FI NAL R EP ORT Yuma Parkway FEASIBILITY STUDY Salome Highway to Palo Verde Road NO. T T0 05, C ONTRACT NO. 2010-055 a County andPROJECT MAG Figure 7 – Existing and Planned Developments Maricopa County Yum xecutive Summary 19 March 2012 Prepared for: Maricopa County Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 Background and Study Need ............................................................................................................... 1 Study Purpose and Goals ..................................................................................................................... 3 Alternatives Development and Evaluation ......................................................................................... 4 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 7 Planning Level Construction Cost Estimates..................................................................................... 7 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................. 7 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 9 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES ............................................................................. 10 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Relevant Plans, Reports, and Guidelines ................................................................... 10 Study Area Characteristics ......................................................................................... 11 Jurisdictional Responsibilities, Ownership, and Land Use ...................................... 11 Existing and Planned Developments........................................................................... 15 Existing Transportation Network ............................................................................... 20 Future Transportation Network ................................................................................. 20 Utilities and Facilities ................................................................................................... 23 Topography ................................................................................................................... 25 Recreational and Wildlife Areas ................................................................................. 25 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 28 4. DRAINAGE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 31 5. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS ........................................... 33 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6. DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENTS ............................................................................................ 50 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7. Conceptual Alternatives .............................................................................................. 33 Candidate Alternatives ................................................................................................ 36 Alternatives Evaluation Criteria................................................................................. 37 Alternatives Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations .................................. 39 Parkway Design Guidelines and Typical Cross-Sections.......................................... 50 Crossing Features ......................................................................................................... 50 Access Management Guidelines .................................................................................. 52 Detailed Preferred Alignment Drawings .................................................................... 53 Planning Level Construction Cost Estimates ............................................................ 53 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................... 54 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 56 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 57 7.1 7.2 7.3 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 TAC and Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 57 TAC/Stakeholder Meetings ......................................................................................... 57 Public Open Houses ..................................................................................................... 58 i Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL REPORT LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1 – Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 2 Figure ES-2 – Candidate Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 6 Figure ES-3 – Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 1 – Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2 – Jurisdictional Boundaries ........................................................................................................ 13 Figure 3 – Land Ownership ...................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4 – Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5 – Zoning ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6 – Future Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7 – Existing and Planned Developments....................................................................................... 19 Figure 8 – Existing Transportation Network ............................................................................................ 21 Figure 9 – Future Transportation Network............................................................................................... 22 Figure 10 – Existing Utilities and Facilities ............................................................................................. 24 Figure 11 – Topography ........................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 12 – Recreational and Wildlife Areas ........................................................................................... 27 Figure 13 – Prime and Unique Farmland ................................................................................................. 30 Figure 14 – Regulatory Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 15 – Conceptual Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 35 Figure 16 – Candidate Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 38 Figure 17 – Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................................. 49 Figure 18 – Parkway Typical Cross-Sections .......................................................................................... 51 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Yuma Parkway Alternatives Evaluation Matrix: Wintersburg Road to Hassayampa River .... 40 Table 2 – Yuma Parkway Alternatives Evaluation Matrix: Hassayampa River to Johnson Road ........... 42 Table 3 – Yuma Parkway Alternatives Evaluation Matrix: Johnson Road to Palo Verde Road.............. 43 Table 4 – Yuma Parkway Candidate Alternatives Evaluation Matrix Summary ..................................... 45 Table 5 – Planning-Level Construction Cost Estimates ........................................................................... 54 Table 6 – Anticipated Drainage Crossings ............................................................................................... 54 LIST OF APPENDICES IN THIS DOCUMENT Appendix A: Detailed Preferred Alignment Drawings – Recommended Future Right-of-way Corridor 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 ii Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL REPORT LIST OF APPENDICES PUBLISHED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Appendix 4: Appendix 5: Appendix 6: Technical Memorandum 1 – Existing and Future Corridor Features Technical Memorandum 2 – Environmental Overview Technical Memorandum 3 – Conceptual Drainage Report Technical Memorandum 4 – Candidate Alternative Alignments and Evaluation Technical Memorandum 5 – Detailed Preferred Alignment Technical Memorandum 6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 iii Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study is one in a series of long-range transportation planning studies being conducted by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) to evaluate future parkways identified in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) framework studies. The Yuma Parkway study area is approximately 13 miles long and two miles wide, and is generally centered on the Buckeye Road/Yuma Road section line, from one-half mile west of Salome Highway to one-half mile east of Palo Verde Road. The study area boundaries are shown in Figure ES-1. The technical aspects of the study were guided and reviewed by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and stakeholder group that met four times during the study. Findings and recommendations were presented for public review and input at three public open houses. Background and Study Need In July 2008, MAG completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study), which recommended a comprehensive roadway network to meet the future traffic demands that result when the area west of the White Tank Mountains is completely developed (hereafter referred to as buildout travel demand). This long-range regional transportation network includes the “Arizona Parkway” as a new facility type to supplement more traditional roadway classifications in meeting projected travel demand. The Arizona Parkway is an enhanced arterial roadway with a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at major cross-street intersections. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using left-turn crossovers in the median downstream of cross-street intersections. This design increases roadway capacity while maintaining local access and a posted speed of 45 miles per hour. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended Yuma Parkway as an Arizona Parkway to meet buildout travel demands and provide a continuous parkway network. Although today’s land development and travel demands in the study area do not warrant a parkway in the short-term, the buildout forecast for future land development and travel demands does warrant a parkway in the long-term future. The potential for increased travel demand is evident in the approved development plans already underway converting the vacant lands within the study area to land uses that will generate future traffic. This feasibility study will provide Maricopa County, the Town of Buckeye, area property owners, developers, and other stakeholders with guidelines to preserve a 200-foot wide right-ofway corridor to accommodate the typical Arizona Parkway design. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 1 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Source: Maricopa County 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure ES-1 – Study Area 2 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Study Purpose and Goals The primary purposes of the Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study are to: Define and assess the study area for potential opportunities and constraints for alternative alignments; Develop and evaluate alternative alignments within the study area; Recommend a preferred alignment; and Define the characteristics of the preferred alignment in sufficient detail for right-of-way preservation. The study goals for the Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study relate specifically to the proposed Yuma Parkway in the context of the existing and future transportation network in the study area. Specific objectives are listed below for each study goal. Goal #1: Achieve roadway network continuity and connectivity Determine the preferred alignment from a regional transportation perspective; Protect and preserve right-of-way for the preferred alignment to maintain its long-term viability; Provide future connectivity with primary and regional roadway facilities; and Provide crossings of drainage washes and the Hassayampa River. Goal #2: Enhance traffic flow (capacity) and safety Preserve functional integrity of the Arizona Parkway by recommending unique segmentspecific solutions to address identified opportunities or constraints; Identify areas that may require additional right-of-way or easements, such as crossings of other parkways, drainage washes, and utility corridors; and Enhance traffic operations while maintaining reasonable access for developments. Goal #3: Minimize adverse environmental impacts Comply with governing environmental regulations for new roadway development; Minimize adverse impacts to the study area environment, including wildlife corridors and archaeological sites; Enhance important environmental features (e.g., habitat areas); and Minimize adverse impacts to disadvantaged population groups as provided in Title VI regarding environmental justice. Goal #4: Develop consensus-driven improvement alternatives Work with the TAC and key stakeholders in developing feasible alternatives; Develop cost-effective roadway improvement alternatives; Conduct public outreach to obtain input on alternatives and build consensus; and Ensure consistency between the study’s transportation actions and regional/local plans. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 3 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Alternatives Development and Evaluation Through a “brainstorming” process, a wide range of conceptual alternatives were developed and presented to the TAC, stakeholders, and general public for review and input. Based on the input received, the following general recommendations were developed: The western terminus for all Yuma Parkway candidate alternatives should be Wintersburg Road rather than Salome Parkway. This recommendation was based on the relatively low buildout traffic projections west of Wintersburg Road, the established low density residential developments in the area, and topographic constraints that will limit development to the south and west of the study area; Between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road, the Yuma Road alignment should be the only candidate alternative considered besides the no-build alternative. This recommendation is compatible with the approved Desert Creek and Cipriani community master plans (CMPs) that have been approved by the Town of Buckeye. The approved master plans include stipulations to reserve 200 feet of right-of-way along Yuma Road for the future Yuma Parkway facility; and East of Johnson Road, a special analysis area should be designated for more detailed study. Issues requiring closer examination include expansion plans for the Buckeye Municipal Airport, the Community of Hopeville, planned interchange and frontage road configurations along I-10, and the Town of Buckeye area plan for roadways between Palo Verde Road and State Route 85. In accordance with these general recommendations, candidate alternatives were developed for more detailed evaluation. Between Wintersburg Road and the Hassayampa River, three candidate alternatives were proposed as follows: Alternative A – A 200-foot-wide corridor located one-half mile north of the Buckeye Road alignment; Alternative B – A 200-foot-wide corridor located on the Buckeye Road alignment; and Alternative C – A 200-foot-wide corridor located one-half mile south of the Buckeye Road alignment. These alternatives have the least impact on existing subdivided properties, are most compatible with planned developments, and converge at the same general crossing location at the Hassayampa River. Between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road, a single alternative, Alternative A, was designated for more detailed evaluation as a candidate alternative. This is the only alternative that is compatible with the approved CMPs in this segment. Between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road – which is the special analysis area – three candidate alternatives were developed. These candidate alternatives were developed after conducting more detailed analysis on constraints and opportunities in the special analysis area and meeting with the Town of Buckeye, MAG, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to discuss the findings of the analysis and the feasibility of various conceptual alternatives. The three candidate alternatives developed for this segment of Yuma Parkway are as follows: Alternative A – A 200-foot-wide corridor that matches the preliminary alignment for Yuma Parkway shown in the Hassayampa Framework Study. This alternative was based 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 4 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 on the assumption that the Buckeye Municipal Airport primary runway would be extended to the north of Yuma Road and that it would not be feasible to extend Yuma Parkway between Bruner Road and Palo Verde Road. As a result, this alternative terminates at a planned Bruner Road overpass on I-10; Alternative B – A 200-foot-wide corridor located on the Yuma Road alignment. This alternative is based on the Town of Buckeye current plan to extend the Buckeye Municipal Airport primary runway to the south rather than the north. This makes it possible to extend the Yuma Parkway between Bruner Road and Palo Verde Road. This alternative would shift the Yuma Parkway centerline sufficiently north to avoid encroaching on existing airport or Hopeville properties; and Alternative C – A 200-foot-wide corridor following a curvilinear alignment traversing north of Yuma Road and then south to connect with Palo Verde Road south of Hopeville. This alternative is intended to provide maximum flexibility for expanding the Buckeye Municipal Airport. It also provides greater separation from the I-10 interchange with Palo Verde Road/Sun Valley Parkway and from Hopeville. The candidate alternatives are shown in Figure ES-2. The candidate alternatives, along with a no-build alternative, were evaluated using the following evaluation criteria: System continuity and capacity; Building/property impacts; Future development compatibility; Utility impacts; Wildlife impacts; Cultural/archaeological impacts; Drainage impacts; Cost; and Public acceptability. The alternatives development and evaluation process, criteria, and results were presented and discussed at four TAC/stakeholder meetings and three public open house meetings. The meetings were well-attended and there were many favorable comments on the thoroughness of the development and evaluation of alternatives. There was general consensus among the TAC members, stakeholders, and open house participants that the evaluation results are reasonable and valid. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 5 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County and MAG 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure ES-2 – Candidate Alternatives 6 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Corridor Study March 2012 Preferred Alternative For all Yuma Parkway segments, it was determined that the no-build alternative does not address the demonstrated long-term need for a parkway in the study area. The preferred alternative for each Yuma Parkway segment is: Between Wintersburg Road and the Hassayampa River – Alternative B (the Buckeye Road alignment); Between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road – Alternative A (the Yuma Road alignment); and Between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road – Alternative B (the Yuma Road alignment). The overall preferred alternative for Yuma Parkway is shown in Figure ES-3. Also included in this figure are the proposed locations where other parkways and a freeway are expected (per the Hassayampa Framework Study) to intersect Yuma Parkway. These intersection/interchange locations are preliminary and subject to change. Planning Level Construction Cost Estimates The planning-level construction cost estimate for Yuma Parkway is $154 million in 2012 dollars. Because this study does not include preparation of an “engineered” roadway alignment and does not address detailed design issues for various features, the construction cost estimate was based on generalized unit costs. Costs exclude the construction costs of a freeway-to-parkway interchange at the planned Hassayampa Freeway – which is subject to further study and design – well as right-of-way acquisition and relocation expenses. Next Steps Agencies with primary responsibility for implementing the recommendations of this study are Maricopa County, Town of Buckeye, and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). Among the critical long-range planning actions that need to commence are: Maricopa County and Town of Buckeye adoption/acceptance of the Arizona Parkway designation and general preferred alignment for Yuma Parkway; Right-of-way preservation in developing areas, as needed, to protect the long-term viability of the parkway facilities; Preparation of Design Concept Reports for consideration in project programming; Appropriation of funding for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction, as needed, for joint participation with land developers; and Coordination among the jurisdictions and key stakeholders on planning, right-of-way preservation, and design. While the timing of the implementation of Yuma Parkway will be driven by land development, it is up to the public sector agencies to establish the transportation system planning framework now to be responsive to future land development interests while also protecting the broader long-term public interests. 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 7 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway CFS March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County and MAG 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 Figure ES-3 – Preferred Alternative 8 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway CFS March 2012 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In July 2008, MAG completed the Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (Hassayampa Framework Study), which recommended a comprehensive roadway network to meet the future traffic demands that result when the area west of the White Tank Mountains is completely developed (hereafter referred to as buildout travel demand). This long-range regional transportation network includes the “Arizona Parkway” as a new facility type to supplement more traditional roadway classifications in meeting projected travel demand. The Hassayampa Framework Study recommended Yuma Parkway as an Arizona Parkway to meet buildout travel demands and provide a continuous parkway network. Although today’s land development and travel demands in the study area do not warrant a parkway in the short-term, the buildout forecast for future land development and travel demands does warrant a parkway in the longterm future. The potential for increased travel demand is evident in the approved development plans already underway converting the vacant lands within the study area to land uses that will generate future traffic. This feasibility study will provide Maricopa County, the Town of Buckeye, area property owners, developers, and other stakeholders with guidelines to preserve a 200-foot wide right-of-way corridor to accommodate the typical Arizona Parkway design. This will require significant coordination with various governing bodies, other public agencies, development interests, and the general public. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 9 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR FEATURES This section summarizes the information gathered and documented in Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Existing and Future Corridor Features (contained in Appendix 1 of separately published appendices). Key exhibits are provided to graphically display the existing and future corridor features that were considered in identifying and evaluating feasible alignments for Yuma Parkway. 2.1 Relevant Plans, Reports, and Guidelines Relevant information on existing and future corridor features was obtained from available studies, reports, and other documents. These documents provided the source information for the figures and tables developed for this study. The following is a listing of the primary documents that were used for this study: ADOT Freeway-to-Parkway Interchange Templates (October 2010); Arizona State Land Department Draft White Tanks Conceptual Land Use Plan (February 2007); Buckeye Ranch Phase 1 Replat of Final Plat (June 1999); Buckeye Ranchos Plat (December 1959); Butterfield Stagecoach Farms Final Plat (December 1996); Cipriani Planning Documents (June 2008); Desert Creek Planning Documents (October 2006) Hidden Waters Ranch Development Master Plan (October 2008); Hopeville Final Plat (December 1984); Horseshoe Trails Amended Plat (January 1996) MAG Interstate 10/Hassayampa Valley Transportation Framework Study (July 2008); MAG Regional Transportation Plan 2010 Update (July 2010); MAG Unofficial Buildout Traffic Volumes and Proposed Parkway Laneage and Interchanges (June 2009); MAG Unofficial Buildout Travel Demand Volumes (April 2011); Maricopa County Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan (September 2000); MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study (August 2009); MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway (August 2008); MCDOT Hidden Waters Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study (June 2010); MCDOT Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan: Street Classification Atlas (September 2004 and Update June 2011); MCDOT Maricopa County Transportation System Plan (February 2007); MCDOT Roadway Management System (Fiscal Year 2010); MCDOT State of the Systems Report (Fiscal Year 2011); Saddleback Trails Record of Land Survey (January 2000); Saddle Vista Record of Land Survey (May 1997); Shemer D.P.J. Planning Documents (March 2007); Town of Buckeye Airport Master Plan (March 2007); Town of Buckeye Airport Strategic Plan (October 2010); 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 10 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Town of Buckeye Draft Transportation Master Plan (December 2009); Town of Buckeye General Plan (January 2008); Town of Buckeye Trails Master Plan (June 2008); Verma Estates 2 Record of Land Survey (November 2000); Westwind Planning Documents (December 2004); and Wood’s North Addition to Wintersburg Plat (November 1939). 2.2 Study Area Characteristics The Yuma Parkway study area is approximately 13 miles long and two miles wide and is generally centered on the Buckeye Road/Yuma Road section line, from one-half mile west of Salome Highway to one-half mile east of Palo Verde Road. The study area boundaries are shown in Figure 1. The study area currently consists primarily of low-density residential development, agricultural properties, and open space. While the predominant existing land use is natural desert open space, a large percentage of the parcels have been subdivided or are part of a CMP with associated entitlements. As a result, the study area is positioned for a long-term transition to higher density land uses. Natural desert open space Most of the study area is fairly flat, particularly west of the Hassayampa River and north of Salome Highway. The Hassayampa River, which crosses the study area roughly between the 315th Avenue and 339th Avenue alignments, is surrounded by rolling terrain, particularly on the east side of the river. 2.3 Jurisdictional Responsibilities, Ownership, and Land Use The entire study area is located within Maricopa County. Maricopa County has jurisdiction over the majority of the land and roadways within the study area. The Town of Buckeye has jurisdiction over the land within its town limits adjacent to and within the study area. Portions of the study area currently under Maricopa County jurisdiction are also within the Buckeye Municipal Planning Area. Jurisdictional boundaries are illustrated in Figure 2. The study area contains a mix of both public and private lands. Approximately 84 percent of the land in the study area is privately owned. Public land owners in the study area include the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), which owns 15 percent of the study area, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which owns one percent of the study area. Land ownership in the study area is shown in Figure 3. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 11 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Source: Maricopa County 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 1 – Study Area 12 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Source: Maricopa County 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 2 – Jurisdictional Boundaries 13 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Source: Maricopa County 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 3 – Land Ownership 14 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 The predominant existing land use is vacant land (i.e., natural desert open space) space). Existing development includes: large clusters of single family residential land uses west of the Hassayampa River River, Stotz Dairy (located on the south side of Yuma Road east of Johnson Road Road), the Buckeye Municipal Airport (located located near the southeast corner of the study area area), one commerci commercial al land use (a wholesale plant nursery) nursery),, and one school (Winters’ Winters’ Well Elementary School, located on Buckeye Road between 355 th Avenue and 347th Avenue Avenue). Existing subdivision Figure Figu 4 shows the existing existing land uses in the study area. The study area is zoned primarily for low density de residential uses and planned community uses, with some commercial zoning near Palo Verde Road and industrial zoning near Van Buren Street and 339th Avenue. Figure 5 shows the existing zoning and parcel boundaries in the study area. Vacant land within the study area is anticipated Existing eleme elementary ntary school to be converted to primarily residential land use at buildout. The land west of the Hassayampa River is planned with more low density single family residential uses, while the land to the east of the Hassayampa River is planned with more medium/high density residential and multi multi-family family uses. There are also large areas of retail, office, and industrial land uses planned at ma major intersections throughout the study area, particularly near the Town of Wintersburg and within the Buckeye MPA (east of the Hassayampa River). These future land use patterns incorporate the land use plans for the master planned communities within the vi vicinity cinity of the study area. Figure 6 shows the anticipated future buildout land uses. uses 2.4 Existing and Planned Developments While most of the land within the study area is currently undeveloped, many of the parcels have been subdivided or are part of a development developm ent master plan (DMP) or CMP with associated entitlements. entitlements. Existing Existing low density residential subdivisions within the study area include Buckeye Ranch Phase 1, Buckeye Ranchos, Butterfield Stagecoach Farms, Hopeville, Horseshoe Trails, Saddle Vista, Saddleback Saddleback Trails, Verma Estates 2, and Wood’s North Addition to Wintersburg. There There are four approved planned developments within the Buckeye MPA: Cipriani, Desert Creek, Shemer D.P.J., and Westwind. West West of the Hassayampa River there is one planned development under Maricopa County jurisdiction, jurisdiction Hidden Waters Ranch. The State Trust land uses within the study area have been designated to coordinate with the adjacent master master-planned planned communities communities. Figure 7 shows the existing and active planned developments around an andd within the study area. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, 055, TT005 15 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County and MAG 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 4 – Existing Land Use 16 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County and MAG 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 5 – Zoning 17 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County, Town of Buckeye, and MAG 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 6 – Future Land Use 18 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County and MAG 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 7 – Existing and Planned Developments 19 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 2.5 Existing Transportation Network Within the study area, Buckeye Road is a paved roadway between Wintersburg Road and 339th Avenue. Buckeye Road is unpaved west of Wintersburg Road and east of 339th Avenue. East of the Hassayampa River, the roadway along the Buckeye Road alignment is known as Yuma Road. Yuma Road is paved between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road. Yuma Road is unpaved west of Johnson Road and east of Palo Verde Road. Both Buckeye Road and Yuma Road terminate at the Hassayampa River, meaning there is no existing public crossing of the Hassayampa River on the Buckeye Road/Yuma Road alignment. The other paved major east-west roadway segments in the study area are Van Buren Existing Yuma Road Street between Wintersburg Road and 339th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road between Salome Highway and 339th Avenue. Additional paved roadways in the study area are I-10, Salome Highway, Wintersburg Road (379th Avenue), 371st Avenue north of Buckeye Road, 363rd Avenue north of Buckeye Road, 355th Avenue, 339th Avenue, Johnson Road, and Palo Verde Road. All existing study area roadways are operating below roadway capacities. The major features of the existing transportation network are shown in Figure 8. 2.6 Future Transportation Network The transportation network in the study area is anticipated to change with future buildout conditions. According to the Hassayampa Framework Study and the MAG 2010 Update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), most existing roadways are expected to change to a higher functional classification and be upgraded as the existing transportation network is transformed into an interconnected multimodal network of parkways, freeways, arterials, railroad lines. In addition to Yuma Parkway, the study area is anticipated to ultimately contain four other parkways (Salome, Wintersburg, Hidden Waters, and Palo Verde Parkways) at buildout. A new freeway known as the Hassayampa Freeway is envisioned to traverse the study area at about the 363rd Avenue alignment. Typical arterial roadway spacing is projected to be about one mile from other high-capacity roadways (i.e., freeways, parkways, and arterials), with the spacing being larger in the vicinity of the Hassayampa River. Figure 9 shows the planned future transportation network. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 20 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Source: Maricopa County 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 8 – Existing Transportation Network 21 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Source: MAG 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 9 – Future Transportation Network 22 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 2.7 Utilities and Facilities Although much of the study area is currently undeveloped, it does contain a number of existing utilities and facilities, as shown in Figure 10. Arizona Public Service (APS) is the primary electric power service provider in the study area with 12kV power lines along each major roadway. Two joint APS/Salt River Project (SRP) 500kV transmission lines diagonally cross through the study area between 315th Avenue and 339th Avenue. A 69kV APS transmission line exists along Wintersburg Road. There are no known additional power transmission lines planned within the study area. Existing 500kV transmission lines There is an existing 36-inch natural gas pipeline owned by Transwestern that crosses through the study area adjacent and parallel to the existing APS/SRP 500kV transmission lines. There are no known additional gas pipelines planned within the study area. CenturyLink is the primary telecommunications service provider in the study area with telecommunications lines along most major roadways. There is an existing CenturyLink telecommunications facility on the north side of Buckeye Road just east of 371st Avenue. The developed properties within the study area generally have individual wells to supply water. There is a small private water system in the vicinity of Buckeye Road/355th Avenue that is operated by Water Utilities of Greater Tonopah. There is also a small private water system in the vicinity of Hopeville that is operated by the Allenville Water Company. The Town of Buckeye has a municipal water line along Yuma Road between Powers Butte Road and Johnson Road and along Powers Butte Road and Johnson Road south of Yuma Road. There are also three Town of Buckeye wells within the study area. The Buckeye Municipal Airport is located south of Yuma Road and west of Palo Verde Road. The main runway is currently 5,500 feet long. The Town of Buckeye is planning to ultimately extend the runway to 7,300 feet. There is one major agricultural facility within the study area – Stotz Dairy – along the south side of Yuma Road just west of the airport. There are sand and gravel operations permit sites along the Hassayampa River floodplain in the southern part of the study area. A future bridge along the river in the study area could impact sand and gravel operations as there are currently restrictions on these operations near bridges. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 23 Existing agricultural facility Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County, APS, and ASLD 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 10 – Existing Utilities and Facilities 24 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 2.8 Topography Most of the study area is relatively flat, particularly west of the Hassayampa River and north of Salome Highway. Slopes of more than five percent occur near the Hassayampa River and near the Palo Verde Hills in the southwest corner of the study area. There is a difference of 278 feet between the low elevation of 962 feet and the high elevation of 1,240 feet. Most of the study area has an elevation between 1,000 and 1,100 feet. Figure 11 illustrates the topography of the study area. 2.9 Undulating terrain near Hassayampa River Recreational and Wildlife Areas There are no potential wildlife linkage zones or designated wildlife habitats within the study area, but there are two Sonoran desert tortoise habitat areas and several wildlife linkage zones just outside the study area. The Hassayampa River should be considered a linkage zone even though no official linkage designation exists because it is a natural drainage channel through which animals regularly move. There are four planned trails and one planned community park within the study area. Recreational and wildlife areas are shown in Figure 12. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 25 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Source: Maricopa County 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 11 – Topography 26 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County and Town of Buckeye 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 12 – Recreational and Wildlife Areas 27 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY Environmental considerations are documented in Technical Memorandum No. 2 – Environmental Overview (contained in Appendix 2 of separately published appendices). The most significant environmental issues affecting the study area are potential wildlife habitats and linkage zones associated with the Hassayampa River, the presence of prime and unique farmlands, potential discharges into waters of the U.S., potential cultural resources, and possible socioeconomic impacts on the community of Hopeville. With respect to wildlife habitats, there are suitable habitats within the study area for the Sonoran desert tortoise, Sprague’s pipit, Tucson shovel-nosed snake, western burrowing owl, kit fox, and LeConte’s thrasher. Although it is unlikely that any of these species are present within the study area, they should be noted because suitable habitat is present. No other suitable habitat for threatened or endangered species or species of concern was observed within the study area. There are no existing potential wildlife linkage zones (PLZ) within or adjacent to the study area, however two PLZs are located within two miles of the study area. Additionally, the Hassayampa River transects the study area and should be considered a “linkage” zone even though no official linkage designation exists. Coordination with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) should occur during final design to incorporate wildlife-friendly crossing treatments where feasible into the roadway crossing of the Hassayampa River. Prime and unique farmlands in the study area are shown in Figure 13. Land is classified as prime farmland “if irrigated” or “if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season”. The majority of farmland of unique importance occurs in the western portion of the study area, although there is also a large area near the central portion of the study area. The majority of prime farmland “if irrigated” is located in the eastern portion of the study area. While the Hassayampa Framework Study assumed there will be no actively farmed and irrigated land within the study area in the buildout condition, consideration should be given to potential impacts to the prime farmland that may still exist when planned roadways are ultimately implemented within the study area. Portions of the Hassayampa River have been designated as waters of the U.S. by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will be subject to the provisions of sections 401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). During the design phase, a more complete assessment of the CWA requirements associated with the Hassayampa River and washes within the study area will need to be performed. To identify potential cultural resources, site files and information maintained at the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and in the AZSITE cultural resources database, as well as information from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) and cadastral survey maps/General Land Office Plats available from the BLM, were analyzed. The records review indicated that a total of 19 cultural resource sites have previously been recorded within the study area. Of these recorded sites, none are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and none have been determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP by SHPO. It should be noted that approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. It is recommended that appropriate surveys be performed prior to designing or constructing any segment of this parkway. Though not reflected in the census data due to the size of the census tracts, the unincorporated community of Hopeville warrants discussion as a socioeconomic consideration. Historically, the unincorporated community of Allenville, located in southern Buckeye, was repeatedly flooded by the Gila River. Most of the Allenville residents were Black/African American and may have met the low 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 28 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 income criteria. Serious flooding in the late 1970’s decimated the community and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and ASLD relocated the residents to a new 105-acre community adjacent to Palo Verde Road in 1981. The new community (Hopeville) consisted of 15 single-family homes, 18 mobile homes, community center with day-care facilities, lodge, park and church constructed for the 100 (approximate) relocated residents. Hopeville 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 29 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County and AZGFD 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 13 – Prime and Unique Farmland 30 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 4. DRAINAGE SUMMARY Technical Memorandum No. 3 – Conceptual Drainage Report identifies and summarizes the existing drainage conditions, features, and hydrologic characteristics within the study area (contained in Appendix 3 of separately published appendices). Numerous drainage, geologic, groundwater studies and other drainage-related documents have been prepared within or adjacent to the study area. There are fifteen Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplains that drain through the study area. Figure 14 provides a map of the 100-year floodplain areas and also displays the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels containing the effective floodplain mapping. Four Mile Wash floodplain Watercourses west of 371st Avenue drain south to Centennial Wash, which is a tributary of the Gila River. Washes between 363rd Avenue and 339th Avenue drain south directly to the Gila River. Watercourses between 339th Avenue and Johnson Road drain to the Hassayampa River, which discharges into the Gila River. The study area east of Johnson Road does not contain any regulatory floodplains because the Buckeye Flood Retarding Structure #1 on the north side of I-10 intercepts and retains the upstream flows. The most critical drainage crossing within the study area is at the Hassayampa River. In addition to floodplain impacts, the location and size of this proposed bridge crossing should take into account the highly dynamic nature of the watercourse. The river has demonstrated a significant potential for lateral migration. The Hassayampa River floodplain is approximately 3,000 feet wide at the section line. Detailed hydraulic and sediment transport studies will be necessary during final design to develop an appropriate bridge crossing of this highly dynamic river. Hassayampa River floodplain 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 31 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Source: Maricopa County 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 14 – Regulatory Floodplains 32 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 5. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Candidate Alternative Alignments and Evaluation documents the alternatives development and evaluation process used for this study (contained in Appendix 4 of separately published appendices). The alternatives development process involved two steps: The first step was to identify a series of conceptual alternatives that would be subjected to a “fatal flaw” analysis. The conceptual alternatives were developed only to the extent necessary to conduct a meaningful comparative analysis that would produce up to three candidate alternatives that could be defined and evaluated in greater detail. The second step was to more clearly define the candidate alternatives and evaluate them with respect to a series of evaluation criteria. The conceptual alternatives, candidate alternatives, and evaluation criteria were all developed in consultation with the TAC and stakeholders and were presented for general public input at public open house meetings. 5.1 Conceptual Alternatives As a starting point in the development of conceptual alternatives, potential opportunities and constraints were identified and mapped. Potential opportunities and constraints consist of features that may have some bearing on the location and configuration of conceptual alternatives. Based on the existing and future corridor features discussed previously, the following potential opportunities/constraints were identified (generally listed in order from west to east in the study area) as follows: Steep topography associated with Palo Verde Hills; BLM land; Planned parkway-to-parkway interchanges with Salome Highway and Wintersburg Parkway; Segments of existing right-of-way and roadway easements along Yuma Road/Buckeye Road; Existing vacancy of land; Existing wells and water tanks; Planned rail line west of the proposed Wintersburg Parkway; High voltage power corridor along Wintersburg Road; Partially developed subdivisions, such as Buckeye Ranch Phase 1, Buckeye Ranchos, Butterfield Stagecoach Farms, Horseshoe Trails Amended, Saddle Vista, Saddleback Trails, Verma Estates 2, and Wood’s North Addition to Wintersburg; ASLD State Trust land; CenturyLink telecommunications facility CenturyLink facilities; 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 33 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Planned freeway-to-parkway interchange with the Hassayampa Freeway; Planned parkway-to-parkway interchange with Hidden Waters Parkway; Winters’ Well Elementary School; Hidden Waters Ranch DMP; Topography changes near the Hassayampa River; Lack of existing Hassayampa River crossing; Sand and gravel operations along the Hassayampa River; High voltage power corridors running diagonally through the eastern half of the study area; Transwestern natural gas transmission line running adjacent to the high voltage power corridors; Planned trails through the eastern half of the study area; Desert Creek master-planned community; Shemer D.P.J. planned development; Cipriani master-planned community; Stotz Dairy; Buckeye Municipal Airport; Buckeye Municipal Airport Westwind master-planned community; Existing Palo Verde Road and utility corridor alignment; Connection of Yuma Parkway to I-10 frontage roads or to Palo Verde Road; Planned freeway-to-parkway interchange between Palo Verde Parkway/Sun Valley Parkway and I-10; Planned community transit route along Palo Verde Road; and Community of Hopeville. After mapping these opportunities and constraints, a brainstorming session was conducted with study task leaders and the MCDOT project manager to generate a wide range of 200-foot-wide alternatives within the study area. The results of this brainstorming effort were presented to the TAC, stakeholders, and the public and the conceptual alternatives were further refined based on their input. In developing conceptual alternatives, constraints considered to be potential “fatal flaws” were avoided to the extent possible to produce a set of realistic alternatives. Constraints that were considered to be more significant and should be avoided if possible include schools, churches, airports, wildlife areas, communities, floodplains, steep slope areas, approved planned developments, and large utility facilities. The conceptual alignment alternatives along with potential opportunities and constraints for Yuma Parkway are shown in Figure 15. As this figure shows, there are opportunities to assemble multiple combinations of alternatives at common intersecting points to produce numerous options for consideration. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 34 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County, MAG, Buckeye, APS, AZGFD, and ASLD 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 15 – Conceptual Alternatives 35 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March2012 5.2 Candidate Alternatives To narrow the range of alternatives to be evaluated in greater detail, a subjective, qualitative assessment was performed on all conceptual alternatives. This assessment included input from the TAC, stakeholders, and general public. Based on this assessment, the following general recommendations were developed: The western terminus for all Yuma Parkway candidate alternatives should be Wintersburg Road rather than Salome Parkway. This recommendation was based on the relatively low buildout traffic projections west of Wintersburg Road, the established low density residential developments in the area, and topographic constraints that will limit development to the south and west of the study area; Between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road, the Yuma Road alignment should be the only candidate alternative considered besides the no-build alternative. This recommendation is compatible with the approved Desert Creek and Cipriani CMPs that have been approved by the Town of Buckeye. The approved master plans include stipulations to reserve 200 feet of right-of-way along Yuma Road for the future Yuma Parkway facility; and East of Johnson Road, a special analysis area should be designated for more detailed study. Issues requiring closer examination include expansion plans for the Buckeye Municipal Airport, the Community of Hopeville, planned interchange and frontage road configurations along I-10, and the Town of Buckeye area plan for roadways between Palo Verde Road and State Route 85. The TAC and stakeholders concurred with these general recommendations, which were reflected in the selection of candidate alternatives to be evaluated in greater detail for the following three segments within the study area. Between Wintersburg Road and the Hassayampa River, three candidate alternatives were proposed as follows: Alternative A – A 200-foot-wide corridor located one-half mile north of the Buckeye Road alignment; Alternative B – A 200-foot-wide corridor located on the Buckeye Road alignment; and Alternative C – A 200-foot-wide corridor located one-half mile south of the Buckeye Road alignment. These alternatives have the least impact on existing subdivided properties, are most compatible with planned developments, and converge at the same general crossing location at the Hassayampa River. Between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road, a single alternative, Alternative A, was designated for more detailed evaluation as a candidate alternative. This is the only alternative that is compatible with the approved CMPs in this segment. Between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road – which is the special analysis area – three candidate alternatives were developed as follows: Alternative A – A 200-foot-wide corridor that matches the preliminary alignment for Yuma Parkway shown in the Hassayampa Framework Study. This alternative was based 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 36 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 on the assumption that the Buckeye Municipal Airport primary runway would be extended to the north of Yuma Road and that it would not be feasible to extend Yuma Parkway between Bruner Road and Palo Verde Road. As a result, this alternative terminates at a planned Bruner Road overpass on I-10; Alternative B – A 200-foot-wide corridor located on the Yuma Road alignment. This alternative is based on the Town of Buckeye current plan to extend the Buckeye Municipal Airport primary runway to the south rather than the north. This makes it possible to extend the Yuma Parkway between Bruner Road and Palo Verde Road. This alternative would shift the Yuma Parkway centerline sufficiently north to avoid encroaching on existing airport or Hopeville properties; and Alternative C – A 200-foot-wide corridor following a curvilinear alignment traversing north of Yuma Road and then south to connect with Palo Verde Road south of Hopeville. This alternative is intended to provide maximum flexibility for expanding the Buckeye Municipal Airport. It also provides greater separation from the I-10 interchange with Palo Verde Road/Sun Valley Parkway and from Hopeville. Candidate alternatives as recommended by the TAC and stakeholders are shown in Figure 16. Schematic drawings showing the candidate alternatives at a scale of 1 inch = 800 feet are included in Technical Memorandum 4 – Candidate Alternative Alignments and Evaluation (contained in Appendix 4 of separately published appendices). 5.3 Alternatives Evaluation Criteria After performing the fatal flaw assessment of the conceptual alternatives and then narrowing the conceptual alternatives to the candidate alternative alignments, the candidate alternatives, along with a no-build alternative, were evaluated using the following criteria: System Continuity and Capacity – This criterion is a measure of how each alternative contributes to providing a continuous transportation link through the study area with sufficient capacity to serve projected build-out traffic volumes. It also includes consideration of the ability to connect with other existing and planned freeways, parkways, and arterial streets; Building/Property Impacts – There are a number of low density residential properties and agricultural properties that may be adversely impacted by the parkway. Some residential buildings may have to be relocated or vacated and demolished, and some properties may be fully or partially acquired; Future Development Compatibility – This criterion addresses the impacts that each alternative has with respect to planned future development and whether or not the alternative is compatible with the planned development. For example, some planned developments in the study area already have stipulations requiring the reservation of a 200-foot-wide corridor for Yuma Parkway along portions of Yuma Road while other planned developments are based on a no-build or arterial street scenario. This criterion does not address the potential benefits of the parkway to future development, only whether or not the future development plan can accommodate Yuma Parkway; Utility Impacts – Most existing utilities are located adjacent to existing transportation facilities. Some combination of utility relocations and parkway alignment shifts will likely be required; 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 37 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County, MAG, Buckeye, APS, AZGFD, and ASLD 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 16 – Candidate Alternatives 38 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Wildlife Impacts – Some alternatives may have more impacts than other alternatives on the existing suitable habitat for several wildlife species of concern and the de facto wildlife linkage zone along the Hassayampa River within the study area; Cultural/Archaeological Impacts – Throughout the study area, there are a combination of known and potential cultural and archaeological sites. Some alternatives could have more adverse impacts than others on these resources. This criterion is limited to known cultural and archaeological sites. Further alignment-specific cultural and archaeological analyses will be needed to identify and mitigate unknown resources; Drainage Impacts – The Hassayampa River and numerous washes are located in the study area. In most cases, implementing a parkway facility will require new drainage structures, which will typically improve existing drainage patterns; Cost – Some alternatives will have greater right-of-way, utility, drainage, and construction costs than others and can be evaluated on a comparative planning-level cost assessment; and Public Acceptability – Residents and landowners in the study area have differing opinions regarding the need and desirability of constructing new major roadways through the study area. Public input received through the TAC, stakeholder, and open house meetings provides an indication of the general level of support for each alternative. 5.4 Alternatives Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations Most of the evaluation criteria listed in the previous section do not lend themselves to numerical quantification, so the evaluation was performed on a “qualitative” basis using the following descriptors to describe the relative impacts of each of the candidate alternatives plus the no-build alternative: Strong advantage; Advantage; Neutral; Disadvantage; and Strong disadvantage. Table 1 provides a narrative description of the issues that pertain to each of the evaluation criteria and evaluation ratings according to the above descriptors for each of the Yuma Parkway candidate alternatives in the segment between Wintersburg Road and the Hassayampa River. Table 2 and Table 3 respectively provide similar evaluations of the Yuma Parkway candidate alternatives in the segment between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road and in the segment between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road. Table 4 graphically summarizes the overall evaluation of the candidate alternatives. 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 39 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway CFS March 2012 Table 1 – Yuma Parkway Alternatives Evaluation Matrix: Wintersburg Road to Hassayampa River Evaluation Criteria System Continuity and Capacity Building/Property Impacts Future Development Compatibility Utility Impacts No-Build Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C The No-Build Alternative provides an existing two-lane paved arterial centered on the Buckeye Road alignment between Wintersburg Road and 339th Avenue. The Maricopa Association of Governments Hassayampa Framework Study calls for a parkway in the general vicinity of the Buckeye Road alignment between Wintersburg Parkway and the Hassayampa River to serve long-term traffic needs. The NoBuild Alternative does not conform to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study and does not adequately serve long-term traffic needs. Alternative A generally conforms to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study by providing a parkway centered on the Harrison Street alignment between Wintersburg Parkway and the Hassayampa River that adequately serves long-term traffic needs. Alternative B generally conforms to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study by providing a parkway centered on the Buckeye Road alignment between Wintersburg Parkway and the Hassayampa River that adequately serves long-term traffic needs. Alternative C generally conforms to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study by providing a parkway centered on the Durango Street alignment between Wintersburg Parkway and the Hassayampa River that adequately serves long-term traffic needs. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage There are existing residential buildings dispersed throughout this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on adjacent buildings or properties. Net Effect: Strong advantage There is generally no existing public R/W along the Alternative A alignment. An additional 200’ of new public R/W will generally be needed for the parkway. Net Effect: Strong advantage There is generally 110’ of existing public R/W along the Alternative B alignment. An additional 90’ of new public R/W will generally be needed for the parkway. Net Effect: Strong advantage There is generally no existing public R/W along the Alternative C alignment. An additional 200’ of new public R/W will generally be needed for the parkway. Alternative A will likely require the relocation/purchase of 16 existing residential buildings as well as R/W acquisition from 82 privately-owned parcels, including 6 full parcel acquisitions. Alternative A will also likely require R/W acquisitions from 5 State Trust Land parcels, 2 of which will be bisected by the parkway. Alternative B will likely require the relocation/purchase of 23 existing residential buildings as well as acquisition from 146 privately-owned parcels, including 14 full parcel acquisitions. One of the parcels from which R/W will likely need to be acquired contains Winters’ Well Elementary School. The parking lot and circulation patterns of the elementary school will likely have to be reconfigured. Alternative B will also likely require R/W acquisitions from 3 State Trust Land parcels. Alternative C will likely require the relocation/purchase of 23 existing residential buildings as well as R/W acquisition from 120 privately-owned parcels, including 25 full parcel acquisitions. Alternative C will also likely require R/W acquisitions from 2 State Trust Land parcels, both of which will be bisected by the parkway Net Effect: Neutral The No-Build Alternative provides an existing two-lane paved arterial centered on the Buckeye Road alignment between Wintersburg Road and 339th Avenue that typically has 110’of right-of-way (R/W). Net Effect: Strong disadvantage Alternative A provides a 200’ parkway centered on the Harrison Street alignment (1/2 mile north of Buckeye Road). Net Effect: Strong disadvantage Alternative B provides a 200’ parkway centered on the Buckeye Road alignment. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage Alternative C provides a 200’ parkway centered on the Durango Street alignment (1/2 mile south of Buckeye Road). The Hidden Waters Ranch planned development is stipulated to provide 100’ of half-street right-of-way for a 200’ parkway centered on the Buckeye Road alignment between 344th Avenue and 343rd Avenue. The Hidden Waters Ranch planned development is stipulated to provide an 80’ collector on the Harrison Street alignment between 347th Avenue and 339th Avenue. The Hidden Waters Ranch planned development is stipulated to provide 100’ of half-street right-of-way for a 200’ parkway along Buckeye Road between 344th Avenue and 343rd Avenue. While there are no approved planned developments through which a parkway on the Durango Street alignment will traverse, the Hidden Waters Ranch planned development assumed the parkway would centered on the Buckeye Road alignment between 344th Avenue and 343rd Avenue. While a roadway does exist along the Buckeye Road alignment where planned development had assumed a roadway would be provided, the No-Build Alternative is not compatible with the approved Hidden Waters Ranch planned development, which assumed a 200’ parkway on Buckeye Road instead of a 110’ arterial to accommodate the projected traffic demands in the area. Providing a 200’ parkway on the Harrison Street alignment is not compatible with the approved Hidden Waters Ranch planned development. Hidden Waters Ranch will be required to provide an additional 120’ of R/W to accommodate the parkway. Planned land uses along the Harrison Street alignment that will be impacted by the wider required R/W for a parkway include an elementary school, a park, and small-lot single family residential. Providing a 200’ parkway on the Buckeye Road alignment is compatible with the approved Hidden Waters Ranch planned development, Providing a 200’ parkway on the Durango Street alignment is not compatible with the approved Hidden Waters Ranch planned development. Net Effect: Disadvantage The existing major utilities identified as being located within this portion of the study area include a natural gas line, overhead 69kV and 500kV electrical lines, a CenturyLink telecommunications building along Buckeye Road east of 371st Avenue, and water wells/tanks dispersed throughout the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on identified utilities. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage Alternative A will cross the natural gas line and overhead 500kV and 69kV electrical lines but should not significantly impact these utilities. Alternative A will likely require the relocation of one water well. Net Effect: Advantage Alternative B will cross the natural gas line and overhead 500kV and 69kV electrical lines but should not significantly impact these utilities. Alternative B will likely require the relocation of the CenturyLink telecommunications building along Buckeye Road east of 371st Avenue unless the parkway alignment can be shifted to the south. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative C will cross the natural gas line and overhead 500kV and 69kV electrical lines but should not significantly impact these utilities. Alternative C will likely require the relocation of four water wells. Net Effect: Neutral Net Effect: Disadvantage Net Effect: Strong disadvantage Net Effect: Disadvantage Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 40 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Table 1 – Yuma Parkway Alternatives Evaluation Matrix: Wintersburg Road to Hassayampa River (continued) Evaluation Criteria Wildlife Impacts Cultural/Archaeological Impacts Drainage Impacts No-Build Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C There are no designated wildlife linkage zones in this portion of the study area, but the Hassayampa River is a de facto wildlife linkage zone. Roadways in the study area do not currently provide wildlife crossing treatments, but wildlife-vehicle conflicts have not been identified as a common occurrence within this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on wildlife. Alternative A will result in a new roadway centered primarily on the Harrison Street alignment that creates an additional barrier to wildlife crossings, particularly where Alternative A crosses the Hassayampa River. The adverse impacts of this additional barrier could be mitigated to some degree by incorporating wildlife crossing treatments into the new roadway design, particularly at the Hassayampa River. Alternative B will result in a wider roadway footprint than currently exists on Buckeye Road, increasing the crossing distance for wildlife. Alternative B will also result in a new roadway across the Hassayampa River that creates an additional barrier to wildlife crossings. The increase in crossing distance and additional barrier could be mitigated to some degree by incorporating wildlife crossing treatments into the new roadway design, particularly at the Hassayampa River. Alternative C will result in a new roadway centered primarily on the Durango Street alignment that creates an additional barrier to wildlife crossings, particularly where Alternative A crosses the Hassayampa River. The adverse impacts of this additional barrier could be mitigated to some degree by incorporating wildlife crossing treatments into the new roadway design, particularly at the Hassayampa River. Net Effect: Neutral There are identified cultural or archaeological resources dispersed throughout this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on identified cultural or archaeological resources. It should be noted that approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative A will likely impact one identified cultural or archaeological resource. Because approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources, it is possible that future surveys conducted as Alternative A is designed could potentially identify additional cultural or archaeological resources that could be impacted by Alternative A. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative B will likely impact three cultural or archaeological resources. Because approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources, it is possible that future surveys conducted as Alternative B is designed could potentially identify additional cultural or archaeological resources that could be impacted by Alternative B. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative C will likely impact one cultural or archaeological resource. Because approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources, it is possible that future surveys conducted as Alternative C is designed could potentially identify additional cultural or archaeological resources that could be impacted by Alternative C. Net Effect: Neutral Phillips Wash, Dickey Wash, and several other smaller unnamed washes carry water through this portion of the study area and across Buckeye Road during flood events, causing occasional roadway closures due to roadway pavement erosion and sedimentation build-up. There are currently no drainage structures to control the flow and lateral migration of the Hassayampa River. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative A provides a continuous all-weather roadway that will include culverts to convey cross-drainage at smaller washes and structures to convey cross-drainage at larger washes such as Phillips Wash and Dickey Wash and to control the flow and lateral migration of the Hassayampa River. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative B provides a continuous all-weather roadway that will include culverts to convey cross-drainage at smaller washes and structures to convey cross-drainage at larger washes such as Phillips Wash and Dickey Wash and to control the flow and lateral migration of the Hassayampa River. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative C provides a continuous all-weather roadway that will include culverts to convey cross-drainage at smaller washes and structures to convey cross-drainage at larger washes such as Phillips Wash and Dickey Wash and to control the flow and lateral migration of the Hassayampa River. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage The No-Build Alternative will not have right-of-way or construction costs but it will have continued on-going maintenance costs related to cross-drainage pavement repairs. Net Effect: Strong advantage Because there is little existing public R/W along the Alternative A alignment and the parkway alignment is curvilinear, Alternative A will likely have right-of-way, construction, and maintenance costs that exceed Alternative B costs and are similar to Alternative C costs. Net Effect: Strong advantage Because there is considerable existing public R/W along the Alternative B alignment and the parkway alignment is straight, Alternative B will likely have right-of-way, construction, and maintenance costs that are less than the costs of Alternative A and Alternative C. Net Effect: Strong advantage Because there is little existing public R/W along the Alternative C alignment and the parkway alignment is curvilinear, Alternative C will likely have right-of-way, construction, and maintenance costs that exceed Alternative B costs and are similar to Alternative A costs. Net Effect: Neutral Public input was mixed regarding the No-Build Alternative. Some residents and property owners expressed concerns about property impacts associated with implementing the parkway while others expressed support for the parkway because it will provide roadway network continuity across the Hassayampa River and provide additional roadway capacity. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage Public input from those in favor of one of the “build” alternatives was generally less supportive of Alternative A than Alternative B. Net Effect: Disadvantage Public input from those in favor of one of the “build” alternatives was generally more supportive of Alternative B than Alternative A or Alternative C. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage Public input from those in favor of one of the “build” alternatives was generally less supportive of Alternative C than Alternative B. Net Effect: Neutral Net Effect: Disadvantage Net Effect: Neutral Net Effect: Disadvantage The No-Build Alternative does not provide a continuous all-weather roadway, will not correct any of the identified drainage issues, and could result in additional future adverse impacts from drainage issues such as roadway erosion and sedimentation. Cost Public Acceptability Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 41 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Table 2 – Yuma Parkway Alternatives Evaluation Matrix: Hassayampa River to Johnson Road Evaluation Criteria System Continuity and Capacity No-Build Alternative Alternative A The No-Build Alternative does not provide a continuous roadway between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road within the study area. The Maricopa Association of Governments Hassayampa Framework Study calls for a parkway in the general vicinity of the Yuma Road alignment between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road to serve long-term traffic needs. The No-Build Alternative does not conform to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study and does not adequately serve long-term traffic needs. Building/Property Impacts Net Effect: Strong disadvantage There are few existing buildings in this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on adjacent buildings or properties. Alternative A generally conforms to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study by providing a parkway centered on the Yuma Road alignment between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road that adequately serves long-term traffic needs. Net Effect: Strong advantage There are generally 0’-65’ of existing public R/W along the Alternative A alignment. Most of the adjacent parcels in this portion of the study area are part of the approved Desert Creek or Cipriani planned developments and as such would not require additional R/W beyond what is already stipulated in the development agreements for a parkway. Alternative A will not require the relocation/purchase of any residential buildings. Alternative A will likely require R/W acquisition from 39 privately-owned parcels, including nine full parcel acquisitions. Alternative A will also likely require R/W acquisition from one State Trust Land parcel. Net Effect: Neutral The No-Build Alternative does not provide any paved roadway between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road within the study area. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative A provides a 200’parkway centered on the Yuma Road alignment. The Desert Creek and Cipriani planned developments are stipulated to provide 100’ of half-street right-of-way (R/W) for a 200’ parkway centered on the Yuma Road alignment between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road. The No-Build Alternative is not compatible with the approved Desert Creek and Cipriani planned developments, which had assumed a 200’ parkway would provide access between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road and the needed capacity to accommodate the projected traffic demands in the area. The Desert Creek and Cipriani planned developments are stipulated to provide 100’ of half-street R/W for a 200’ parkway centered on the Yuma Road alignment between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road. Providing a 200’ parkway on the Yuma Road alignment is compatible with the approved Desert Creek and Cipriani planned developments. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage The existing major utilities identified as being located within this portion of the study area are water wells, most notably the water well owned by the Town of Buckeye along Yuma Road east of Powers Butte Road. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on the identified utility. Net Effect: Strong advantage Alternative A will likely require the relocation of the water well owned by the Town of Buckeye unless the parkway alignment can be shifted to the north. Net Effect: Neutral There are no designated wildlife linkage zones in this portion of the study area and no wildlife-vehicle conflicts have been identified as a common occurrence within this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on wildlife. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative A will result in a new roadway centered on the Yuma Road alignment that creates an additional barrier to wildlife crossings. The adverse impacts of this additional barrier could be mitigated to some degree by incorporating wildlife crossing treatments into the new roadway design. Net Effect: Neutral There are identified cultural or archaeological resources dispersed throughout this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on identified cultural or archaeological resources. It should be noted that approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative A will likely impact two identified cultural or archaeological resources. Because approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources, it is possible that future surveys conducted as Alternative A is designed could potentially identify additional cultural or archaeological resources that could be impacted by Alternative A. Net Effect: Neutral Several small unnamed washes carry water through this portion of the study area during flood events, although the magnitude of the wash flows is relatively small due to the upstream presence of the flood retarding structure just north of I-10. The No-Build Alternative does not provide a continuous all-weather roadway. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative A provides a continuous all-weather roadway that will include culverts to convey cross-drainage at the small washes. Cost Net Effect: Disadvantage The No-Build Alternative will not have right-of-way or construction costs but it will have continued on-going maintenance costs related to dust control and grading for the unpaved roadway between Powers Butte Road and Johnson Road. Net Effect: Advantage Alternative A will have right-of-way, construction, and maintenance costs that are more than the No-Build Alternative costs. Public Acceptability Net Effect: Neutral Public input was mixed regarding the No-Build Alternative. Some residents and property owners expressed concerns about property impacts associated with implementing the parkway while others expressed support for the parkway because it will provide east-west roadway network continuity and provide additional roadway capacity. Net Effect: Disadvantage Public input was mixed regarding Alternative A. Some residents and property owners expressed concerns about property impacts associated with implementing the parkway while others expressed support for the parkway because it will provide eastwest roadway network continuity and provide additional roadway capacity. Net Effect: Neutral Net Effect: Neutral Future Development Compatibility Utility Impacts Wildlife Impacts Cultural/ Archaeological Impacts Drainage Impacts Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 42 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Table 3 – Yuma Parkway Alternatives Evaluation Matrix: Johnson Road to Palo Verde Road Evaluation Criteria System Continuity and Capacity Building/Property Impacts Future Development Compatibility No-Build Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C The No-Build Alternative provides an existing two-lane paved arterial centered on the Yuma Road alignment between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road. The Maricopa Association of Governments Hassayampa Framework Study calls for a parkway in the general vicinity of the Yuma Road alignment between Johnson Road and I-10 to serve long-term traffic needs. The parkway alignment recommended in the Hassayampa Framework Study assumed the airport runway extension would be to the north, meaning a direct east-west connection along the existing Yuma Road alignment would not be feasible. Now that the airport runway extension is planned to be to the south, a direct east-west connection between Johnson Road and I-10 is feasible. The No-Build Alternative does not conform to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study and does not adequately serve long-term traffic needs. Alternative A generally conforms to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study by providing a parkway centered on the existing Yuma Road alignment that curves at Bruner Road to connect to I-10 via proposed frontage roads. Alternative A will likely adequately serve long-term traffic needs, although there may be capacity-related issues resulting from bringing frontage roads into the I-10/Palo Verde Road/Sun Valley Parkway interchange. Alternative B generally conforms to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study by providing a parkway along the general Yuma Road alignment that connects directly to Palo Verde Road, which then connects to I-10. Alternative B adequately serves long-term traffic needs. Alternative C generally conforms to the recommended roadway network connectivity of the Hassayampa Framework Study by providing a parkway centered on the existing Yuma Road alignment that curves near the airport and Hopeville and then connects to Palo Verde Road, which then connects to I10. Alternative C will likely adequately serve long-term traffic needs, although it may not be feasible to provide median breaks through the curved portions of Alternative C, which could result in capacity-related issues at the median breaks on either side of the curved portions. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage There are existing residential buildings dispersed throughout this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on adjacent buildings or properties. Net Effect: Advantage There is generally 90’ of existing public R/W along the straight portion and 0’ of existing public R/W along the curved portion of the Alternative A alignment. An additional 110’ of new public R/W will generally be needed for the straight portion and 200’ of new public R/W for the curved portion of the parkway. Net Effect: Strong advantage There are generally 90’ of existing public R/W along the Alternative B alignment. An additional 110’ of new public right- of-way will generally be needed for the parkway. Net Effect: Advantage There is generally 90’ of existing public R/W along the straight portion and 0’ of existing public R/W along the curved portion of the Alternative C alignment. An additional 110’ of new public R/W will generally be needed for the straight portion and 200’ of new public R/W for the curved portion of the parkway. Alternative A will likely not require the relocation/purchase of any existing residential buildings and R/W acquisition from 15 privately-owned parcels but no full parcel acquisitions. Alternative B will likely not require the relocation/purchase of any existing residential buildings. Alternative B will likely require R/W acquisition from 15 privately-owned parcels and one State Trust Land parcel but no full parcel acquisitions. Alternative C will likely not require the relocation/purchase of any existing residential buildings. Alternative C will likely require R/W acquisition from 14 privately-owned parcels and one State Trust Land parcel that will be bisected by the parkway but no full parcel acquisitions. Net Effect: Neutral The No-Build Alternative provides an existing two-lane paved arterial centered on the Yuma Road alignment between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road that typically has 90’ of right-of-way (R/W). There are two approved planned developments (Desert Creek and Cipriani) just west of this portion of the study area that assumed their developments would ultimately be connected to I-10 via a parkway or other high-capacity roadway to accommodate the projected traffic demands that the planned developments will generate. The planned Buckeye Municipal Airport runway extension to the south impacts this portion of the study area because it is a change from its initial plan for a runway extension to the north, which would have required the realignment or elimination of Yuma Road near the airport. The runway extension to the south will not require the realignment or elimination of Yuma Road near the airport. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative A provides a 200’ parkway centered on the existing Yuma Road alignment from Johnson Road that curves north to cross over I-10 at Bruner Road with no interchange. Proposed frontage roads provide access to I-10 at Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road. This parkway alignment reflects the general alignment recommended in the Hassayampa Framework Study, which was conducted when the airport runway extension was still planned to be to the north. The curved segment of Alternative A bisects some of the parcels near I-10, which could adversely impact the development potential of these properties. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative B provides a 200’ parkway centered on the existing Yuma Road alignment between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road that shifts slightly to the north in the vicinity of the Stotz Dairy and Buckeye Municipal Airport. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative C provides a 200’ parkway centered on the existing Yuma Road alignment between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road that curves north of the Buckeye Municipal Airport and then curves south to connect to Palo Verde Road south of Hopeville. Due to space constraints, these curves will likely require superelevation of approximately 4%, which can make it challenging to provide access points to adjacent properties, thereby adversely impacting the potential for future development through the curves. While a roadway does exist along the Yuma Road alignment where planned developments had assumed a roadway would be provided, the No-Build Alternative is not compatible with the approved planned developments, which had assumed a 200’ parkway on Yuma Road instead of a 90’ arterial to accommodate the projected traffic demands. Alternative A provides a connection to I-10 via proposed frontage roads at Bruner Road, but it is not the direct connection to I-10 via Palo Verde Road that the planned developments prefer now that the airport runway extension will be to the south instead of to the north. Alternative B is compatible with the approved planned developments just west of this portion of the study area because it provides a connection to I-10 via Palo Verde Road. Alternative B is compatible with the airport’s planned runway expansion to the south and the development of adjacent land to the north of the airport. Alternative C is compatible with the approved planned developments just west of this portion of the study area because it provides a connection to I-10 via Palo Verde Road. The curved segments of Alternative C are likely not compatible with future development of adjacent land. Net Effect: Disadvantage Net Effect: Disadvantage Net Effect: Advantage Net Effect: Neutral Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 43 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Table 3 - Yuma Parkway Alternatives Evaluation Matrix: Johnson Road to Palo Verde Road (continued) Evaluation Criteria Utility Impacts Wildlife Impacts Cultural/ Archaeological Impacts Drainage Impacts Cost Public Acceptability No-Build Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C The existing major utilities identified as being located within this portion of the study area are water wells. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on identified utilities. Alternative A will likely require the relocation of one water well. Alternative B will likely not require the relocation of any water wells. Alternative C will likely not require the relocation of any water wells. Net Effect: Neutral There are no designated wildlife linkage zones in this portion of the study area. No roadways in the study area currently provide wildlife crossing treatments, but wildlife-vehicle conflicts have not been identified as a common occurrence within this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on wildlife. Net Effect: Disadvantage The straight portion of Alternative A will result in a wider roadway footprint than currently exists on Yuma Road, increasing the crossing distance for wildlife. The curved portion of Alternative A will result in a new roadway that creates an additional barrier to wildlife crossings. The increase in crossing distance and additional barrier could be mitigated to some degree by incorporating wildlife crossing treatments into the new roadway design. Net Effect: Neutral Alternative B will result in a wider roadway footprint than currently exists on Yuma Road, increasing the crossing distance for wildlife. This increase in crossing distance could be mitigated to some degree by incorporating wildlife crossing treatments into the new roadway design. Net Effect: Neutral The straight portion of Alternative C will result in a wider roadway footprint than currently exists on Yuma Road, increasing the crossing distance for wildlife. The curved portions of Alternative C will result in a new roadway that creates an additional barrier to wildlife crossings. The increase in crossing distance and additional barrier could be mitigated to some degree by incorporating wildlife crossing treatments into the new roadway design. Net Effect: Neutral There are no identified cultural or archaeological resources within this portion of the study area. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on identified cultural or archaeological resources. It should be noted that approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative A will likely impact no known cultural or archaeological resources. Because approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources, it is possible that future surveys conducted as Alternative A is designed could potentially identify additional cultural or archaeological resources that could be impacted by Alternative A. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative B will likely impact no known cultural or archaeological resources. Because approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources, it is possible that future surveys conducted as Alternative B is designed could potentially identify additional cultural or archaeological resources that could be impacted by Alternative B. Net Effect: Disadvantage Alternative C will likely impact no known cultural or archaeological resources. Because approximately 50 percent of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural or archaeological resources, it is possible that future surveys conducted as Alternative C is designed could potentially identify additional cultural or archaeological resources that could be impacted by Alternative C. Net Effect: Neutral There are no identified washes or floodplains in this portion of the study area due to the upstream presence of the flood retarding structure just north of I10. No drainage issues on the existing paved roadway have been identified. The No-Build Alternative does not change the current status and therefore will not have positive or negative impacts on drainage. Net Effect: Neutral Alternative A provides a continuous all-weather roadway that will be designed to avoid creating drainage issues. Net Effect: Neutral Alternative B provides a continuous all-weather roadway that will be designed to avoid creating drainage issues. Net Effect: Neutral Alternative C provides a continuous all-weather roadway will be designed to avoid creating drainage issues. superelevation required on the curves near the airport Hopeville will require more complex drainage design drainage control measures than the other alternatives. Net Effect: Neutral The No-Build Alternative will not have right-of-way or construction costs but it will have continued on-going maintenance costs related to cross-drainage pavement repairs. Net Effect: Neutral Because there is little existing public R/W along the Alternative A alignment and the parkway length is short, Alternative A will likely have right-of-way, construction, and maintenance costs that are less than the Alternative C costs and similar to the Alternative B costs. Net Effect: Neutral Because there is considerable existing public R/W along the Alternative A alignment and the parkway alignment is straight, Alternative B will likely have right-of-way, construction, and maintenance costs that are less than the Alternative C costs and similar to the Alternative A costs. Net Effect: Disadvantage Because there is minimal existing public R/W along the Alternative C alignment and the parkway alignment is curvilinear, Alternative C will likely have right-of-way, construction, and maintenance costs that exceed the costs of Alternative A and Alternative B. Net Effect: Neutral Public input was mixed regarding the No-Build Alternative. Some residents and property owners have expressed concerns about property impacts associated with implementing the parkway while others have expressed support for the parkway because it will provide east-west roadway network continuity and provide additional roadway capacity. Net Effect: Disadvantage Public input from those in favor of one of the “build” alternatives was generally less supportive of Alternative A than Alternative B. Net Effect: Disadvantage Public input to from those in favor of one of the “build” alternatives was generally more supportive of Alternative B than Alternative A or Alternative C. Net Effect: Strong disadvantage Public input from those in favor of one of the “build” alternatives was generally less supportive of Alternative C than Alternative B. Net Effect: Neutral Net Effect: Disadvantage Net Effect: Neutral Net Effect: Disadvantage that The and and Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 44 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Table 4 – Yuma Parkway Candidate Alternatives Evaluation Matrix Summary Wintersburg Road to Hassayampa River Evaluation Criteria No-Build Alt. A Alt. B Hassayampa River to Johnson Road Alt. C No-Build Alt. A Johnson Road to Palo Verde Road No-Build Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C System Continuity and Capacity Building/Property Impacts Future Development Compatibility Utility Impacts Wildlife Impacts Cultural/Archaeological Impacts Drainage Impacts Cost Public Acceptability LEGEND: Strong advantage Advantage Neutral Disadvantage Strong disadvantage Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 45 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 A visual inspection of Table 4, without applying weighting factors to the evaluation criteria, indicates that the No-Build Alternative and Alternative B for the segment between Wintersburg Road and the Hassayampa River have the most positive ratings (i.e., more Strong advantage and Advantage ratings and/or fewer Strong disadvantage and Disadvantage ratings). For the segment between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road, Alternative A has a slightly more positive overall rating than the No-Build Alternative. For the segment between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road, Alternative B has a slightly more positive overall rating. The evaluation results were presented to TAC members and stakeholders at the November 29, 2011 TAC/stakeholder meeting for review and discussion. The evaluation results were also presented for review and input at the third open house on December 6, 2011. Based on TAC, stakeholder, and general public review and feedback on the evaluation results, the preferred alternative for each Yuma Parkway segment is: Between Wintersburg Road and the Hassayampa River – Alternative B (the Buckeye Road alignment); Between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road – Alternative A (the Yuma Road alignment); and Between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road – Alternative B (the Yuma Road alignment). The ratings for the preferred alternative for each Yuma Parkway segment are highlighted in Table 4. Factors that support the selection of the preferred alternative for the three Yuma Parkway study segments include the following: Wintersburg Road to the Hassayampa River The No-Build Alternative will not provide a continuous, all-weather roadway and will not adequately serve projected traffic volumes associated with anticipated build-out land uses. Even though it may be many years before land uses and traffic volumes justify construction of a parkway facility, the transition to higher-intensity land uses is already occurring. Steps need to be taken now to preserve the long-term viability of constructing a parkway in the future by delineating the footprint and preferred location for Yuma Parkway; Alternative B is generally consistent with the Hassayampa Framework Study in that it provides a direct east-west connection between Wintersburg Road and the Hassayampa River, including a bridge across the Hassayampa River, that adequately serves projected traffic volumes associated with anticipated build-out land uses; Alternative B generally follows the Buckeye Road section line, making maximum use of existing roadway right-of-way; Alternative B will result in equitable right-of-way acquisition by generally being centered on the Buckeye Road section line; Alternative B is compatible with the approved Hidden Waters Ranch DMP, which has a stipulation requiring right-of-way preservation for a 200-foot-wide parkway facility along the Buckeye Road section line; Alternative B provides improved drainage facilities that better control cross-drainage and provide opportunities to incorporate wildlife crossing treatments; and 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 46 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway CFS March 2012 Alternative B received the most stakeholder and public support from those in favor of one of the “build” alternatives. Hassayampa River to Johnson Road The No-Build Alternative will not provide a continuous, all-weather roadway and will not adequately serve projected traffic volumes associated with anticipated build-out land uses. Even though it may be many years before land uses and traffic volumes justify construction of a parkway facility, the transition to higher-intensity land uses is already occurring. Steps need to be taken now to preserve the long-term viability of constructing a parkway in the future by delineating the footprint and preferred location for Yuma Parkway; Alternative A is generally consistent with the Hassayampa Framework Study in that it provides a direct east-west connection between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road that adequately serves projected traffic volumes associated with anticipated build-out land uses; Alternative A generally follows the Yuma Road section line, making maximum use of existing roadway right-of-way; Alternative A will result in equitable right-of-way acquisition by generally being centered on the Yuma Road section line; Alternative A is compatible with planned developments. The Desert Creek and Cipriani CMPs both have stipulations requiring right-of-way preservation for a 200-foot-wide parkway facility along the Yuma Road section line; Alternative A provides improved drainage facilities that better control cross-drainage and provide opportunities to incorporate wildlife crossing treatments; and Alternative A received the most stakeholder and public support from those in favor of a “build” alternative. Johnson Road to Palo Verde Road The No-Build Alternative will not provide a continuous, all-weather roadway and will not adequately serve projected traffic volumes associated with anticipated build-out land uses. Even though it may be many years before land uses and traffic volumes justify construction of a parkway facility, the transition to higher-intensity land uses is already occurring. Steps need to be taken now to preserve the long-term viability of constructing a parkway in the future by delineating the footprint and preferred location for Yuma Parkway; Alternative B is generally consistent with the Hassayampa Framework Study in that it provides a direct, continuous east-west connection between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road that adequately serves projected traffic volumes associated with anticipated build-out land uses; Alternative B generally follows the Yuma Road section line, making maximum use of existing roadway right-of-way while minimizing adverse right-of-way impacts on Stotz Dairy and the Buckeye Municipal Airport; Alternative B is compatible with the planned developments of Desert Creek and Cipriani and with the Buckeye Municipal Airport’s planned runway expansion to the south and the development of adjacent land to the north of the airport; and 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 47 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway CFS March 2012 Alternative B provides improved drainage facilities that better control cross-drainage and provide opportunities to incorporate wildlife crossing treatments; and Alternative B received the most stakeholder and public support from those in favor of one of the “build” alternatives. For the reasons enumerated above, the preferred alternative is Alternative B (Buckeye Road alignment) between Wintersburg Road and the Hassayampa River; Alternative A (Yuma Road alignment) between the Hassayampa River and Johnson Road; and Alternative B (Yuma Road alignment) between Johnson Road and Palo Verde Road. The overall preferred alternative for Yuma Parkway is shown in Figure 17. 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 48 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway CFS March 2012 Sources: Maricopa County and MAG 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 Figure 17 – Preferred Alternative 49 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway CFS March 2012 6. DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENTS Technical Memorandum No. 5 – Detailed Preferred Alignment provides detailed information on the proposed alignments and design considerations of the preferred alternative for Yuma Parkway (contained in Appendix 5 of separately published appendices). 6.1 Parkway Design Guidelines and Typical Cross-Sections The Arizona Parkway, by design, is an enhanced arterial roadway which utilizes a distinct intersection treatment that prohibits left turns at major cross-street intersections and controls intersection traffic movements with two-phased traffic signal control. Left-turn movements are made indirectly using left-turn crossovers in the median immediately downstream of cross-street intersections. This design improves the functionality of the parkway, allowing traffic to flow more freely. The improved functionality increases capacity while maintaining local access and a posted speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). The typical right-of-way width for an Arizona Parkway is 200 feet. Guidelines for implementation of an Arizona Parkway are documented in the MCDOT publications Enhanced Parkway Study, Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway, and Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study. Typical urban parkway basic design guidelines and recommendations are summarized as follows: Minimum 200-foot-wide right-of-way. Additional right-of-way and/or easements may be needed for intersections, turn lanes, bus bays, drainage structures, drainage facilities, side slopes, utilities, and landscaping; Twelve-foot-wide outside travel lanes; Fourteen-foot-wide inside lanes (adjacent to the median); A six-foot-wide bicycle lane adjacent to the outside travel lane; Curb, gutter, and a detached six-foot-wide sidewalk; Median width varies based on the number of lanes; Minimum design speeds are 50 mph for rolling terrain and 55 mph for level terrain; and WB-50 is the design vehicle. Parkway typical cross-sections from the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway are shown in Figure 18. The basic Yuma Parkway design configuration is recommended as a six-lane parkway west of Hidden Waters Parkway and an eight-lane parkway east of Hidden Waters Parkway to accommodate projected traffic volumes per the Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study. 6.2 Crossing Features There are a number of locations where major roadways, utilities, drainage washes, and other features will cross the parkway. These crossings will require more detailed analyses during design. The following design considerations relate to the crossing features: Minimum right-of-way width for at-grade parkway-to-parkway intersections is 225 feet on each approach for a distance of 300 feet to accommodate dual right-turn lanes on both parkways; 091337127 Final Report 2010-004, TT005 50 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Northern Parkway/Tonopah Parkway CFS March 2012 Source: MCDOT Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Figure 18 – Parkway Typical Cross-Sections 51 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 There are numerous washes throughout the study area that will require pipe culverts, box culverts, or bridges, which may result in the need for additional right-of-way. For purposes of this study, pipe culverts are assumed to be needed where the peak 100-year flood drainage flows are less than 350 cubic feet per second (cfs), box culverts are assumed to be needed for flows between 350 cfs and 1,400 cfs, and bridges are assumed to be needed for flows greater than 1,400 cfs; There are three anticipated at-grade parkway-to-parkway intersections within the study area: Yuma Parkway/Wintersburg Parkway, Yuma Parkway/Hidden Waters Parkway, and Yuma Parkway/Palo Verde Parkway; The ADOT Freeway-to-Parkway Interchange Templates publication contains guidelines and ten potential design templates for grade-separated freeway-to-parkway interchanges. For purposes of this study, the four templates that support the Arizona Parkway concept and its two-phase signal cycle are considered appropriate potential solutions for the anticipated freeway-to-parkway interchange at Yuma Parkway and the planned Hassayampa Freeway. The four design templates are: Diamond interchange with no direct left turns from the parkway to freeway ramps, Single point urban interchange (SPUI) with no direct left turns from the parkway to the freeway ramps, Diverging diamond interchange (DDI) with cross-overs that allow direct left turns from the parkway to the freeway ramps, and Three-level diamond interchange that provides separate levels for the freeway, parkway, and ramp traffic, allowing for direct left turns on the ramp level only. 6.3 Access Management Guidelines To preserve the operating efficiency of the parkway facilities, a higher level of access management than what is typically applied to arterial streets is recommended. Because MCDOT will not have operational control over all parkway facilities, it will be up to the agencies with jurisdiction over the roadway to apply and enforce access management policies. The following policies are recommended as minimum access management guidelines (per the Design Guideline Recommendations for the Arizona Parkway): Intersections (full median breaks) will preferably be restricted to one-mile spacing, with a minimum spacing of one-half mile, and are only recommended where intersecting with parkway, arterial, or major collector streets; Left turns in any direction are prohibited at all intersections; Left turns from a side-street or driveway onto the parkway are prohibited; Left turns from the parkway to a cross-street or driveway are discouraged due to conflicts between u-turns and right turns; U-turn directional crossovers are recommended to be restricted to a maximum of eight per mile; and Recommended minimum driveway spacing is 165 feet for low-volume segments and 330 feet for high-volume segments. The typical driveway will be limited to right-in/right-out maneuvers. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 52 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 6.4 Detailed Preferred Alignment Drawings Detailed preferred alignment drawings were created that show the parkway centerline and rightof-way limits at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet. The detailed preferred alignment drawings are provided in Appendix A. The preferred alignment centerline and right-of-way limits are subject to more detailed design work that may necessitate some adjustments as roadway profiles, drainage requirements, and land development plans are further defined. In developing the detailed preferred alignment drawings, existing roadway centerlines, section lines, right-of-way lines, and property lines were reviewed to determine the feasibility of following some or all of these lines to the greatest extent possible. At major roadway and drainage wash crossings along the parkway, additional right-of-way will likely be required beyond the basic 200-foot-wide parkway footprint. Areas that may potentially require additional right-of-way are noted in the detailed preferred alignment drawings as being subject to further study as land development and roadway improvement plans are further defined. 6.5 Planning Level Construction Cost Estimates Planning-level construction cost estimates were developed for the preferred Yuma Parkway alignment. Because this study does not include preparation of an “engineered” roadway alignment and does not address detailed design issues for various features, the construction cost estimate was based on generalized unit costs. The planning-level unit cost estimates were applied to the Yuma Parkway preferred alignment characteristics and are summarized in Table 5. The estimated construction cost for Yuma Parkway is $154 million in 2012 dollars. This cost estimate excludes the construction costs of a freeway-to-parkway interchange at the planned Hassayampa Freeway, which is subject to further study and design. Right-of-way acquisition and relocation expenses are also excluded from the cost estimate. A construction unit cost estimate of $9.6 million per mile in 2012 dollars was used for the sixlane segment of Yuma Parkway between Wintersburg Parkway and Hidden Waters Parkway. The unit cost for a six-lane parkway was developed for the Turner Parkway Corridor Feasibility Study, completed by MCDOT in 2010, and is utilized for this study with no inflation factors. A construction unit cost estimate of $10.9 million per mile in 2012 dollars was used for the eightlane parkway segment between Hidden Waters Parkway and Palo Verde Road. The unit cost for an eight-lane parkway was developed by calculating the per-lane-mile cost of the six-lane parkway unit cost, multiplying it by the number of lanes in the eight-lane parkway, and then applying a 15 percent decrease to account for the gained cost efficiency between a six-lane parkway and an eight-lane parkway. The construction unit costs exclude major structural elements for crossing features but do include 20 percent contingencies for addressing drainage requirements. To give a sense of the amount of required drainage facilities anticipated in the study area, the number of anticipated drainage crossings in the study area, along with their relative size and type, were estimated based off aerial photography and required flow capacities and are summarized in Table 6. The major structural elements in the study area are anticipated to include new all-weather bridges over Phillips Wash, Dickey Wash, and the Hassayampa River. Bridge costs were developed by multiplying the anticipated area of each bridge (in square feet) by a bridge construction unit cost estimate of $150 per square foot. The unit cost for bridge construction was derived from typical bridge construction costs on other recently completed projects. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 53 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 Table 5 – Planning-Level Construction Cost Estimates Estimated Units and Costs Facility Characteristic 6-lane Parkway Segment Length (miles) 5 8-lane Parkway Segment Length (miles) 6 Roadway Construction Cost (in millions) $114 Major Structural Elements Bridge Construction Cost (in millions) -Phillips Wash Bridge -Dickey Wash Bridge -Hassayampa River Bridge $8 $8 $24 Total Estimated Construction Cost (in millions) $154 Notes: 1) The estimated roadway construction unit cost for a 6-lane parkway is $9.6 million per mile and for an 8lane parkway is $10.9 million per mile. Per the MCDOT Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, a 6-lane parkway will ultimately be needed from Wintersburg Parkway to Hidden Waters Parkway and an 8-lane parkway will ultimately be needed from Hidden Waters Parkway to Palo Verde Road. 2) The estimated bridge construction unit cost is $150 per square foot of bridge. 3) Major structural elements do not include a freeway-to-parkway interchange at the planned Hassayampa Freeway, which is subject to further study and design. 4) Estimated costs are rounded to the nearest $5 million and are in 2012 dollars. Table 6 – Anticipated Drainage Crossings Crossing Size Number Small (pipe culverts) 3 Medium (box culverts) 8 Large (bridge) 3 Total Drainage Crossings 14 Notes: 1) Pipe culverts are assumed to be needed where the peak 100-year flood drainage flows are less than 350 cubic feet per second (cfs). 2) Box culverts are assumed to be needed for flows between 350 cfs and 1,400 cfs. 3) Bridges are assumed to be needed for flows greater than 1,400 cfs. 6.6 Implementation Strategies It is important to recognize that the Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study is a long-range transportation planning study and is therefore the earliest phase of project development. This study is intended to identify the feasibility of constructing a parkway facility at some future date to accommodate traffic demands that will be associated with future land development within and near the study area. No public funding is currently allocated for design, right-of-way acquisition, or construction of any elements of Yuma Parkway. The recommended centerline and right-of-way limits will be 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 54 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 used to guide future planning efforts and ensure that subsequent land development proposals and transportation system plans are compatible with future construction of Yuma Parkway. Some refinement and negotiation of the parkway centerline and right-of way requirements may occur as properties are developed and as transportation improvements are implemented. The following are key issues captured during this study’s stakeholder and public involvement process that should be taken into consideration as the recommendations of this study are carried forward into design and construction: Developer Participation – It is anticipated that land developers will participate in dedicating right-of-way and participating in project design and construction costs; Funding Strategies – Long-term funding strategies need to be developed that will assist in positioning the parkway corridors to take advantage of future funding opportunities. When and how much funding is needed will be dependent on when and where development occurs, how much developer participation happens, and what the detailed designs call for; Access Management Strategies – Access management strategies that are consistent with the Arizona Parkway design guidelines should be implemented to ensure the parkway provides efficient traffic flow, safe operations, and reasonable local land access; Environmental Impacts – Specific impacts on environmental features, such as natural resources, wildlife habitats, cultural and archaeological resources, noise mitigation, and air quality will require further evaluation during future project development. Wildlife crossing features should be considered in the final project design where appropriate and feasible; New Right-of-way Requirements – Final roadway configurations will need to be developed through a more detailed design process to determine exactly how much land will need to be acquired to accommodate the future parkway; Landscaping Plans – Final project design should specify the type of landscaping to be used; Drainage Structures – Bridges and culverts along the new roadway should be designed during subsequent design efforts that ensure that the roadway is designed to provide allweather crossings during major storm events. Opportunities to create drainage structures that also accommodate wildlife movements across the parkway should be considered where appropriate and feasible; Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Access – Future projects should be designed to accommodate alternative modes of travel and provide access to planned trails and neighborhoods in the area; Coordination with Other Planned Transportation Facilities – Implementation of the parkway should be coordinated with the implementation of other planned transportation facilities that intersect or impact the parkway (e.g., intersecting freeways, parkways, and arterials); Corridor Traffic Management – Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) should be implemented in conjunction with roadway construction to promote efficient traffic operations and management along the parkway corridor; and Jurisdictional Coordination – Implementation of corridor improvement, traffic management, and access management concepts should be coordinated among the responsible jurisdictions to ensure safe, seamless, and efficient transportation facilities. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 55 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 6.7 Next Steps Agencies with primary responsibility for implementing the recommendations of this study are Maricopa County Town of Buckeye, and ADOT. Among the critical long-range planning actions that need to commence are: Maricopa County and Town of Buckeye adoption/acceptance of the Arizona Parkway designation and general preferred alignment for Yuma Parkway; Right-of-way preservation in developing areas as needed to protect the long-term viability of the parkway facilities; Preparation of Design Concept Reports for consideration in project programming; Appropriation of funding for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction as needed for joint participation with land developers; and Coordination among the jurisdictions and key stakeholders on planning, right-of-way preservation, and design. While implementation timing of Yuma Parkway will be driven by land development, it is up to the public sector agencies to establish the transportation system planning framework now to be responsive to future land development interests while also protecting the broader long-term public interests. 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 56 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OVERVIEW Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Public and Stakeholder Participation documents the results of the interaction with partnering agencies, stakeholders, and the general public throughout the course of the study (contained in Appendix 6 of separately published appendices). Engaging partnering agencies, stakeholders, and the public in building consensus has been and will continue to be critical to the success of this study, as well as any future implementation of its recommendations. 7.1 TAC and Stakeholders A combined TAC and stakeholder group was established by MCDOT to provide technical oversight and guidance throughout the study duration. The TAC and stakeholder group included over 60 individuals representing the following: ADOT; ASLD; AZGFD; BLM; Community of Hopeville; Community of Wintersburg; FHWA; FCDMC; Land developers; MAG; MCDOT: TAC/stakeholder meeting Maricopa County Farm Bureau; Maricopa County Planning and Development Department; Maricopa County Supervisor – District 4; Private property owners and residents; School District representatives; Tonopah Valley Fire District; Town of Buckeye; and Utility providers. The role and responsibility of the TAC and stakeholder group was to meet at key decision and milestone points during the study to receive information on study progress, offer advice and guidance on study issues, inform the management of their respective agencies and organizations of the study progress, and build consensus on study recommendations. The TAC and stakeholders were also requested to review and comment on all draft technical memoranda and the draft final report. 7.2 TAC/Stakeholder Meetings All individuals in the stakeholder database were invited to participate in four TAC/stakeholder meetings that were scheduled at key milestones throughout the study process as follows: 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 57 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 May 23, 2011 – Study Purpose, Data Collection, and Issues Identification; July 26, 2011 – Review Existing and Future Corridor Features, Environmental Overview, Conceptual Drainage Report, Constraints, and Evaluation Criteria; September 22, 2011 – Review Conceptual Alternatives and Develop Candidate Alternatives; and November 29, 2011 – Review Alternatives Evaluation, Discuss Preferred Alignment, and Develop Consensus on Study Recommendations. Additional one-on-one meetings with stakeholders were conducted where necessary to obtain stakeholder input. All meetings were well attended with a valuable exchange of questions, answers, and input to the study findings and recommendations. 7.3 Public Open Houses The MCDOT RightRoads Program, with assistance from the study team, conducted three public open house meetings at critical milestones in the study process as follows: May 24, 2011 – “Scoping Phase” public meeting to provide area residents and other impacted stakeholders with an opportunity to inform study team members about the study area issues and local transportation needs. This meeting also provided the study team members with an opportunity to discuss and elicit feedback regarding the study purpose, goals and objectives; October 4, 2011 – “Alternatives Analysis Phase” public meeting to provide the community an opportunity to comment on the roadway alignment alternatives being evaluated for the corridor; and December 6, 2011 – “Study Findings and Recommendations Phase” public meeting to present the findings and recommendations of the study, including the preferred parkway alignment, the right-of-way footprint, and preliminary engineering details for the future Yuma Parkway. The public meetings were conducted in an “open house” format at the Winters’ Well Elementary School to provide a free, open, and accurate exchange of information between the study team and the public regarding specific issues and questions. Graphics, handouts, aerials, and display board exhibits presented study information. Comment sheets were distributed to all those in attendance so they could provide written comments. Meeting summaries were prepared that summarize the input received from the public. Public open house 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 58 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 APPENDIX A DETAILED PREFERRED ALIGNMENT DRAWINGS – RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR 091337133 Final Report 2010-055, TT005 Maricopa County Department of Transportation Yuma Parkway Feasibility Study March 2012 YUM A PKW Y T MI EASTERN LI SHEET 11 PALO VERDE RD SHEET 10 NE A M ATCH LI SEE BELOW LEFT 339TH AVE 347TH AVE JOHNSON RD SHEET 9 315TH AVE SHEET 8 SHEET 5 SHEET 4 355TH AVE 363RD AVE HASSAYAM PA VER RI SHEET 7 331ST AVE SHEET 3 BRUNER RD SHEET 2 371ST AVE NTERSBURG RD WI YUM A PKW Y T MI W ESTERN LI NE B M ATCH LI GHT SEE ABOVE RI SHEET 6 SCALE: Hor: 1"=2400’ Vert: N/A 1200 0 1200 2400 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+Key. dgn SHEET 1 MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR KEY MAP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NTERSBURG RD WI Construction C L 225’ 55’ 45’ 45’ 55’ 50641001A 50641002A 50641003A 50641004A 50641005A 50641006A 50641007A 50641008A 50641009A 50641010A 300’ 50641011A 45’ 55’ EXISTING BUCKEYE RD 50641012A 55’ 45’ 55’ 57. 5’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY Exst R/W Exst Parcel Boundary New R/W 50641133C 50641138F 375TH AVE 376TH AVE 50641138E 377TH AVE NE STA 121+00 SEE BELO W LEFT M ATCH LI 120+00 115+00 New R/W 50641097A Exst R/W 57. 5’ 55’ 112. 5’ 112. 5’ 100’ 100’ 110+00 105+00 100+00 95+00 T MI YUM A PKW Y W ESTERN LI 300’ ERCHANGE NT ERSBURG PKWYI NT WI ANNEDYUMAPKWY/ PL UDY HERST URT OF ECTT SSUBJ T MI I WL R/ Preliminary Wash Crossing R/W Limits Subject To Further Study 50633559S 145+00 Construction C L 50633618 45’ 55’ 60’ 45’ 55’ 55’ 45’ 55’ 45’ 55’ 45’ 40’ 55’ 45’ EXISTING BUCKEYE RD 45’ 55’ 55’ 45’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY Exst R/W New R/W 50641138M 50641131F 50641131M 50641131Y 50641140T 50641131N 50641140S 373RD AVE 50641138L Exst Parcel Boundary 50641140P 1502+00 M ATCH LI NE STA 150+00 SHEET 50633619 140+00 135+00 130+00 125+00 New R/W 45’ 55’ GHT NE STA 121+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50633559F 50633558A Exst R/W 50641140N SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+1. dgn Proposed Box Culvert Crossing - 848 cfs MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 1 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NE STA 178+00 SEE BELOW LEFT M ATCH LI Construction C L Exst Parcel Boundary 175+00 New R/W 50641114H 50641562B 170+00 50641114T 368TH DR 50641110 165+00 50641107A 50641107C 160+00 155+00 371ST AVE 150+00 NE STA 150+00 SHEET 1 M ATCH LI 50633559S 55’ 45’ 55’ 45’ Exst R/W 45’ 55’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 45’ 55’ 45’ 55’ 45’ 55’ 50’ 50’ 55’ 45’ 50641562A EXISTING BUCKEYE RD Exst R/W 50641480D 50641324 369TH AVE 50641140K 369TH DR New R/W 50641481 50641287 50641299E 50641291 50641299F 50641299A 50641105C Construction C L 205+00 50641101F 200+00 New R/W 195+00 50641101E 190+00 185+00 180+00 50641105R EXISTING BUCKEYE RD 55’ 45’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 45’ 55’ 55’ 45’ Exst R/W 45’ 55’ GHT NE STA 178+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50641105K 50641302 50641294A 50641292 50641303 50641304 Exst Parcel Boundary 50641127F 50641127H 50641127G 365TH AVE 367TH AVE 50641299A 50641127J Exst R/W New R/W SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+2. dgn 50641114H 50641557 Proposed Box Culvert Crossing - 1,045 cfs M ATCH LI NE STA 207+00 SHEET 3 R/W Limits Subject To Further Study 363RD AVE Preliminary Wash Crossing - MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 2 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 50641118Y 230+00 Construction C L 225+00 220+00 New R/W 50641118L 50641118K 215+00 210+00 50641118J 50641479 EXISTING BUCKEYE RD 55’ 45’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 50641116D 45’ 55’ 55’ 45’ Exst R/W 45’ 55’ NE STA 207+00 SHEET 2 M ATCH LI 50641478 NE STA 234+00 SEE BELOW LEFT M ATCH LI Exst Parcel Boundary 359TH AVE ERCHANGE NT WYI HASSAYAMPAF ANNEDYUMAPKWY/ PL UDY HERST URT OF ECTT SSUBJ T MI I WL R/ Exst R/W New R/W 50641408 50641119E 50641119M 50641409 50641171H 50641412B 359TH AVE Proposed Bridge Crossing - 2,107 cfs 50641116J M ATCH LI NE STA 263+00 SHEET 4 Construction C L 255+00 New R/W 250+00 50641116X 260+00 50641116P 50641357 245+00 50641116Y 240+00 235+00 R/W Limits Subject To Further Study 100’ 55’ 45’ 45’ 55’ EXISTING BUCKEYE RD Exst Parcel Boundary 45’ 55’ 55’ 45’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 45’ 55’ Exst R/W Exst R/W New R/W 50641229 50641230 50641231 50641232 50641233 355TH AVE 50641171J 50641228 Exst Parcel Boundary 357TH AVE 50641171H 50641227 359TH AVE GHT NE STA 234+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50641116D Preliminary Wash Crossing - 50641234 50412155 50412156 SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+3. dgn Phillips Wash MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 3 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 50412004V NE STA 292+00 SEE BELOW LEFT M ATCH LI Construction C L 50412004H 290+00 New R/W 285+00 50412004D 280+00 275+00 270+00 55’ 45’ 100’ EXISTING BUCKEYE RD 55’ 45’ 55’ 45’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 45’ 55’ Exst R/W 45’ 55’ 265+00 45’ 55’ 100’ NE STA 263+00 SHEET 3 M ATCH LI Exst Parcel Boundary 50412164 Exst R/W 50412025S 50412023P New R/W 50412025P 50412023L 350TH AVE 50412026P 351ST AVE 353RD AVE 50412025J 50412023R R/W Limits Subject To Further Study Construction C L 45’ 55’ EXISTING BUCKEYE RD Exst R/W Exst Parcel Boundary 50412082E 50412082F 50412023H 347TH AVE 50412082D 348TH AVE 349TH AVE New R/W 50412023P Exst Parcel Boundary 55’ 45’ 55’ 45’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 50412147A 100’ 55’ 45’ Exst R/W 320+00 50412001V 315+00 New R/W 50412169 50412165 50412001D 310+00 50412001M 305+00 50412001R 100’ GHT NE STA 292+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50412004M SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+4. dgn 50412004H 300+00 295+00 Proposed Bridge Crossing - 1,571 cfs M ATCH LI NE STA 321+00 SHEET 5 Preliminary Wash Crossing - 345TH DR Dickey Wash MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 4 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Luke Wash Preliminary Wash Crossing R/W Limits Subject To Further Study NE STA 349+00 SEE BELOW LEFT M ATCH LI Construction C L 345+00 New R/W 50412050K 340+00 335+00 330+00 50412151 55’ 45’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 45’ 55’ EXISTING BUCKEYE RD 55’ 45’ 55’ 45’ Exst R/W 45’ 55’ 325+00 50412094D 50412094H 50412050N 50412050M 100’ 50412006Y 50412006S Exst R/W New R/W 50412011C 50412011B Exst Parcel Boundary 341ST DR 50412011H 343RD AVE 9: 33: 17 AM 12/ 10/ 2011 NE STA 321+00 SHEET 4 M ATCH LI Proposed Box Culvert Crossing - 702 cfs 50412051T 50412051Z 50412051V 50412146C 50412051R ERCHANGE NT ERSPKWYI DDENWAT HI ANNEDYUMAPKWY/ PL UDY HERST URT OF ECTT SSUBJ T MI I WL R/ M ATCH LI NE STA 378+00 SHEET 6 100’ 45’ 55’ 100’ 55’ 45’ 55’ 45’ CKENBURG RD WI 50413062 Exst R/W 225’ 339TH AVE 341ST AVE 50412051R Exst R/W 45’ 55’ 55’ 57. 5’ EXISTING BUCKEYE RD 57. 5’ 55’ 55’ 57. 5’ 55’ 45’ 45’ 55’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 57. 5’ 55’ 55’ 45’ 300’ 300’ New R/W 375+00 370+00 Construction C L 365+00 360+00 50413046 45’ 55’ New R/W 355+00 350+00 GHT NE STA 349+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50412151 50413045 100 50413018F SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+5. dgn 50413061 Exst Parcel Boundary MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 5 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Wash Crossing - BELO W LE FT 400+00 100’ New R/W D 1 1 0 3 1 4 0 5 +00 430 425+00 Exst Parcel Boundary 750’ us= 4, i ve Rad Cur 50413019C 420+00 415+00 Poi ntofR ever se Cu r ve 41 2+25 50413019E D YER UCKE B G N I ST EXI 100’ 410+00 405+00 50413018T 50413018S 50413018P M ATC Exst Parcel Boundary Construction C L ’ 100 100’ ’ 100 4, 750’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY J 1 1 0 3 1 4 0 5 5 0 4 1 3 0 2 0 New R/W E T AV 331S Cur ve Radi us= GHT NE STA 404+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50413018F H LI NE ST A 404 +00 S EE EXISTING BUCKEYE RD Proposed Box Culvert Crossing - 495 cfs 7 ET SHE +00 1 3 4 STA NE I HL C T MA 100’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY New R/W K 1 1 0 3 1 4 0 5 SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+6. dgn 395+00 390+00 385+00 Exst Parcel Boundary Construction C L R/W Limits Subject To Further Study 100’ 100’ NE STA 378+00 SHEET 5 M ATCH LI 380+00 Proposed Box Culvert Crossing - 404 cfs New R/W Preliminary Wash Crossing - Poi ntofCur ve 396+59 R/W Limits Subject To Further Study MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 6 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 442+27 Construction C L 5 0 4 1 3 0 1 6 A ANNEDYUMAPKWY PL 100’ 50413011K Cur ve R 5 0 4 1 3 0 1 1 J 100’ adi us= 4, 750’ 100’ New R/W 5 0 4 1 3 0 1 7 A M AT CH L I NE S TA 4 59+0 0 SE E BE LO W LEFT 455+0 0 Exst Parcel Boundary Poi ntof Tang ency 456+ 87 5 0 4 1 3 0 1 6 B 450+00 445+00 440+00 ve se Cur ver ntofRe Poi Proposed Bridge Crossing - 75,164 cfs 100’ Cur ve Radi us= 4, 750’ New R/W R/W Limits Subject To Further Study AM AY R SS VE HA RI M ATCH 12/ 10/ 2011 LI NE STA 431+00 SHEET 6 435+00 5 0 4 1 3 0 1 1 D Preliminary River Crossing - PA 5 0 4 1 3 0 1 7 D Preliminary Wash Crossing R/W Limits Subject To Further Study 100’ EXISTING YUMA RD Exst Parcel Boundary 50413017D 50431020M New R/W M ATCH LI NE STA 487+00 SHEET 8 100’ Exst Parcel Boundary PLANNED YUMA PKWY 100’ 485+00 480+00 Construction C L 475+00 50414345C 50414345E 470+00 465+00 New R/W 100’ 460+00 GHT NE STA 459+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50413016A 50431019C 50431020K SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+7. dgn Proposed Box Culvert Crossing - 1,040 cfs MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 7 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Wash Crossing R/W Limits Subject To Further Study Proposed Box Culvert Crossing - 774 cfs EXISTING YUMA RD 540+00 Exst R/W EXISTING YUMA RD Exst Parcel Boundary New R/W 50431004K 50431018 50431004L 50431004U 50431004T 515+00 M ATCH LI NE STA 541+00 SHEET 9 PLANNED YUMA PKWY 100’ Construction C L 100’ 100’ New R/W 50431018 535+00 525+00 50431005G 100’ 100’ Exst Parcel Boundary 530+00 POW ERS BUTTE RD 520+00 35’ Exst Parcel Boundary 65’ 515+00 GHT NE STA 515+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50467029D 315TH AVE 50467029B 50467030 Town of Buckeye Well New R/W NE STA 515+00 SEE BELOW LEFT M ATCH LI 35’ 65’ 100’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 100’ 100’ 65’ Exst R/W Exst R/W 50431019C 50431004D SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+8. dgn 50467030 50467031 505+00 35’ New R/W Exst Parcel Boundary 50467032D 500+00 495+00 490+00 100’ NE STA 487+00 SHEET 7 M ATCH LI 12/ 10/ 2011 Construction C L 50467032E 510+00 50467032C 50414345C MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 8 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 309TH AVE White Tanks Wash New R/W 50461023T Exst Parcel Boundary Exst Parcel Boundary PLANNED YUMA PKWY 50431004Y 50431004V 60’ 50431004N 50431001G 50431001G 50431004W 50431001H 50431001H 60’ 50431004X 50431004R 100’ 40’ 100’ Construction C L 50461023L NE STA 567+00 SEE BELOW LEFT M ATCH LI 50461023N 560+00 555+00 550+00 NE STA 541+00 SHEET 8 M ATCH LI 545+00 Proposed Pipe Culvert Crossing - 342 cfs 40’ R/W Limits Subject To Further Study 565+00 Preliminary Wash Crossing - EXISTING YUMA RD New R/W 50431004P 50431004S 50431001J Preliminary Wash Crossing - Construction C L 3 2 0 5 1 4 0 5 100’ 40’ VARI ES 100’ 40’ EXISTING YUMA RD J 1 0 0 1 3 4 0 5 JOHNSON RD New R/W Exst Parcel Boundary Y 7 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 Exst R/W Z 7 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 Cur ve Radi us= 34, 000’ 60’ H 1 0 0 1 3 4 0 5 305TH AVE 100’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 100’ 585+00 575+00 570+00 A 2 2 0 5 1 4 0 5 G 1 0 0 1 3 4 0 5 60’ GHT NE STA 567+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 1 2 0 5 1 4 0 5 Exst R/W Exst Parcel Boundary N 7 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+9. dgn New R/W E 2 2 0 5 1 4 0 5 580+00 V 3 2 0 1 6 4 0 5 L 3 2 0 1 6 4 0 5 M ATCH LI NE STA 593+00 SHEET 10 Proposed Pipe Culvert Crossing - 308 cfs 590+00 Poi ntofCur ve 589+72 R/W Limits Subject To Further Study MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 9 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NE STA 619+00 SEE BELO W LEFT M ATCH LI 10’ 100’ 615+00 M ATCH LI NE STA 644+00 SHEET 11 100’ 13’ 640+00 Exst R/W 100’ 635+00 Construction C L 303RD AVE Exst R/W BRUNER RD New R/W 97’ EXISTING YUMA RD 97’ 90’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 50415030D 13’ ntofTangency 633+95 Poi 630+00 New R/W Cur ve Radi us= 26, 000’ A 6 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 625+00 Poi ntofCur ve 623+53 Exst Parcel Boundary Exst R/W 100’ 10’ 610+00 605+00 100’ EXISTING YUMA RD 90’ 100’ 90’ 600+00 10’ 100’ 100’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY P 7 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 620+00 GHT NE STA 619+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI Construction C L New R/W 50415019C Exst Parcel Boundary SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+10. dgn New R/W Exst R/W 90’ Cur ve Radi us= 34, 000’ N 7 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 C 9 1 0 5 1 4 0 5 D 9 1 0 5 1 4 0 5 10’ 6 1 0 5 1 4 0 5 595+00 NE STA 593+00 SHEET 9 M ATCH LI 3 2 0 5 1 4 0 5 Poi ntofTangency 600+48 gn i s s o hCr s yWa r a n mi i l e Pr y d u St r e h t r u oF T t c e j b sSu t mi i WL R/ s f 6c 5 5 gn i s s o Cr t r e v l xCu dBo e s o p o Pr MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 10 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NE STA 669+00 SEE BELOW LEFT M ATCH LI Exst R/W 100’ 79’ 87’ 13’ EXISTING YUMA RD New R/W 21’ Construction C L Exst R/W PLANNED YUMA PKWY 87’ 50415029K 100’ 50415029J 665+00 660+00 655+00 New R/W 100’ 13’ 650+00 645+00 100’ 97’ 13’ NE STA 644+00 SHEET 10 M ATCH LI 12/ 10/ 2011 10: 07: 14 AM 50415030D Exst Parcel Boundary Exst Parcel Boundary ERCHANGE NT EYPKWYI L SUNVAL ANNEDYUMAPKWY/ PL UDY HERST URT OF ECTT SSUBJ T MI I WL R/ Preliminary Wash Crossing R/W Limits Subject To Further Study 690+00 100’ 55’ YUM A PKW Y EASTERN LI MI T PALO VERDE RD EXISTING YUMA RD Exst Parcel Boundary 225’ New R/W Exst R/W 61’ 112. 5’ PLANNED YUMA PKWY 61’ 21’ 95’ 112. 5’ 21’ Exst Parcel Boundary New R/W 253’ 91. 5’ 79’ 272’ 112. 5’ 100’ 300’ 50416019L 55’ 50415029F 685+00 680+00 675+00 670+00 Construction C L 21’ GHT NE STA 669+00 SEE ABOVE RI M ATCH LI 50415029K Exst R/W SCALE:Hor: 1"=200’ Vert: N/A 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CO RI P A M A K: \ PHX_Syst em s\ 091337133M CDOT Yum a Par kway\ CADD\ Desi gn\ Desi gn Fi l e\ PS_Pl an+11. dgn Proposed Pipe Culvert Crossing - 76 cfs MARICOPA A R IZ O N A DEPARTMENT C O UN T Y OF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION YUMA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY MCDOT PROJECT NO. TT005 CONTRACT NO. 2010-055 RECOMMENDED FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR SHEET 11 OF 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.