
2.2 (1.9)
0 (0)
D (D)
‐
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
12.3 (16)
‐
B (C)
‐
1.5 (1.9)
A (A)
72 (156)
62 (84)
49 (39)
121 (67)
415 (605)
27 (34)
0.174 (0.309) 0.231 (0.151) 0.215 (0.163) 0.22 (0.126) 0.228 (0.387) 0.23 (0.388)
11.4 (10.4)
11.2 (8.9)
11.2 (9)
5.4 (6.2)
3.2 (5.1)
3.2 (5.1)
B (B)
B (A)
B (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
11.3 (9.7)
3.7 (5.2)
B (A)
A (A)
4.8 (6)
A (A)
2 (4)
0 (0)
3 (4)
83 (107)
523 (708)
0 (0)
0.01 (0.02)
0 (0)
0 (0.01)
0 (0)
0.16 (0.2)
0 (0)
23.1 (25.3)
0 (0)
10.3 (9.9)
0 (0)
1.8 (1.8)
0 (0)
C (D)
‐
B (A)
‐
‐
‐
15.4 (17.6)
‐
‐
C (C)
0.9 (1.1)
A (A)
13 (39)
0 (0)
122 (224)
193 (138)
373 (555)
0 (0)
0.08 (0.19)
0 (0)
0.17 (0.29)
0 (0)
0.18 (0.18)
0 (0)
27.9 (24.3)
0 (0)
10.7 (11.1)
0 (0)
3.15 (2.15)
0 (0)
D (C)
‐
B (B)
‐
‐
‐
12.4 (13.1)
‐
B (B)
‐
3.2 (3.8)
A (A)

3 of 4

46 (37)
0 (0)
3.5 (4.7)
A (A)

488 (386)
81 (66)
0.231 (0.151) 0.36 (0.337)
0 (0)
3.6 (4.9)
‐
A (A)
3.6 (4.8)
A (A)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

514 (429)
0.18 (0.15)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

52 (43)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

402 (298)
0.14 (0.11)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

41 (31)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:07 PM

Peak‐Hour Intersection Performance Analysis: Buildout Improvements ‐ Alternative 1
Transportation Needs for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas, Yuma County, AZ
ID

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Intersection Name

Foothills Blvd &
28th
(Stop)

CO 14th St (56th St) &
Foothills Blvd
(Stop)

Ave 14E &
40th Street
(Signal)

Ave 15E &
I‐8 Westbound
Off‐Ramp
(Signal)

Ave 15E &
I‐8 Eastbound
Off‐Ramp
(Signal)

Fortuna Rd &
24th St
(Signal)

S. Camino Del Sol &
24th St
(Stop)

Fields
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS
Volume (vph)
v/c Ratio
Movement Delay (s)
Movement LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Delay (s)
Intersection LOS

AM (PM)
NBL
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

NBT
58 (149)
0.06 (0.17)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

NBR
38 (115)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

SBL
258 (242)
0.19 (0.21)
8 (8.6)
A (A)

20 (22)
0.14 (0.1)
32 (22.6)
D (C)

SBT
131 (95)
0.08 (0.06)
0 (0)
‐
5.3 (6.1)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
12.2 (10.7)
B (B)

SBR
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

EBL
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

9.4 (8)
A (A)
199 (222)
351 (323)
0.24 (0.23)
0 (0)
10.2 (9.5)
0 (0)
B (A)
‐

EBT
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

EBR
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

WBL
113 (41)
0.42 (0.17)
25.9 (21.6)
D (C)

WBT
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
14.7 (14.6)
B (B)

WBR
364 (378)
0.41 (0.5)
11.2 (13.8)
B (B)

142 (188)
0.18 (0.16)
4.05 (3.5)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

192 (48)
0.07 (0.02)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

29 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

19 (9)
0 (0)
6.7 (4.5)
A (A)

236 (108)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
6.7 (4.5)
A (A)

12 (6)
0.193 (0.089)
6.8 (4.5)
A (A)

100 (151)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0.07 (0.108)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

20 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0.15 (0.18)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

135 (161)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

0 (0)
0.111 (0.196)
0 (0)
‐
‐
‐

838 (191)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

87 (41)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

571 (259)
0.16 (0.08)
1.55 (1.7)
‐
‐
‐

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐

6.3 (6.6)
A (A)
165 (79)
97 (39)
13 (5)
17 (23)
80 (110)
165 (200)
283 (272)
171 (238)
57 (165)
0.566 (0.277)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.424 (0.241)
0 (0)
0 (0.509)
0.508 (0.378) 0.154 (0.319) 0.162 (0.26)
11.2 (8.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
10.2 (8)
0 (0)
0 (9.3)
10.8 (6.4)
6.6 (5.2)
6.7 (5.1)
B (A)
‐
‐
B (A)
‐
(A)
B (A)
A (A)
A (A)
11.2 (8.3)
10.2 (8.8)
8.9 (5.7)
B (A)
B (A)
A (A)
9.2 (6.7)
A (A)
481 (378)
303 (209)
0 (0)
0 (0)
149 (245)
52 (50)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.63 (0.485) 0.226 (0.166)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.07 (0.108) 0.073 (0.111)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2.3 (1.7)
0.4 (0.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.3 (0.4)
0.3 (0.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
‐
1.6 (1.3)
0.3 (0.5)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
‐
1.3 (1)
A (A)
0 (0)
713 (501)
209 (106)
66 (37)
183 (359)
0 (0)
71 (86)
0 (0)
287 (455)
0 (0)
0.357 (0.255) 0.357 (0.256) 0.108 (0.148) 0.15 (0.18)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.7 (0.8)
0.8 (0.8)
1.1 (0.7)
0.5 (0.7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
‐
‐
0.8 (0.8)
0.7 (0.7)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
‐
0.7 (0.8)
A (A)
0 (0)
272 (212)
145 (188)
180 (625)
307 (601)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.188 (0.131) 0.118 (0.137) 0.188 (0.686) 0.111 (0.196)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.6 (0.3)
0.5 (0.3)
1 (4.4)
0.4 (0.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
A (A)
‐
‐
‐
‐
0.6 (0.3)
0.6 (2.4)
‐
A (A)
A (A)
‐
0.6 (1.9)
A (A)
128 (54)
0 (0)
14 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
256 (569)
74 (146)
0.5 (0.25)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.11 (0.22)
0 (0)
27.7 (22.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
D (C)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
27.7 (22.3)
‐
‐
D (C)
‐
‐
4.2 (1.7)
A (A)

Note:
* indicates intersection simulated with VISSIM software to accurately measure queues and code complex signal phasing.

BO_Synchro HCM Summary.xlsm
BOMitigated_AM(PM) Report

4 of 4

Wilson Company
1/19/2012, 4:07 PM

Appendix E
Summary of Intersection Improvements

TABLE E.1
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR YEAR 2030
Intersection
#1 – South Fortuna Road and
I-8 North Frontage Road
#6 – South Fortuna Road and
East 40th Street/East County
12th Street

#7 – South Foothills Boulevard and
I-8 North Frontage Road

#9 – South Foothills Boulevard and
I-8 Eastbound Off-Ramp

Improvements
Model forecasts indicate a new turn lane should be added to the following
movements: southbound left, southbound right, and eastbound left
Northbound through movement should be modified to add an additional lane based
on planned segment improvements
Restriping of existing pavement with a through-left shared lane and a right-turn lane
to achieve two southbound through lanes with shared right turn and two new
southbound left-turn lanes
Southbound left movement should be given a protected phase
Restriping of existing pavement that consists of two through lanes with shared left
and right turns to achieve one through lane with shared left-turn and a dedicated
right-turn lane in the eastbound direction
Restriping of existing pavement that consists of two through lanes with shared left
and right turns to achieve dedicated left-turn lane and a through lane with shared
right turn in the westbound direction
Northbound left movement should be given a protected phase
Restriping of existing pavement that consists of a dedicated left-turn lane and a
through lane with shared left and right turns and a dedicated right-turn lane to
achieve a through lane with shared left-turn lane and two dedicated right-turn lanes
in on the eastbound off-ramp
Southbound left movement should be given a protected phase
Note: While standard intersection configurations and traffic control were assumed
for this analysis, ADOT considers roundabouts to be a viable alternative, and their
applicability could be the subject of subsequent site-specific studies.

#10 – South Foothills Boulevard and
I-8 South Frontage Road

#12 – South Foothills Boulevard and
East 40th Street/East County
12th Street

(Please refer to discussion of South Foothills Boulevard Traffic Signal Phasing at I-8
Eastbound Off-Ramp and I-8 South Frontage Road in Section 4.2.2 for additional
details)
Restriping of existing pavement that consists of two through lanes with shared leftand right-turn movements to achieve a through lane with shared left turn and a
dedicated right-turn lane in the westbound direction
Eastbound approach would need a new dedicated left-turn lane along with restriping
of the existing pavement to achieve a dedicated left-turn lane and a through lane
with shared right-turn movement
Southbound left movement should be given a protected phase
(Please refer to discussion of South Foothills Boulevard Traffic Signal Phasing at I-8
Eastbound Off-Ramp and I-8 South Frontage Road in Section 4.2.2 for additional
details)
Eastbound through movement should be modified to add an additional lane based
on planned segment improvements
A turn lane should be added to the westbound right movement
Eastbound left movement should be given a protected phase

TABLE E.1
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR YEAR 2030
Intersection
#13 – South Avenue 10E and I-8
South Frontage Road

Improvements
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase

#14 – South Fortuna Road and
East 28th Street/East County
10½ Street

Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase

#20 – South Avenue 12E and East
40th Street/East County 12th Street

East 40th Street/East County 12th Street should be upgraded to four-lane road
from a two-lane road based on planned segment improvements with two through
lanes in eastbound and westbound approaches at the intersection
South Avenue 12E should be extended to the south of the intersection with one
through lane in each direction
A though lane with shared left- and right-turn movements should be considered for
the northbound approach
Southbound approach of South Avenue 12E should be restriped to achieve one
through lane with shared left-turn movement and a dedicated southbound right-turn
lane
A new turn lane should be added to the eastbound left movement
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
South Avenue 12E should be extended to East 48th Street/East County 13th Street
with one through lane in each direction
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street should be extended as a two-lane road to
South Fortuna Road, providing one through lane in each direction east and west of
South Avenue 12E
All three approaches should have the same lane configuration consisting of one
through lane with shared left- and right-turn movements
Additional through lane should be added to the northbound and southbound
approaches based on the planned segment improvements
Southbound approach should be restriped to achieve two through lanes with shared
right-turn movement
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
Additional through lane should be added to eastbound and westbound approaches
based on the planned segment improvements

#21 – South Avenue 12E and East
48th Street/East County 13th Street

#22 – South Foothills Boulevard and
East 48th Street/East County
13th Street

#24 – South Avenue 14E and East
56th Street/East County 14th Street
#25 – South Avenue 15E and I-8
South Frontage Road

South Avenue 15E should be upgraded to a four-lane road, based on planned
segment improvements
A new dedicated turn lane should be added to the northbound right movement
The existing pavement on eastbound approach should be restriped to achieve one
through lane with shared right-turn movement
I-8 South Frontage Road should be extended to the east side of the intersection with
one through lane in each direction
A dedicated left-turn lane should be added to the Westbound approach
Westbound left should be given a protected phase
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase

TABLE E.1
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR YEAR 2030
Intersection
#26 – South Avenue 15E and East
40th Street/East County 12th Street

Improvements
South Avenue 15E should be upgraded to a four-lane road from a
based on planned segment improvements
A turn lane should be added to the eastbound left-turn movement
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal;
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
#27 – South Avenue 15E and East
South Avenue 15E should be upgraded to a four-lane road from a
48th Street/East County 13th Street
based on planned segment improvements
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal;
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
Prepared by Wilson & Company, December, 2011.

two-lane road
ADOT should
two-lane road
ADOT should

TABLE E.2
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1
Intersection
#13 – South Avenue 10E and South
Frontage Road

#20 – South Avenue 12E and East
40th Street/East County 12th Street

#21 – South Avenue 12E and East
48th Street/East County 13th Street

#22 – South Foothills Boulevard and
East 48th Street/East County
13th Street

#23 – South Avenue 14E and East
48th Street/East County 13th Street
#25 – South Avenue 15E and I-8
South Frontage Road

#27 – South Avenue 15E and East
48th Street/East County 13th Street

Improvements
South Avenue 10E should be upgraded to a four-lane road from a two-lane road
based on planned segment improvements
Pavement should be restriped in the northbound direction to achieve a dedicated
left--turn lane and a new dedicated right-turn lane
South Avenue 12E should be upgraded to a four-lane road from a two-lane road
north and south of East 40th Street/East County 12th Street based on planned
segment improvements
Additional through lane should be added to the northbound and southbound
approaches along with a new dedicated lane for the northbound left movement
South Avenue 12E north and south of its intersection with East 48th Street/East
County 13th Street should be upgraded to a four-lane road from a two-lane road
based on planned segment improvements
A new left-turn lane should be added to the northbound approach along with an
additional through lane
Additional through lane should be added to the southbound approach
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street should be upgraded to a four-lane road
from a two-lane road east and west of South Avenue 12E based on planned
segment improvements
A dedicated left-turn lane should be added to the eastbound left movement along
with an additional through lane
Additional through lane should be added to the westbound approach
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street should be upgraded to a four-lane road
from a two-lane road east and west of South Foothills Boulevard based on planned
segment improvements
Additional through lane would be added to the eastbound and westbound
approaches
Eastbound approach would need a dedicated left-turn lane.
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street should be upgraded to a four-lane road
from a two-lane road east and west of South Avenue 14E based on planned
segment improvements
A through lane should be added to the eastbound and westbound approaches
South Avenue 15 E should be extended north of I-8
Northbound approach at the I-8 South Frontage Rd should be restriped to achieve
two through lanes with shared left- and right-turn movements
Southbound approach at the I-8 South Frontage Rd would need a new dedicated
left-turn lane and two new through lanes with shared right-turn movement
Southbound and westbound left-turn movements should be given a protected phase
A left-turn lane should be added to the eastbound approach

TABLE E.2
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1
Intersection
#28 – South Avenue 10E and East
40th Street/East County 12th Street

#29 – South Avenue 10E and East
48th Street/East County 13th Street

#30 – South Avenue 10E and East
56th Street/East County 14th Street

Improvements
South Avenue 10E should be extended south of East 40th Street/East County
12th Street as a four-lane road based on planned segment improvements
Northbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared left- and
right-turn movements
A through lane should be added to the southbound approach
East 40th Street/East County 12th Street should be upgraded to a four-lane road
from a two-lane road east and west of South Avenue 10E
Eastbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared left- and
right-turn movements
A through lane should be added to the westbound approach
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
South Avenue 10E should be extended south of East 48th Street/East County
13th Street as a four-lane road based on planned segment improvements
Northbound and southbound approaches should consist of two through lanes with
shared left- and right-turn movements
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street should be upgraded to a four-lane road
from a two-lane road east and west of Ave 10E
Eastbound approach should consist of two through lanes with shared right-turn
movement and a new dedicated left-turn lane
Westbound approach should consist of two through lanes with shared left- and
right-turn movements
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
South Avenue 10E should be extended south of East 48th Street/East County
13th Street to East 56th Street/East County 14th Street as a four-lane road based
on planned segment improvements
Southbound approach should include new dedicated left- and right-turn lanes
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street should be constructed as a four-lane road
east and west of South Avenue 10E
Eastbound approach should consist of two through lanes with shared left-turn
movements
Westbound approach should consist of two through lanes with shared right-turn
movements

TABLE E.2
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1
Intersection
#31 – South Fortuna Road and East
48th Street/East County 13th Street

#32 – South Fortuna Road and East
56th Street/East County 14th Street

#33 – South Avenue 12E and East
56th Street/East County 14th Street

#34 – South Foothills Boulevard and
East 28th Street/East County
10½ Street

Improvements
South Fortuna Road should be extended south of East 48th Street/East County
13th Street as a four-lane road
Northbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared rightand left-turn movements
Southbound approach should consist of a new dedicated left-turn lane and two new
through lanes with shared right-turn movement
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street east of South Fortuna Road should be
upgraded from a two-lane road to a four-lane road
East 48th Street/East County 13th Street should be extended to the west of South
Fortuna Road as a four-lane road
Eastbound approach should consist of a new dedicated left-turn lane and two new
through lanes with shared right-turn movements
Westbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared rightand left-turn movements
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
South Fortuna Road should be constructed as a four-lane road north of its
intersection with East 56th Street/East County 14th Street
Southbound approach should consist of a new dedicated left- and right-turn lanes
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street should be constructed as a four-lane road
east and west of South Fortuna Road
Eastbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared left-turn
movements
Westbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared right-turn
movements
South Avenue 12E should be extended as a four-lane road south of East
48th Street/East County 13th Street to East 56th Street/East County 14th Street
Southbound approach should consist of new dedicated left- and right-turn lanes
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street should be constructed as a four-lane road
east and west of South Avenue 12E
Eastbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared left-turn
movements
Westbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared right-turn
movements
South Foothills Boulevard should be constructed as a two-lane road south of East
28th Street/East County 10½ Street and a four-lane road north of East
28th Street/East County 10½ Street
Northbound approach should consist of a new through lane with shared right-turn
movement
Southbound approach should consist of a new dedicated left-turn lane and a
through lane
East 28th Street/East County 10½ Street should be constructed as a four-lane road
east of South Foothills Boulevard
Westbound approach should consist of a new dedicated left- and right-turn lanes

TABLE E.2
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1
Intersection
#35 – South Foothills Boulevard and
East 56th Street/East County
14th Street

#36 – South Avenue 14E and East
40th Street/East County 12th Street

#37 – South Avenue 15E and I-8
Westbound Off-Ramp

#38 – South Avenue 15E and I-8
Eastbound Off-Ramp

Improvements
South Foothills Boulevard should be extended as a four-lane road from East
48th Street/East County 13th Street to East 56th Street/East County 14th Street
Southbound approach should consist of a new dedicated left- and right-turn lanes
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street should be upgraded to a four-lane road
from a two-lane road east of South Foothills Boulevard
East 56th Street/East County 14th Street should be constructed as a four-lane road
west of South Foothills Boulevard
Eastbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared left-turn
movements
Westbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared right-turn
movements
South Avenue 14 E should be constructed north and south of East 40th Street/East
County 12th Street as a four-lane road
Northbound and southbound approaches should consist of a new through lanes with
shared left- and right-turn movements
Eastbound approach of East 40th Street/East County 12th Street should consist of a
new dedicated left-turn lane and two through lanes with shared right-turn
movements
Westbound approach should consist of two through lanes with shared left- and
right-turn movements
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
South Avenue 15E should be extended as a four-lane road north of I-8
Northbound approach at the I-8 Westbound Off-Ramp should consist of two new
through lanes with shared left-turn movements
Southbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared
right-turn movements
Westbound approach should consist of a new dedicated left- and right-turn lanes
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
Note: While standard intersection configurations and traffic control were assumed
for this analysis, ADOT considers roundabouts to be a viable alternative, and their
applicability could be the subject of subsequent site-specific studies.
South Avenue 15E should be extended as a four-lane road north of I-8
Northbound approach at the I-8 Eastbound Off-Ramp should consist of two new
through lanes with shared right-turn movemens
Southbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared left-turn
movements
Eastbound approach should consist of new dedicated left- and right-turn lanes
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
Note: While standard intersection configurations and traffic control were assumed
for this analysis, ADOT considers roundabouts to be a viable alternative, and their
applicability could be the subject of subsequent site-specific studies.

TABLE E.2
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR BUILDOUT CONDITIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1
Intersection
#39 – South Fortuna Road and East
24th Street/East County 10th Street

Improvements
Northbound approach should be restriped to achieve two through lanes with shared
right-turn movements
A through lane should be added to the southbound approach
East 24th Street/East County 10th Street should be constructed as a four-lane road
east of South Fortuna Road to South Camino Del Sol
Eastbound approach should be striped to provide a left-turn-only lane and two new
right-turn-only lanes
Model forecasts indicate this intersection will need a traffic signal; ADOT should
consider conducting a warrant analysis when traffic levels increase
#40 - East 24th Street/East County
South Camino Del Sol should be extended as a two-lane road north from
10th Street and South Camino Del Sol
28th Street to East 24th Street/East County 10th Street
Northbound approach at this 'T' intersection should consist of a new left-right shared
lane
East 24th Street/East County 10th Street should be constructed as a four-lane road
east and west of South Camino Del Sol
Eastbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared right-turn
movements
Westbound approach should consist of two new through lanes with shared left-turn
movements
Prepared by Wilson & Company, December, 2011.

Appendix F
Detailed Planning Level Cost Calculations

Planning Level Cost Estimates
Recommended Mid-Term (10-Year) Improvements
Improvement

Name

Widening 2-4 Lanes (Quantity in Miles of Length)
40th Street
40th Street
Sub-Total Cost
Widening 2-3 Lanes (Quantity in Miles of Length)
North and South Frontage Roads
Sub-Total Cost
New 4 lane arterial (Quantity in Miles of Length)
40th Street
Sub-Total Cost
New Bridge over Wash (Quantity in 100 Feet of Length)
40th Street *
Sub-Total Cost

Total Cost
* Length of the bridge is assumed to be 600 Feet.

Intersection # or Location

Quantity

Unit Cost
(Millions)

Total Cost
(Millions)

Fortuna Road to Avenue 12E
Avenue 13E to Fortuna Wash

1
0.4
1.4

$4.50
$4.50
$4.50

$4.50
$1.80
$6.30

Avenue 10E to Avenue 15E

7.25
7.25

$3.00
$3.00

$21.75
$21.75

Fortuna Wash to Avenue 15

1.6
1.6

$5.00
$5.00

$8.00
$8.00

Over Fortuna Wash

6
6

$1.00
$1.00

$6.00
$6.00

$42.05

Planning Level Cost Estimates
Recommended Year 2030 Improvements
Improvement

Intersection # or Location

Quantity

Unit Cost
(Millions)

Total Cost
(Millions)

13
14
20
22
25
26
27

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7

$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25

$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$1.75

1
6
12
19
20
22
25
26

3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11

$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35

$1.05
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.70
$3.85

North of 40th Street
50th Street to 56th Street
South Frontage Road to to 56th Street
Foothills Boulevard to Avenue 15 E

0.5
0.75
2.3
2
5.55

$4.50
$4.50
$4.50
$4.50
$4.50

$2.25
$3.38
$10.35
$9.00
$24.98

28th Street to 24th Street

0.4
0.4

$3.00
$3.00

$1.20
$1.20

South of South Frontage Rd
South of 40th Street
North of 28th Street
West of Camino Del Sol
Fortuna Road to Foothills Boulevard

0.25
1
0.25
0.25
1.5
3.25

$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00

$0.50
$2.00
$0.50
$0.50
$3.00
$6.50

40th Street to 48th Street

1
1

$5.00
$5.00

$5.00
$5.00

Along Fortuna Wash

4.5
4.5

$0.70
$0.70

$3.15
$3.15

Name

New Signals (Quantity in Number of Signals)
South Frontage Road and Avenue 10E
28th Street and Fortuna Road
40th Street and Avenue 12E
Co 13th Street and Foothills Boulevard
S Frontage Road and Avenue 15 E
40th Street and Avenue 15 E
Co 13th Street and Avenue 15 E
Sub-Total Cost
Turn lanes (Quantity in Number of Turn Lanes)
North Frontage Road and Fortuna Road
40th Street and Fortuna Road
40th Street and Foothills Boulevard
South Frontage Rd and Avenue 12 E
40th Street and Avenue 12 E
Co 13th Street and Foothills Boulevard
S Frontage Road and Avenue 15 E
40th Street and Avenue 15 E
Sub-Total Cost
Widening 2-4 Lanes (Quantity in Miles of Length)
Avenue 12 E
Foothills Boulevard
Avenue 15 E
56th Street
Sub-Total Cost
Widening 3-4 Lanes (Quantity in Miles of Length)
Fortuna Road
Sub-Total Cost
New 2 lane Collector (Quantity in Miles of Length)
Avenue 10 E
Avenue 12 E
Foothills Boulevard
24th Street
48th Street
Sub-Total Cost
New 4 lane arterial (Quantity in Miles of Length)
Fortuna Road
Sub-Total Cost
New Shared use path (Quantity in Miles of Length)
Sub-Total Cost

Total Cost
* Length of the bridge is assumed to be 400 Feet.

$46.43

Planning Level Cost Estimates
Recommended Buildout Improvements
Improvement

Name

New Signals (Quantity in Number of Signals)
Co 13th Street and Avenue 12 E
40th Street and Avenue 15 E
Co 13th Street and S Avenue 10 E
Co 13th Street and Fortuna Road
40th Street and Avenue 14 E
I-8 WB off ramp and Avenue 15 E
I-8 EB off ramp and Avenue 15 E
34th Street and Fortuna Road
Sub-Total Cost
Turn lanes (Quantity in Number of Turn Lanes)
North Frontage Road and Foothills Boulevard
South Frontage Road and Foothills Boulevard
40th Street and 12E Avenue
Co 13th Street and 12E Avenue
Co 13th Street and Foothills Boulevard
South Frontage Road and Avenuee 15E
Co 13th Street and Avenue 10E
Co 13th Street and Fortuna Road
40th Street and Avenue 14E
24th Street and Fortuna Road
Sub-Total Cost
Widening 2-4 Lanes (Quantity in Miles of Length)
Avenue 10 E
Avenue 12 E
Foothills Boulevard
24th Street
28th Street
40th Street
48th Street
Sub-Total Cost
New 2 lane Collector (Quantity in Miles of Length)
Avenue 14 E
Sub-Total Cost
New 4 lane arterial (Quantity in Miles of Length)
Avenue 10 E
Fortuna Road
Avenue 12 E
Avenue15 E
24th Street
28th Street
48th Street
56th Street
Sub-Total Cost
New Bridge over Wash (Quantity in 100 Feet of Length)
Avenue 14E (1 Bridge Location) *
28 Street (3 Bridge Locations) *
Avenue 15E (3 Bridge Locations) *
Sub-Total Cost
New Interchange
I-8 and Avenue 15 E
Sub-Total Cost

Total Cost
* Length of the bridge is assumed to be 400 Feet.

Intersection # or Location

Quantity

Unit Cost
(Millions)

Total Cost
(Millions)

21
28
29
31
36
37
38
39

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8

$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25

$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$2.00

7
10
20
21
22
25
29
31
36
39

1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
14

$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35

$0.35
$1.05
$0.35
$0.70
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.70
$0.35
$0.35
$4.90

Frontage Road to 40th Street
40th Street to 48th Street
South of 48th Street
Fortuna Road to Camino Del Sol
Foothills Boulevard to Avenue 15 E
Avenue 10 E to Fortuna Road
Fortuna Road to Avenue 15 E

1
1
0.25
1
0.75
1
3.75
8.75

$4.50
$4.50
$4.50
$4.50
$4.50
$4.50
$4.50
$4.50

$4.50
$4.50
$1.13
$4.50
$3.38
$4.50
$16.88
$39.38

40th Street to Fortuna Wash

1.1
1.1

$2.00
$2.00

$2.20
$2.20

40th Street to 56th Street
48th Street to 56th Street
48th Street to 56th Street
North of I-8
Camino Del Sol to 28th Street
Foothills Boulevard to Avenue 15E
Avenue 10 E to Fortuna Road
Avenue 10 E to Foothills Bouelvard

2
1
1
1.4
1.25
1.25
1
3
11.9

$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00

$10.00
$5.00
$5.00
$7.00
$6.25
$6.25
$5.00
$15.00
$59.50

Over Fortuna Wash
West of Avenue 15E
North of I-8

4
12
12
28

$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00

$4.00
$12.00
$12.00
$28.00

1
1

$25.00
$25.00

$25.00
$25.00

$160.98

Appendix G
Public Involvement Summary Report

Transportation Needs for the
Yuma Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas
PARA Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

Prepared for:

Yuma County &
Arizona Department of Transportation,
Multimodal Planning Division
Prepared by:

Godec, Randall & Associates, Inc.
March 2012

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

Table of Contents
Title Page ............................................................................................................................ 1
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 2
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
1.0 Planning & Outreach…………………………………………………………………………………………………3
1.1 Public Involvement Plan………………………………………………………………………………..3
1.2 Project Web Site…..………………………………………………………………………………………3
1.3 Stakeholder Research & Database Development………………………………………….4
2.0 Outreach & Community Survey………………………………………………………………………………..4
2.1 Survey Design and Distribution…………………………………………………………………….4
2.2 Public Notification………………………………………………………………………………………..7
2.3 Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
3.0 Public Open House…………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
3.1 Design & Logistics ………………………………………………………………………………………..6
3.2 Public Notification………………………………………………………………………………………..7
3.3 Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
1
Public Involvement Plan Summary
2
Community Survey
3
Fact Sheet
4
Survey Media Release
5
Survey Reminder e-mail
6
Survey Last Chance e-mail
7-12 Public Open House Sign-in Sheet
13
Public Open House Comment Form
14
Public Open House Stakeholder Invitation Letter
15
Stakeholder Invitation Letter Flyer Attachment
16
Public Open House e-mail Invitation
17
Yuma Sun Public Open House Advertisement

March 2012

2

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

Executive Summary
This report summarizes public involvement efforts and community response during the
Yuma Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study, a Planning
Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) project conducted by the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) and Yuma County, Arizona from April 2011 to March 2012.
The Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study was conducted
through a cooperative planning process involving agency staff, elected officials, local
businesses, and the public. Public involvement was a key component in the
development of the study, to assist the project team in evaluating existing area
transportation conditions and the future improvement scenarios developed as part of
this project. Throughout the study, information was presented to and solicited from
stakeholders through individual interviews, advisory committee meetings, project web
site, community survey, media outreach, and a public forum.
The public involvement program for this study elicited suggestions and observations
about the Foothills/Mesa Del Sol area transportation systems that included strong
messages for improving local streets, the Interstate 8 freeway interchange approaches
and frontage roads, and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Major themes
included public safety, traffic congestion, traffic controls, and multimodal access. The
study recommendations include excellent alignment with the public’s comments and
desires, and most people urged implementation of these measures as soon as possible.

1.0 Planning & Research
1.1 Public Involvement Plan
ADOT selected Godec, Randall & Associates, Inc. (GRA) to conduct the public
involvement program for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs
Study. An initial public involvement plan was prepared for the project on April 11, and
was refined through discussions with the study team and the planning consultant,
Wilson & Company. A modified public involvement program was developed at a
meeting on June 10, and the plan continued to be updated as the study progressed. The
key elements of the plan, along with implementation dates, are shown on page 1 of the
Appendix to this report.
1.2 Project Web Site
The Arizona Department of Transportation maintains a comprehensive Web site at
http://www.azdot.gov on which it posts information about most current projects. A
March 2012

3

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

Web page on this site was developed for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol study,
http://www.azdot.gov/foothills, where all study-related materials were posted. The
Web page was also used to announce public participation opportunities and to link to
the community survey and public open house comment form. For this project, the study
team felt that Web-based communication was important because many seasonal area
residents live outside the study area for a portion of the year. The Web page address
was advertised in all public communication materials so that remote stakeholders could
access study information and submit ideas and comments.
1.3 Stakeholder Research & Database Development
ADOT Communications and Community Partnerships Division in Yuma maintains
electronic databases of people interested in transportation issues throughout the
region. To supplement these, the study team researched key stakeholders, businesses,
and homeowner associations for the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas, and Yuma County
provided a list of mobile home and recreational vehicle parks. These lists were used to
distribute study-related notices and publicity, and were updated as information became
available.
At the beginning of the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol study, the planning consultants
conducted interviews with several key stakeholders to learn more about the area,
obtain data, discuss existing transportation issues, and define objectives for the study.
Those interviewed included elected officials, agency staff, emergency responders, and
major regional employers.

2.0 Outreach & Community Survey
2.1 Survey Design and Distribution
As input to the Existing and Future Conditions analysis, public opinions were sought
about the current transportation problems in the area and priorities for improvements.
A survey questionnaire was prepared and administered from September 1 to October
14, 2011. Representatives from the project team drafted questions for the survey
questionnaire. The multimodal questionnaire was open-ended, asking respondents to
discuss area transportation problems and to prioritize their perceptive needs for the
area from a list of potential transportation improvements.
The one-page survey was accompanied by a fact sheet (see Appendix page 2 and page
3). In addition to being posted on the project Web site, boxes containing the surveys
were delivered to strategic locations in the study area. Respondents were asked to
complete the questionnaire and return it to the box provided. Based on suggestions
from the study team and local staff, eight kiosk locations were chosen as optimal.

March 2012

4

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

Survey kits were placed at the following retail shops, community gathering places, and
RV parks:
Mesa del Sol Clubhouse
Sundance RV Park
Foothills Walmart
St. John Neumann Church
Westwind RV Park
Hank’s Market
Foothills Library
Fry’s Marketplace
Response for the online survey was collected from September 1 through Oct. 14, 2011.
Survey boxes were placed at the study area locations during the same period, and were
collected on October 14.
2.2 Public Notification
ADOT issued a media release to the local media contacts and e-mail notification via the
.GOV email delivery system on August 29, 2011 (see Appendix page 4). Gabriella Kemp,
ADOT Yuma Senior Community Relations Officer, sent a personalized reminder email
solicitation on Sept. 15 (see Appendix page 5). Ms. Kemp conducted television
interviews for Yuma City Outlook (Ch. 77) on Sept. 19, both in English and in Spanish,
which aired almost continuously on their channel from Sept. 26 through Sept. 30. The
study’s Technical Advisory Committee sent the announcement internally to their
organizations and externally to stakeholder lists, where appropriate. In addition, the
project team sent a “last chance” email reminder on October 12 to a list of local
contacts, stakeholders, RV parks, businesses, hospitals, schools, and special interest
groups (Appendix page 6).
2.3 Results
A total of 77 individuals provided their opinions and feedback regarding transportation
issues in the study area. Of these, 30 responses were collected at the survey kiosks and
the remainder was provided through the Web site.
Survey respondents identified the following as the main transportation problems in the
area. They are listed in order based on the number of times the problem was
mentioned.
1. Dangerous, poor road conditions
2. Congestion on I-8 frontage roads
3. Lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
March 2012

5

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

4. Not enough arterial streets
5. Lack of and poor timing of traffic signals
6. Lack of public transportation
7. Poor road design
8. Traffic congestion, especially during winter visitor season
9. Lack of traffic enforcement
Specific locations of highest concern were the north and south I-8 frontage roads as well
as the Foothills Boulevard and Fortuna Road interchanges, due to poor signage and
traffic control, congestion, high volume of heavy trucks, structural deterioration like
potholes, and lack of left-turn lanes. The need to extend 40th Street to the west to
connect into Yuma was mentioned many times. There was a surprisingly high level of
concern about the lack of safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
When asked about suggested transportation improvements, respondents clearly felt
that
improving existing streets should be a priority and, based on previous comments, it can
be assumed improvements to the frontage roads are the most important to the
residents. Other important improvements are adding bicycle lanes and building new
arterial streets to provide better east-west access. Additional public transit services
were also suggested by some. The table below shows a ranking of suggestions, with #1
representing the highest priority.

A comprehensive assessment of survey results was submitted by Godec, Randall &
Associates, Inc. on December 6, 2011, and is available as a separate report.

March 2012

6

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

3.0 Public Open House
3.1 Design & Logistics
A number of options were discussed for disseminating the study recommendations and
results to area stakeholders and residents. The decision of the TAC was to host a
community open house, with advance publicity announcing it.
ADOT and Yuma County invited the public to review the recommendations for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study at a public open house
from 5:00 until 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at the Yuma Foothills Branch
Library, 13226 South Frontage Road, Yuma, AZ 85367. The study team made a
presentation at 5:30, followed by questions and answers about the study. Twenty-one
people attended, of whom 14 were local residents and seven were project staff. The
sign-in sheets from the open house are included as pages 7-12 of the Appendix to this
report. People indicated that they had learned about the open house through their
homeowner associations, flyers sent to residential parks, direct mailings, and email
notices.
A comment form was handed out to capture ideas and suggestions of attendees
(Appendix page 13). The comment form was also subsequently posted to the project
Web site, along with open house presentation materials, to allow people who were not
able to attend to review and comment on the study recommendations. The online
comment form was made available until February 17.
3.2 Public Notification
In order to advertise the open house to the public and area stakeholders, the project
team reached out to the community via the following methods:






Meeting invitation letters sent to 51 regional stakeholders on January 25, 2012
(Appendix page 14), including a flyer for posting in public locations (Appendix
page 15)
ADOT electronic notice to .GOV delivery on January 25 (Appendix page 16)
Newspaper advertisement in Yuma Sun on Sunday, February 5 (Appendix page
17)
ADOT Web page advertisement on February 6
ADOT Web page posting of the study recommendations presented at the open
house, along with an electronic comment form, on February 9

March 2012

7

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

3.3 Results
Public comments and suggestions offered at the open house were very consistent with
the results of the community survey conducted earlier. The recommendations
developed by the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Transportation Needs Study team had
considered the survey results, and addressed most of the public’s concerns at some
stage in the long-range plan. Everyone at the meeting suggested that they would like to
see the recommended improvements implemented much earlier than the practical
funding situation might allow.
Specific comments offered are summarized below.


Factors that should be considered in thinking about transportation
improvements:
o The average age of people in the study area is between 50 and 60 years.
o They tend to have large vehicles (e.g. RVs)
o The population in the winter increases greatly
o There are many semi-trucks in the area, particularly around the Interstate
8/Fortuna Boulevard interchange, and on the frontage roads.



The study should acknowledge that the traffic and congestion caused by semitrucks around the I-8/Fortuna exit (near Barney’s truck stop) is especially bad –
not like other places. Trucks don’t stop safely before coming out onto the road.
o The County and ADOT said they would consult with law enforcement to
keep an eye on this situation in the short term, and evaluate design
options that would address this in the study.



Also regarding Fortuna, the design of the area around the interchange is
confusing. People who going northbound in the left lane are routed into the
freeway entrance, and a similar situation occurs going southbound. There are
directional signs painted on the roadway, but people can’t see them when there
is traffic.
o ADOT and Yuma County made a note to look into improved signage at
this location.



What do developers contribute to road improvements? They should do so,
rather than taxpayers having to pay for improvements needed by increased
population and traffic. It was suggested that there should be impact fees. One
person referred to the Foothills area as a “habitat”, outside of the major taxation
and capital improvement jurisdiction of Yuma – who’s responsible for taking care
of us?

March 2012

8

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

o The county explained the development process. Yuma County does not
typically charge impact fees, but there could be better opportunities for
this as larger parcels develop over time.


It was suggested that highway agencies should conserve funds by building “no
frills” projects. People’s property taxes are going up, and many people are on
fixed incomes, so everyone needs to save money.



Several people suggested improving bicycle access and safety by designing roads
to accommodate bikes. One specific suggestion was to construct a bike
/pedestrian path along the north frontage road near Mesa Del Sol (off the road
between the frontage road and the freeway fence).



Improvements to the south frontage road should be a priority. Specific
suggestions included:
o Needs resurfacing between Fortuna and Foothills Boulevard.
o Sidewalks should be installed, and they should be coordinated with
access to bus stops.
o Several people felt that a dedicated left-turn lane and more traffic signals
should be installed between Payson and the Westwind RV Park.
o More curbs were also suggested for traffic and pedestrian safety.
Yuma County noted that these are already programmed in the County’s
2-year improvement plan.



Comments about public transit service included:
o Bus service should be provided beyond the frontage roads.
o Dial-a-Ride for seniors should be provided.
o A better implementation plan is needed for transit

No additional comments were received from the comment form posted on the project
Website during the comment period.

March 2012

9

Foothills & Mesa Del Sol Areas Transportation Needs Study
Public Involvement Summary Report

Appendix

March 2012

10

Godec, Randall & Associates, Inc.
Public Involvement Plan Summary
Updated September 21, 2011

Foothills and Mesa del Sol Transportation Needs Study – ADOT Project MPD 14-11 (D)
Phase I – Existing Conditions
Task
Schedule
TAC & Stakeholder Activities
Prepare Public Involvement Work
Apr 11
Plan
Attend first TAC meeting to discuss Apr 27
outreach plan
Participate in TAC meeting #3 via
Sep 14
phone, prepare materials
Participate in TAC meeting #4 via
Dec 14
phone, prepare materials
Compile local stakeholder list &
ongoing
augment ADOT stakeholder list
Outreach & Community Survey Activities
Support set-up of project web page
on ADOT website
Design Community Survey & review
Fact Sheet
Post Survey link to web site
Design & prepare survey boxes/kits
Deliver hard-copy surveys to study
area locations
Support ADOT media release
Support ADOT publicity distribution
to e-mail database
Contact individual RV/mobile home
parks for contact info / send survey
link & fact sheet
Refill survey boxes as needed
Send reminder e-mail to distribution
lists (“1 Week to Go…”)
Collect hard-copy surveys
End online survey – remove from
web site
Aggregate survey results
Submit survey report

May

Phase II – Alternatives & Recommendations
Task
Schedule
Public Open House Activities
Arrange logistics
Dec 15 - 30
Publish meeting announcement
on project web site
Mail open house invitations &
flyers to key stakeholders
Distribute public workshop
invitations to e-mail database
Distribute media release

Jan 20

Publish meeting notice
advertisement in Yuma Sun
Prepare meeting materials

Feb 5

Jan 25
Jan 25
Jan 26

Jan 1 - 27

Jul 10 –
Facilitate & document meeting
Aug 24
Aug 29
Prepare meeting summary
Aug 20-28 Post online comment form to web
site
Sep 1
Collect & integrate online
comments
Sep 12
Publish public comment
summary to project web site
Sep 12
Reporting

Feb 8

Aug 22 –
Sep 16

Mar 9

Sep 12-30
Oct 7
Oct 14
Oct 14
Oct 17 –
Dec 4
Dec 12

Prepare Public Involvement
Program Summary Report

Feb 10
Feb 6
Feb 17
Mar 15

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT!
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and Yuma County are conducting a Transportation Needs Study for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol Areas that will look at ways to improve travel in the study area. The study area includes the
neighborhoods, businesses, and undeveloped land located between County 10th Street and County 14th Street and
between Avenue 10E and Avenue 15E. Your ideas and suggestions are very valuable to the project.

Please complete this questionnaire and return it to the drop box where you picked it up.
-- Thank You --

Do you think there are transportation problems in the Foothills/Mesa Del Sol area? _____yes _____no _____not sure
If so, what do you think are the biggest problems?
1.
2.
3.

What do you think is the most important vehicle-related traffic problem that needs to be fixed?

Do you think public transit is important in your community? _____yes _____no _____not sure
If so, what destinations would you like to see served by buses?

What overall improvements should be made to the Foothills/Mesa Del Sol area transportation network?
Roadway network (streets, intersections, traffic signals, stop signs, freeway interchanges, etc.)

Bicycle/pedestrian facilities (pathways, trails, sidewalks, etc.)

Public transportation (local & regional bus service, Dial-a-Ride, park-and-ride lots, etc.)

Other

Please prioritize the following list of transportation improvements starting with “1” = your highest priority.
Priority
Priority
Sidewalks
Bike paths/lanes
Freeway Interchanges
Traffic signals
Public transit
Improve existing roadways
Wash crossings
Build new roadways
Other:

Foothills/Mesa Del Sol
Transportation Needs Study

Study Overview
The primary goal of this study is to analyze the current transportation system and recommend needed improvements.
Once the study is completed, a Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan will be created to address the needs
in the area. The multimodal plan will consider pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, and public transit needs for 5, 10 and
20 year planning periods. This plan will serve as a guide for future community development, project funding and
project implementation.
Study Timeline

Study Area
The study covers the area between Avenue 10E and
Avenue 15E and between County 10th Street and
County 14th Street.
FORTUNA
HILLS
FORTUNA
HEIGHTS

FOOTHILLS
MOUNTAIN
ESTATES

Public Outreach

YUMA
EAST

Ave. 15E

Foothills Blvd.

40th Street

Fortuna Rd.

Ave. 10E

YUMA
EAST
ESTATES

Spring 2012: Conclude study and finalize report

FOOTHILLS
NORTH

MESA DEL SOL

Late 2011: Assess results
Early 2012: Present study results to public and allow
public to comment

Co. 10th St.

Co. 10th St.

Summer/Fall 2011: Conduct public surveys

48th St.

Co. 14th St.

For More Information

Input from residents of the Foothills/Mesa Del Sol area
is crucial to the success of this study. Questionnaires
will be available at local shopping centers and other
frequented locations. Please fill out the questionnaires
and place them in the provided receptacles to help
shape the transportation future of your community. You
can also visit the study website for more information
or to take the questionnaire online. Once we assess
the results, a public meeting will be held to present our
findings and allow the public to comment.

Please Contact
Mark Hoffman
Arizona Department of
Transportation
602.712.7454
MHoffman@azdot.gov

www.azdot.gov/Foothills

For Immediate Release: August 29, 2011
Contact: ADOT Public Information Office
news@azdot.gov -or- 1.800.949.8057

ADOT and Yuma County to conduct transportation needs study for
Foothills/ Mesa Del Sol areas
Area residents urged to give input on current and future transportation needs
YUMA – The Arizona Department of Transportation and Yuma County will conduct a study for the
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas to analyze the current transportation system and identify the
most critical transportation needs. The study covers the area between Avenue 10E and 15E and
th
th
between County 10 and 14 streets.
Residents living in the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas are encouraged to participate in the
study by taking a questionnaire. Questionnaires will be available at local shopping centers and
other frequented area locations. Local residents can also visit the ADOT project web site at
www.azdot.gov/foothills to take the survey online or to learn more about the study.
Once the study is completed, a multimodal transportation plan will be created to address the
needs in the area. The multimodal plan will consider pedestrian, automobile and public transit
needs for 5, 10 and 20-year planning periods. This plan will serve as a guide for future
community development, project funding and improvement implementation. A public meeting will
be held in early 2012 to present the findings and allow residents to comment on the study.
For more information about the survey, please contact Project Manager Mark Hoffman at
602.712.7454 or mhoffman@azdot.gov or Yuma District Senior Community Relations Officer
Gabriella Kemp at 928.317.2165 or gkemp@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.
# # #

From: Gabriella Kemp
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:08 AM
Subject: Foothills / Mesa Del Sol Transportation Needs Study & Questionnaire
Hi there,
I’d really appreciate your help with this…
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and Yuma County have initiated a transportation
needs study to serve the residents of the Foothills/ Mesa Del Sol areas.
We are trying to analyze the current transportation system and recommend needed improvements. The
study covers between Avenues 10E and 15E and between County 10th and County 14th Streets.
We’ve put together a short questionnaire to help us better understand the transportation issues facing this
developing area. We hope you can take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire and help us spread
the word to others who might be interested in the transportation needs of the Foothills/ Mesa Del Sol
areas.
You can take the survey by clicking on the link below:
http://gciaz.com/selectsurvey/TakeSurvey.aspx?SurveyID=88KMnl8
Please feel free to pass this note along to anyone your friends, co-workers and family members. The
results will be carefully evaluated by the study team and used to develop several transportation system
alternatives that the public can review and evaluate early next year.
As always, feel free to call me if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Gaby
Gabriella Kemp
Senior Community Relations Officer
Communication and Community Partnerships
Arizona Department of Transportation
2243 E Gila Ridge Road
Yuma, AZ 85365
Phone: (928) 317.2165
Blackberry: (928) 699.8983
Media Line: 1.800.949.8057
If you’d like more information about the study, please visit the ADOT project web site at:
http://www.azdot.gov/foothills.
You can also call contact:
Mark Hoffman, ADOT Project Manager
602-712-7454
Roger Patterson, Yuma County Engineer
928-817-5110

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.

October 12, 2011
Last Chance to Let Us Know About Transportation in Yuma Foothills and Mesa Del Sol!
There is only one day left to provide community feedback about what you think are the
transportation issues and potential improvements you would like to see made in the Yuma
Foothills and Mesa Del Sol areas of Yuma County. The online survey (link below) will close on
October 14.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT TRANSPORTATION IN THE YUMA FOOTHILLS & MESA DEL SOL
AREAS? TELL US BY CLICKING THIS LINK: http://tiny.cc/jx1wh
If you’d like more information about this study, please visit the ADOT project web site at
www.azdot.gov/foothills or contact Mark Hoffman, ADOT Project Manager at 602-7127454. Thank you for your participation and we appreciate your feedback!
Gabriella Kemp
Senior Community Relations Officer
Communication and Community Partnerships
Arizona Department of Transportation
2243 E Gila Ridge Road
Yuma, AZ 85365
Phone: (928) 317.2165
Blackberry: (928) 699.8983
Media Line: 1.800.949.8057

O P E N H OU SE
COMMENT FORM

1.

Fo o th i l ls/ M e sa D e l S o l
Tra n sp o rtati o n N e e d s S t u d y

What are the top issues/concerns in the study area that you feel need to be addressed? 				
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

2.

Do you feel the proposed improvement plan addresses the transportation needs of the study area?  
If not, what changes do you think should be made to the plan?		
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
						
3.
Please feel free to share any additional comments with us.
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
Optional
Name: ____________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________
										
City: __________________ Zip: ________________ Email Address: __________________________________________________________
										
Completed comment forms can be submitted to the project team at the completion of the public meeting
or to the project team after the meeting by February 17, 2012.
Mail:
John Godec							fax: 602-222-9575
               c/o Godec, Randall & Associates
email: jdg@godecrandall.com      
3944 N. 14th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Completion of this comment sheet is completely voluntary. All comments provided will become part of the study’s documentation. Under state law, any identifying information
provided will become part of the public record, and as such, must be released to any individual upon request.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

azdot.gov/foothills

March 9, 2012
[ To 51 area stakeholders ]
Re:

Foothills/Mesa Del Sol Transportation Needs Study
Community Open House – Wednesday, February 8

Dear XX,
The Arizona Department of Transportation and Yuma County invite you to learn more about the
recommendations of the Foothills/ Mesa Del Sol Transportation Needs Study at a community
Open House. The community Open House will give area residents an opportunity to ask
questions and comment on the recommendations for future transportation improvements in the
area.
Please join us:
Date:
Time:
Location:

Wednesday, February 8
5:00 to 6:30 p.m. (presentation at 5:30 p.m.)
Foothills Branch Library
13226 South Frontage Road, Yuma, AZ 85367

The study covers a 20-mile area between avenues 10E and 15E and between County 10th and
14th streets in Yuma. The study purpose is to evaluate the area’s existing transportation
system, forecast future conditions and identify improvements as part of a long range multimodal
transportation plan that includes recommendations to improve roadways, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and public transit for 5, 10 and 20-year time periods.
Please share this information with those who may have an interest in the future of transportation
in the Foothills/ Mesa Del Sol areas. We’re including a flyer that you can post on a public
bulletin board or other location to inform your residents and visitors about the meeting. For
those unable to attend, study information, materials, and a comment form will be available on
the project website: www.azdot.gov/foothills beginning February 6th.
We look forward to seeing you at the Open House. If you’d like more information, please
contact ADOT Senior Community Relations Officer Gabriella Kemp at (928) 317-2165 or
gkemp@azdot.gov.
Thank you,

Debra Duerr, Public Involvement Coordinator
Godec, Randall & Associates
Enclosures: Flyer

O P E N H OU SE
FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE
FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION
IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
Foot h i l l s / M es a D e l So l Trans po r tatio n Ne eds Study

Date: Wednesday, February 8th
Time: 5:00 to 6:30 p.m.

(presentation at 5:30 p.m.)

Place: Foothills Branch Library
13226 South Frontage Road
Yuma, AZ 85367

Please join us at an upcoming community open house to give us
your input on the recommendations for future improvements to
transportation in the Foothills and Mesa Del Sol area. If you cannot
attend the open house, you can see the study recommendations
online at the project web site azdot.gov/foothills after February 6.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

azdot.gov/foothills

E-mail Blast for Open House 1/25/12
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:

ADOT email distribution list
Gabriella Kemp
Community Open House for Transportation Improvements in Foothills/
Mesa Del Sol Area

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and Yuma County are conducting a
Transportation Needs Study for the Foothills/ Mesa Del Sol areas. The study area
includes 20-square miles between avenues 10E and 15E and between County 10th and
14th streets in Yuma.
The study purpose is to evaluate the area’s existing transportation system, forecast
future conditions and identify improvements as part of a long range transportation plan.
The multimodal plan includes recommendations to improve roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and public transit for 5, 10 and 20-year time periods.
The results of the Foothills/ Mesa Del Sol Transportation Improvement plan will be
presented at a community Open House to be held:
Date:
Time:
Location:

Wednesday February 8
5:00 to 6:30 pm (presentation at 5:30 p.m.)
Foothills Branch Library
13226 South Frontage Road, Yuma, AZ 85367

Please come and tell us what you think about the proposed plan and recommendations.
Study information, materials and a comment form will be available on the study website:
www.azdot.gov/foothills beginning February 6th.
For more information, please contact ADOT Senior Community Relations Officer
Gabriella Kemp at (928) 317-2165 or gkemp@azdot.gov.

B6 YUMA SUN, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2012

What is site selection?

G

ASSOCIATED PRESS

HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY Janet Napolitano (center) tours the U.S.-Mexico border
with U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Coronado National Forest near Nogales on Oct. 30, 2011.

AP Analysis: Border Patrol
OT up as arrests drop
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Border
Patrol agents have racked
up daily overtime at a cost
of about $1.4 billion in the
past six years while the
number of arrests of illegal
border crossers has fallen to
the lowest level in nearly 40
years, an Associated Press
analysis of agency records
finds.
Since the 2006 budget year,
the agency charged with
stopping would-be illegal
border crossers and smugglers from making it into
the U.S. over land and sea
borders has spent more than
$1.4 billion on what is described as “administrative
uncontrollable overtime,”
according to the data provided by the Border Patrol.
In practical terms, agents
average two hours a day in
overtime.
That means agents can
earn anywhere from 10 percent to 25 percent extra pay
an hour for the first two
hours of overtime, with the
extra cash being steadily re-

duced every hour after that
because of complicated overtime rules. Over the course
of a year, an agent can earn
about $15,000 more than the
base salary, which for a more
experienced agent is typically over $60,000 a year. Agents
are limited to $35,000 in overtime annually.
The cost of overtime rose
from about $155.8 million in
2006 to more than $331 million in 2011. That increase
coincides with the addition
of about 9,000 agents in the
past six years and the drop
of apprehensions to a nearly
40-year low, from more than
1 million arrests in 2006 to
about 340,000 in 2011.
Border Patrol Deputy
Chief Ronald D. Vitiello said
patrolling the border can be
an unpredictable job that
requires longer hours from
agents.
“The uncontrollable nature of the work is inherent
in the primary duty of a Border Patrol agent and must be
performed in order to get the
job done,” Vitiello said, adding that anything from mak-

ing an arrest to talking to
witnesses can keep an agent
on duty beyond a scheduled
shift. Often it stems from
charging the Border Patrol
for the time spent driving
from a remote location to an
agent’s home base or staying
late to finish the paperwork
from an arrest or seizure of
illicit cargo.
Still, with the government
facing record deficits and the
Department of Homeland
Security likely to see more
cuts, a system that builds in
overtime the same way on
the busy U.S.-Mexico border
as it does on the relatively
sleepy U.S.-Canadian border
raises questions.
Most illegal border crossers are apprehended along
the 2,000-mile long Mexican
border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
In the budget year that ended
in September, 18,506 agents
made a combined 327,577 apprehensions — an average
of nearly 18 apprehensions
per agent. The agency spent
about $283 million on overtime.

enerally speaking,
to find the most
appropriate site
for a business
from an economic and
operational perspective.
Varying approaches range
from holistic analysis that
considers the best region
for a firm to locate based
from a long-term strategic
perspective in which the
actual building or site is
an afterthought; to the
actual physical facility
determining the location.
Internet usage and the
increase in international
sales have created an evolution in the site selection
process. There is a significant increase in the number of companies providing site selection services,
with multiple specialized
consultants working a
single project or simply a
real estate broker making
the case for the company based upon available
buildings. Recent large
announcements have garnered a great deal of press
due to the enormous cash
incentives used to “win”
projects. Volkswagen chose
to locate in Tennessee and
was awarded $250 million
by the state. This has created an environment that
demands an increase in
the use of incentives. Gov.
Brewer responded to this
pressure last year by creating the Competitiveness
Fund.
Site selection used to
involve much more faceto-face interaction, more
personal involvement
in the decision making
process. Decisions have
been reduced to a few
short months as opposed
to a year or 18 months. Site
visits have been condensed
into one or two days, where
before the client would
want to spend three to five
days interviewing the local
college, workforce, utilities and peer companies
to ensure the community
was a good fit. Today the
tour consists of seeing a
building or land site, lunch
with a peer company or
workforce team, maybe a
meeting with the college if
time permits and then they
are off to another location
to repeat the same agenda
with a different community.
An evolving trend is the
use of multiple consultants; real estate broker, an
incentives/tax specialist
and a workforce analyst
will all work the same project. The client wants to buy
specialization, sometimes
this is done by contracting
each specialty or by hiring
a large firm that has all
three specialties within
their scope of service. The

COMINGS
FROM PAGE B1

***
Elizabeth Requarth
has joined the A.T. Pancrazi Insurance staff as
the agency’s personal
lines producer. She can be
reached at 783-0000.
A 2005 graduate of Yuma
Catholic High School, she
studied communications at
Northern Arizona University. Requarth obtained
her property and casualty
producer’s license and
personal lines coverage

GYEDC
Julie Engel

reliability or uncertainty.
Rolling brownouts or
recurring blackouts are
intolerable. Meeting a
company’s construction
deadline if a build-to-suit
or extensive building
improvements are required
for an existing site. Predictability in state and local
government is considered
a risk factor as well as the
ability to demonstrate a
stable tax environment.
Each of these concerns
must be mitigated and
clearly demonstrated to the
site selection consultant
and the company; they can,
with confidence, eliminate
or mitigate these risk factors.
The process begins for
the site selection consultant by defining the project
requirements, broad
screening and cuts, identifying the shortlist and
conducting site tours, negotiations (land/building,
utilities, and incentives)
then finalizing the deal.
The role of the EDO is to
be prepared in advance
to supply the information
necessary for the site selector to conduct their analysis, be able to mitigate and
hopefully eliminate all risk
factors, have broker controlled sites that are ready
for occupancy with little
modification needed and be
able to showcase the community as a viable location
for their project. This can
only be done through partnerships with the state and
local governments, local
educational institutions,
work force, brokers and
our existing businesses
who have clearly found success by choosing this location for their expansion or
relocation projects.
The number of jobs we
are competing for continues to decline while competition continues to increase
exponentially. To compete
at the level required, there
must be a commitment
from all the partners listed.
Cuts to economic development will diminish our
chances to deliver all the
necessary components in
the site selection process.
Funding economic development is investing in
our communities and our
future. We have been doing
more with less year after
year and we have reached
the point where we have to
do less with less. We need
the support of the public
sector and the private sector in order to increase our
capabilities and perform
at the level necessary to
succeed.

first approach creates a
lengthier process toward
the decision making. When
utilizing one company, the
work is usually conducted
in tandem.
It is imperative the
Economic Development
Organization (EDO) know
what types of projects
will be successful in their
communities and need to
be able to respond to all the
requests for information
regarding the three specialties mentioned above
as well as demonstrate a
company’s return on their
investment if they locate
in their community.
Ultimately the site selector’s goal is to eliminate
the communities with the
greatest disadvantages and
the fewest advantages for
their client. They aim to
ensure their client will succeed in a location, not just
today but for the future as
well. Site selectors do not
make the final decision,
they make recommendations to their clients and
they prepare detailed
analysis for their clients
in order for them to make
the decision as to where to
locate. In some cases this is
when the president, owner
or plant manager will actually tour the top three communities recommended by
the consultant; they may
also add a community the
consultant didn’t recommend but they personally
wanted to see on their list
based upon their own perceptions.
Key factors considered
in the initial search:
• Business Strategy —
This involves a comprehensive look at the business’s
development strategy and
all its nuances. Untapped
markets, accessing a new
workforce (talent), improving accessibility to clients
or suppliers, reducing
their overall costs or a
competitive advantage
within their industry.
Mergers and acquisitions
also play a role.
• Operating Costs — Tax
structure, transportation,
labor, occupancy, utilities
and the regulatory environment all fall into this
category.
• Risk Factors — Risk
minimization within the
three prior factors is a
driving force in every
project. Operational interJulie Engel is president/CEO of the
ruptions from natural
Greater Yuma Economic Development
disasters, labor unions,
supply chain, etc. Utilities Corp.
specialist designation
from The
Hartford
University.
***
Arizona
Department
of Transportation has
ELIZABETH
made some
REQUARTH
progress on
a roadway improvement
project on the east side of
Gila Bend. But I can say
from personal experience,
it still is a challenge to get
through the construction
zone.
The project includes con-

struction of a new, elevated
intersection at State Route
85 and Business Route 8,
a wider bridge over the
Union Pacific Railroad and
realignment of both State
Route 85 and Maricopa
Road.
The $13.5 million project
is expected to be completed
later this year.

Report Comings and Goings to jlobeck@
yumasun.com or call Joyce Lobeck at
539-6853.

LOANS
FROM PAGE B1

“Why should a person
have to ruin their credit
before a bank is willing
to even speak with them?
Why aren’t they helping
beforehand?” Engler said.
“The fact that banks won’t
talk to you until you’re
three months behind is a
crime. Banks seem to have
lost their business sense ...
and can’t see the blinding
(light) of the obvious.”
Compounding the problem, Engler said, is that
once you do fall behind and
negotiations finally begin,
banks can foreclose on
your house whenever they
desire.
“I have helped countless
homeowners come to agreements with banks, sometimes even to the point of
having a contract in place,
and the banks still end up
foreclosing and auctioning
off their properties.
“It’s a case of the right
hand not knowing what
the other one is doing.
There’s no communication
between a bank’s short sale
department and its foreclosure department. So even
if you think you are saving
your house, they can just
take it right out from under
you. How can things turn
around when these are
your business practices?”