2. RPT 2025 Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan

FINAL REPORT I OCTOBER 2025

CITY OF YUMA INTEGRATED MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
FINAL REPORT
OCTOBER 2025
Prepared for:
City of Yuma
1 City Plaza
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Prepared By: In Association With:

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES-1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
What Is A Transportation Master Plan? ..................................................................................................................... 1
Planning Process ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Study Area ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Previous Planning Efforts .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Demographic Profile .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Health Assessment .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Roadway Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Transit Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 40
Active Transportation Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 42
Rail Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 46
Aviation Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 46
Transportation Safety Review .................................................................................................................................. 48
Opportunities and Constraints ................................................................................................................................. 54
Future Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 56
Previous Planning Efforts ........................................................................................................................................ 56
Future Demographic Profile ..................................................................................................................................... 60
Future Health Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 64
Future Roadway Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 66
Future Opportunities And Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 74
2025 TMP Vision, Goals, Metrics, and Objectives ................................................................................... 76
2025 TMP Vision Statement .................................................................................................................................... 76
2025 TMP Goals, Objectives, and Metrics .............................................................................................................. 76
Scenario Development and Evaluation .................................................................................................... 80
Roadway System Scenarios .................................................................................................................................... 80
Multimodal Transportation Scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 85
Project Prioritization .................................................................................................................................. 88
Recommended Scenarios ....................................................................................................................................... 88
Prioritization Matrix .................................................................................................................................................. 88
Prioritization Results ................................................................................................................................................ 89
Plan for Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 90
Recommended Projects by Mode ............................................................................................................................ 90
Planning-Level Unit Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 90
Implementation Timeframes .................................................................................................................................... 96
Congestion Assessment with Recommended Improvements ................................................................................ 108
Health Assessment of Recommended Improvements ........................................................................................... 110
Other Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 112
i

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Public Engagement ................................................................................................................................. 118
Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................................ 124
Coordination with Other Entities ............................................................................................................................ 124
Potential Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 124
Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................. 126
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. A
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. B
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................. C
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................................. D
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................................... E
ii

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
List of Figures
Figure ES-1. Project Development Process ............................................................................................................. ES-4
Figure ES-2. Recommended Roadway Projects ...................................................................................................... ES-5
Figure ES-3. Recommended Pedestrian Projects.................................................................................................... ES-6
Figure ES-4. Recommended Bicyclist Projects ........................................................................................................ ES-7
Figure ES-5. Recommended Transit Projects .......................................................................................................... ES-8
Figure ES-6. Recommended Near-Term Projects ................................................................................................. ES-11
Figure ES-7. Recommended Mid-Term Projects ................................................................................................... ES-12
Figure ES-8. Recommended Long-Term Projects ................................................................................................. ES-13
Figure 9. Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 10. City of Yuma Historical Population ................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 11. Existing Population Density by TAZ .............................................................................................................. 5
Figure 12. Existing Dwelling Units by TAZ ..................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 13. Existing Employment by TAZ ........................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 14. City of Yuma Employment (2012 – 2021) ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 15. Land Ownership ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 16. Land Use..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 17. Sub-Area YMPO Winter Traffic Count Change Compared to YMPO Model Estimated Average Condition
Volumes ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 18. Areas of Persistent Poverty and Historically Disadvantaged Communities ................................................ 13
Figure 19. Vehicle Access to Healthcare ..................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 20. City of Yuma Access to Transit ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 21. City of Yuma Access to Parks ..................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 22. City of Yuma Bicyclist Facility Access ......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 23. Long-term Transportation-Related PM2.5 Exposure Risk .......................................................................... 18
Figure 24. Transportation-Related Noise Exposure ..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 25: Linkages Between the Built Environment and Community Health .............................................................. 20
Figure 26: N-PHAM Model Data Inputs and Outcomes ............................................................................................... 21
Figure 27. N-PHAM Estimated Adult Prevalence of Body Mass Index Greater Than 30 ............................................. 22
Figure 28. N-PHAM Estimated Adult Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes .......................................................................... 23
Figure 29. N-PHAM Estimated Adult Prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease ............................................................. 24
Figure 30. N-PHAM Estimated Adult Prevalence of High Blood Pressure/Hypertension ............................................. 25
Figure 31. N-PHAM Estimated Cost of Illness ............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 32. Existing Federal Functional Classifications ................................................................................................. 28
Figure 33. Existing City of Yuma Roadway Classifications .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 34. Existing Number of Through Lanes............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 35. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes for Average Traffic Conditions .................................................................... 32
Figure 36. Existing Roadway LOS for Average Traffic Conditions ............................................................................... 34
Figure 37. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes for Peak Traffic Conditions ......................................................................... 35
Figure 38. Existing Roadway LOS for Peak Traffic Conditions .................................................................................... 36
iii

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 39. Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 40. Signals and ITS Infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 41. Total YCAT Ridership (2019 – 2023) .......................................................................................................... 40
Figure 42. Bus Routes and Stops ................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 43. Active Transportation Facilities ................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 44. Community Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 45. Existing Sidewalk Facilities and Deficiencies .............................................................................................. 45
Figure 46. Existing Rail Infrastructure and Crossings .................................................................................................. 47
Figure 47. Crashes by Year (2014-2023) ..................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 48. All Crashes Densities and Severities (2014-2023) ...................................................................................... 49
Figure 49. All Crashes by Severity (2014-2023) .......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 50. All Crashes by Type (2014-2023) ............................................................................................................... 50
Figure 51. Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Type (2014-2023).............................................................................. 51
Figure 52. Bicyclist-Involved and Pedestrian-Involved Crashes (2014-2023) .............................................................. 51
Figure 53. Pedestrian-Involved and Bicyclist-Involved Crash Densities and Severity (2014-2023) ............................. 52
Figure 54. Truck-Involved Crashes by Year ................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 55. Existing Conditions SWOT Analysis Components ...................................................................................... 54
Figure 56. Programmed Transportation Improvements by Cost and Project Type (2025-2029) .................................. 56
Figure 57. Future Roadway Planned Improvements by Cost and Type ....................................................................... 57
Figure 58. Future Pedestrian Planned Improvements by Cost and Type..................................................................... 58
Figure 59. Future Bicycle Planned Improvements by Cost and Type .......................................................................... 58
Figure 60. Future Multimodal Planned Improvements by Cost and Type .................................................................... 59
Figure 61. Historical and Forecasted Population for Yuma County ............................................................................. 60
Figure 62. Population Growth (2050) by TAZ............................................................................................................... 61
Figure 63. Dwelling Unit Growth (2050) by TAZ ........................................................................................................... 62
Figure 64. Employment Growth (2050) by TAZ............................................................................................................ 63
Figure 65: N-PHAM Estimated Chronic Disease Rates in 2023 and 2050 No Build .................................................... 64
Figure 66: 2050 No Build Access to Bicyclist Features ................................................................................................ 65
Figure 67. 2050 No Build Average Traffic Condition Volumes ..................................................................................... 67
Figure 68. 2050 No Build Average Traffic Condition LOS ............................................................................................ 68
Figure 69. Change in Traffic Volumes (2023-2050 No Build Average Traffic Condition) ............................................. 69
Figure 70. 2050 No Build Peak Traffic Condition Volumes .......................................................................................... 71
Figure 71. 2050 No Build Peak Traffic Condition LOS ................................................................................................. 72
Figure 72. Future Conditions SWOT Analysis Components ........................................................................................ 74
Figure 73. Recommended Roadway Projects .............................................................................................................. 92
Figure 74. Recommended Pedestrian Projects............................................................................................................ 93
Figure 75. Recommended Bicyclist Projects ................................................................................................................ 94
Figure 76. Recommended Transit Projects .................................................................................................................. 95
Figure 77. Recommended Near-Term Projects ........................................................................................................... 99
Figure 78. Recommended Mid-Term Projects ........................................................................................................... 102
Figure 79. Recommended Long-Term Projects ......................................................................................................... 107
iv

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 80. 2050 Build Number of Lanes .................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 81. Recommended Roadway Network at Buildout .......................................................................................... 116
Figure 82. Recommended Speed Limit Changes ...................................................................................................... 117
Figure 83. Social Media Post ..................................................................................................................................... 118
Figure 84. Online Interactive Comment Map ............................................................................................................. 119
Figure 85. Public Coordinate Website Comment Types ............................................................................................ 119
Figure 86. Survey Responses for Modes of Transportation Regularly Used ............................................................. 120
Figure 87. Survey Responses for the Biggest Transportation Challenge or Concern ................................................ 120
Figure 88. Survey Responses for Conditions of Facilities Used to Travel .................................................................. 121
Figure 89. Survey Responses for Future Modal Improvement Planning Priorities ..................................................... 121
Figure 90. Public Outreach at the Downtown Winter Fest ......................................................................................... 122
v

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
List of Tables
Table ES-1. Existing Conditions SWOT Analysis..................................................................................................... ES-2
Table ES-2. Future Conditions SWOT Analysis ....................................................................................................... ES-3
Table 3. TMP Project Cost Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-4
Table 4. Volume-to-Capacity LOS Thresholds ............................................................................................................. 33
Table 5. Roadway Network Goals, Objectives, and Metrics ........................................................................................ 76
Table 6. Transit Network Goals, Objectives, and Metrics ............................................................................................ 77
Table 7. Pedestrian Network Goals, Objectives, and Metrics ...................................................................................... 78
Table 8. Bicyclist Network Goals, Objectives, and Metrics .......................................................................................... 79
Table 9. Goal Alignment with Prioritization Metrics and Weighting .............................................................................. 88
Table 10. Roadway Project Unit Costs ........................................................................................................................ 90
Table 11. Active Transportation Project Unit Costs ...................................................................................................... 90
Table 12. Transit Project Unit Costs ............................................................................................................................ 91
Table 13. Right-of-Way Unit Costs ............................................................................................................................... 91
Table 14. Recommended Projects Cost Summary by Implementation Timeframe ...................................................... 96
Table 15. Recommended Near-Term Projects............................................................................................................. 96
Table 16. Recommended Mid-Term Projects............................................................................................................. 100
Table 17. Recommended Long-Term Projects .......................................................................................................... 103
Table 18. 2023 Existing, 2050 No Build, and 2050 Build Scenario Performance Metric Comparison ....................... 108
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Roadway System Scenarios
Appendix B: Potential Transit, Bicyclist, and Pedestrian Solutions
Appendix C: Solution Prioritization Results
Appendix D: UD4H Health Assessment and Recommendations
Appendix E: Public Outreach Results
vi

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Acronyms
ADA ................................................................................................................................. Americans with Disabilities Act
ADOT ................................................................................................................... Arizona Department of Transportation
BIP ....................................................................................................................................... Bridge Investment Program
CIP ................................................................................................................................... Capital Improvement Program
City .............................................................................................................................................................. City of Yuma
E+C ........................................................................................................................................... Existing Plus Committed
FHWA ........................................................................................................................... Federal Highway Administration
HAWK ....................................................................................................................... High Intensity Activated Crosswalk
HURF ................................................................................................................................ Highway User Revenue Fund
HSIP ................................................................................................................... Highway Safety Improvement Program
I-8 ................................................................................................................................................................... Interstate 8
ITS ............................................................................................................................ Intelligent Transportation Systems
LOS ........................................................................................................................................................ Level of Service
MCAS ........................................................................................................................................ Marine Corps Air Station
MPDG ................................................................................................................ Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant
MUTCD ........................................................................................................ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
N-PHAM ........................................................................................................ National Public Health Assessment Model
OEO ............................................................................................................................... Office of Economic Opportunity
PCI ......................................................................................................................................... Pavement Condition Index
PM2.5/PM10 ........................................................................................................ Particulate Matter 2.5/10 micrometers
RAISE ....................................................................... Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
ROW ........................................................................................................................................................... Right-of-Way
SR ................................................................................................................................................................. State Route
SS4A ............................................................................................................................... Safe Streets and Roads for All
SWOT ........................................................................................... Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
TAZ ................................................................................................................................................ Traffic Analysis Zone
TDM ............................................................................................................................................. Travel Demand Model
TI ........................................................................................................................................................ Traffic Interchange
TIA ............................................................................................................................................... Traffic Impact Analysis
TMP ..................................................................................................................................... Transportation Master Plan
USDOT ...................................................................................................... United States Department of Transportation
V/C .......................................................................................................................................... Volume to Capacity Ratio
VHT ............................................................................................................................................ Vehicle Hours Traveled
VMT ............................................................................................................................................. Vehicle Miles Traveled
VRU ............................................................................................................................................. Vulnerable Road User
YCAT .................................................................................................................................... Yuma County Area Transit
YCIPTA ............................................................................................. Yuma County Intergovernmental Transit Authority
YMPO ........................................................................................................... Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization
vii

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The city of Yuma (“City” or “Yuma”) is located in Yuma County in southwestern Arizona near the California and Mexico
borders and is served by Interstate 8 (I-8), US Highway 95 (US 95), and State Route 195 (SR 195). Yuma serves as a
gateway for international commerce, a strategic location for military operations, and a base for recreational
opportunities along the Colorado River and the Sonoran Desert. Due to its unique geographical location and steadily
growing population, Yuma faces equally unique transportation challenges. This Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is
an update to the last TMP completed in 2014 and aims to guide the City through transportation challenges and
decisions it will face as Yuma and the surrounding area continue to grow.
WHAT IS A TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN?
A TMP is a strategic document that guides transportation decisions the City will make related to funding opportunities.
The process is based on foundational community values and specific policies and expectations outlined in the City of
Yuma General Plan (2022). The TMP sets a clear vision for how investments are made that balance the City’s rural
character with the growing urban mobility needs and guides future development requirements by identifying needed
transportation improvements consistent with the core values of the community.
PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process for this TMP involved five main phases: (1) Existing and Future Conditions; (2) Defining Vision;
Goals, Metrics, and Objectives; (3) Public Engagement; (4) Scenario Development and Testing; and (5) Final Plan and
Adoption. Throughout all five phases there was a heavy focus on community and citizen engagement, with a Steering
Committee made up of local stakeholders and community leaders providing input throughout the development of the
TMP.
Defining Vision, Scenario Development Final Plan and
Existing and Future Goals, Metrics, and and Testing: Adoption:
Conditions Objectives: ◦Develop projects to ◦Document process,
◦Collect data ◦Review goals and address deficiencies input, and results
◦Identify transportation visions of prior plans ◦Evaluate and prioritize ◦Develop an
deficiencies ◦Identify needs based on projects implementation plan for
existing and future recommended
conditions improvements
Public Engagement
STUDY AREA
The Yuma TMP considers transportation conditions within the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). In total, the
study area encompasses approximately 197 square miles, or 126,080 acres, which includes the Yuma city limits,
portions of the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range (BMGR), and large agricultural areas surrounding the City. This
study area boundary generally matches the study area of the 2014 TMP with some minor modifications to the western
boundary.
ES-1

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted on existing and future
conditions to identify where to focus on developing feasible improvement recommendations. Summaries of the SWOT
analysis findings for existing and future conditions are in Table ES-1 and Table ES-2, respectively.
Strengths are topics or metrics that are both helpful to the existing transportation system in Yuma and are within the
control of the City of Yuma (of internal origin). Weaknesses are topics or metrics that are harmful to the transportation
system but are within the control of the City of Yuma (of internal origin). Opportunities are topics or metrics that are
helpful in the City of Yuma transportation system’s continued improvement but are largely out of the control of the City
of Yuma (of external issue) and are more a result of the general environment. Threats are topics or metrics that are
harmful to Yuma’s transportation system’s improvement but are largely out of the control of the City of Yuma (of external
origin) and are more a result of the general environment.
Table ES-1. Existing Conditions SWOT Analysis
Strengths Weaknesses
▪ Well-connected roadway network on the west side of the study ▪ Motorist, pedestrian, and bicyclist crashes are concentrated
area along 16th Street, 4th Avenue, and 24th Street. Safety-related
▪ The YCAT system has a strong rider base with the ridership improvements should be prioritized along these corridors.
trending upwards since 2021. ▪ The east side of the study area transportation network is not
▪ The City makes considerable efforts in developing long-term as connected as the west side, particularly for bicyclist and
plans to improve all aspects of transportation and community pedestrian travel. Priority should be placed on improving
health. connectivity on the east side of the study area transportation
▪ Several projects are in place to improve the transit system, network.
bicyclist network, pedestrian network, and roadway network.
Opportunities Threats
▪ Projected population and employment growth provide ▪ Major highways and roadways within the study area
opportunities to install additional transportation infrastructure experience a significant increase in traffic during the winter
that can address some of the identified transportation needs. months due to winter visitors, tourists, and agricultural
▪ Making active transportation more appealing provides the activities.
opportunity to improve overall community health. ▪ Large tracts of agricultural land, federal land, and military land
limit development to certain areas of the study area. This may
restrict expansion of the transportation network.
▪ Improper human behavior (e.g., driving aggressively, impaired,
or distracted) is a major contributing factor to many of the
crashes in the study area.
ES-2

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Table ES-2. Future Conditions SWOT Analysis
Strengths Weaknesses
▪ The City’s current allocation of transportation funding, with ▪ Many of the identified capacity, bicyclist/pedestrian, and safety
system maintenance being the highest priority, aligns well with needs are not currently funded.
public input on priorities. ▪ Much of the projected growth in population and employment is
▪ The City’s CIP is multimodal in nature, with funding allocated in the Foothills area that already experiences congestion and
to various modes of travel. the current roadway network does not provide redundant
▪ Prior planning efforts and recent regional modeling provide a parallel routes to help distribute traffic.
comprehensive outlook on anticipated future multimodal ▪ Much of the City’s population, particularly the disadvantaged
needs. population, does not live near transit, bicyclist, and pedestrian
▪ The programmed construction of a shared-use pathway along facilities, limiting modal choice and mobility.
32nd Street will provide critical connectivity between the west
and east parts of Yuma for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Opportunities Threats
▪ Projected population and employment growth provide ▪ Insufficient or unreliable funding for transportation could
opportunities for developers to help install additional adversely affect the ability to make improvements to Yuma’s
transportation infrastructure that can address identified transportation system, which could have negative economic,
transportation needs. health, and safety ramifications.
▪ Making active transportation more appealing provides the ▪ Federal and state changes in policies, programs, funding
opportunity to improve overall community health. levels, and laws could restrict the City’s ability to make needed
▪ The potential is there to create an integrated multimodal transportation improvements.
transportation system if additional funding can be obtained for ▪ Features such as railroad tracks, canals, and drainage washes
transportation improvements. are constraints that could limit options for expanding and
▪ Technological advancements may bring new ways to travel connecting the transportation network.
and/or improve the safety and efficiency of travel.
2025 TMP VISION
The 2025 TMP vision establishes a clear vision of the City’s short-term and long-term transportation priorities that align
with the mobility needs for all: Vision: A well-maintained and integrated transportation system that prioritizes safety,
efficiency, inclusivity of all modes of travel, and community health.
SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Scenarios were developed for roadway users, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians to aid in developing a list of
potential improvements that can subsequently be refined into prioritized recommended improvements that address the
current and anticipated future deficiencies in the multimodal transportation system. A multistep process was used to
identify the most prudent and impactful projects for the City to focus on implementing to address these deficiencies.
This process is outlined in Figure ES-1.
ES-3

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure ES-1. Project Development Process
Prioritize Implement
•Develop list of •Combine/refine
potential solutions •Evaluate solutions solutions into •Identify capital
to address all against TMP goals projects that funding options and
deficiencies maximize benefits match them to
priority projects
Solutions Projects
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
To address the identified issues and deficiencies, 129 potential solutions were identified. Potential solutions were
categorized by project types that pertain to different modes of transportation: roadway, transit, and active
transportation. To prioritize solutions and identify sound transportation investments, the solutions were compared to
citywide goals established at the outset of the TMP (Facility Quality, Roadway Operational Efficiency, Safety/Vision
Zero Approach, Multimodal Integration, and Community Health).
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY MODE
The recommended 129 projects are shown by project type and mode of transportation in Figure 73 (roadway), Figure
74 (pedestrian), Figure 75 (bicyclist), and Figure 76 (transit).
PLANNING LEVEL COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAMES
The total cost of the recommended 129 projects is approximately $500 million. The projects were grouped into three
implementation timeframes (near-term, mid-term, and long-term) to help the City prioritize which projects to focus on
implementing. Recommendations from previous plans and input from the City and other stakeholders helped inform
how the recommended projects should be distributed among the near-term, mid-term, and long-term implementation
timeframes. The top-scoring projects in each modal category (roadway, pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit) were included
in the near-term timeframe. The breakdown of overall TMP project costs by priority level is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. TMP Project Cost Summary
Implementation Timeframe Number of Recommended Projects Total Planning-Level Cost
Near-Term (2026-2030) 47 $133,830,000
Mid-Term (2031-2035) 21 $66,380,000
Long-Term (2036-2050) 61 $300,590,000
All Recommended Projects 129 $500,800,000
ES-4

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure ES-2. Recommended Roadway Projects
ES-5

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure ES-3. Recommended Pedestrian Projects
ES-6

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure ES-4. Recommended Bicyclist Projects
ES-7

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure ES-5. Recommended Transit Projects
ES-8

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended near-term projects are illustrated in Figure ES-6. The recommended mid-term projects are
illustrated in Figure ES-7. The recommended long-term projects are illustrated in Figure ES-8.
Other recommendations include:
◼ Integrate transportation improvements with walkable, mixed-use development to promote community health.
◼ Updates to City of Yuma standard details.
◼ Changes to City buildout roadway classifications.
◼ Changes in speed limits.
◼ Increased tree and shade coverage.
◼ Plan for future technologies.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Public participation and input were key in developing a TMP that responds to Yuma transportation needs. Three rounds
of public engagement were conducted for the TMP in conjunction with the YMPO Long Range Transportation Plan:
◼ The first round of public engagement took place during the existing and future conditions analysis and aimed to
gather public opinion on existing conditions, future projections, and needs and deficiencies. Round 1 of public
engagement consisted of an interactive map tool on the project website.
◼ The second round of public engagement took place at the Downtown Christmas event while developing a new
vision and goal for the TMP and gathering public opinion on investment priorities. Round 2 of public engagement
consisted of an event board residents interacted with to voice their opinion on what aspects of transportation are
most important to them.
◼ The third round of public engagement was a joint-online interaction in collaboration with the YMPO Long Range
Transportation Plan project. Engagement took place via the project website where residents input their opinions
on the recommendations projects.
To notify the public of the engagement efforts, social media postings, radio advertisements, and press releases were
shared by the City, YMPO, and other local news sources.
A TMP/LRTP join project website was developed (https://www.greateryumamoves.com/) that provided background on
the project, the project schedule, frequently asked questions, an email subscription option, links to a survey and
interactive map, and opportunities to review and comment on draft deliverables.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Coordinating with other entities will be imperative to implementing the recommended TMP projects plus other future
transportation improvements that arise. These entities include YMPO, ADOT, Yuma County, YCIPTA, MCAS-Yuma,
and private entities.
New or expanded funding sources will be needed if all recommended improvements are to be implemented within the
desired timeframes. These potential funding sources could include:
ES-9

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ Local funding (general fund, bonds, City road tax, development fees, public-private partnerships).
◼ Regional funding (regional sales tax).
◼ State funding (state gas tax, state vehicle license tax, Arizona GOHS safety grant, SMART grant).
◼ Federal funding (STBG,CRP, HSIP, OSB, TA, MPDG, BIP, BUILD, PROTECT, and other discretional grants).
With approximately $500 million in recommended projects in the TMP over the course of near-term, mid-term, and
long-term timeframes, the City of Yuma should focus primarily on implementing near-term projects. The near-term
projects are anticipated to need approximately $134 million of funding above and beyond the City’s currently available
funding. The City should support the pursuit of additional funding sources such as a regional transportation sales tax
or federal grant programs.
ES-10

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure ES-6. Recommended Near-Term Projects
ES-11

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure ES-7. Recommended Mid-Term Projects
ES-12

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure ES-8. Recommended Long-Term Projects
ES-13

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
INTRODUCTION
The city of Yuma (“City” or “Yuma”) is located in Yuma County in southwestern Arizona near the California and Mexico
borders and is served by Interstate 8 (I-8), US Highway 95 (US 95), and State Route 195 (SR 195). Yuma serves as a
gateway for international commerce, a strategic location for military operations, and a base for recreational
opportunities along the Colorado River and the Sonoran Desert. Due to its unique geographical location and steadily
growing population, Yuma faces equally unique transportation challenges. This Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is
an update to the last TMP completed in 2014 and aims to guide the City through transportation challenges and
decisions it will face as Yuma and the surrounding area continue to grow.
WHAT IS A TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN?
A TMP is a strategic document that guides transportation decisions the City will make related to funding opportunities.
The process is based on foundational community values and specific policies and expectations outlined in the City of
Yuma General Plan (2022). The TMP sets a clear vision for how investments are made that balance the City’s rural
character with the growing urban mobility needs and guides future development requirements by identifying needed
transportation improvements consistent with the core values of the community.
PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process for this TMP involved five main phases: (1) Existing and Future Conditions; (2) Defining Vision;
Goals, Metrics, and Objectives; (3) Public Engagement; (4) Scenario Development and Testing; and (5) Final Plan and
Adoption. Throughout all five phases there was a heavy focus on community and citizen engagement, with a Steering
Committee made up of local stakeholders and community leaders providing input throughout the development of the
TMP.
Defining Vision, Scenario Final Plan and
Existing and Future Goals, Metrics, and Development and Adoption:
Conditions Objectives: Testing: ◦Document process,
◦Collect data ◦Review goals and ◦Develop projects to input, and results
visions of prior plans address deficiencies ◦Develop an
◦Identify deficiencies transportation ◦Identify needs based on ◦Evaluate and prioritize implementation plan for
existing and future projects recommended
conditions improvements
Public Engagement
STUDY AREA
The Yuma TMP considers transportation conditions within the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), as shown in
Figure 9. In total, the study area encompasses approximately 197 square miles, or 126,080 acres, which includes the
Yuma city limits, portions of the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range (BMGR), and large agricultural areas surrounding
the City. This study area boundary generally matches the study area of the 2014 TMP with some minor modifications
to the western boundary.
1

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 9. Study Area
2

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS
The Yuma TMP builds on previous planning efforts completed by the City, Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO),
Yuma County, Yuma County Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (YCIPTA), Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT), and other entities. Plans, policies, and recommendations that are relevant to the TMP were identified
in the following previously completed documents:
◼ City of Yuma: Capital Improvement Program (2024)
◼ City of Yuma: Parks, Art, Recreation & Trails Plan (2024)
◼ ADOT: Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment (2023)
◼ ADOT: Interstate 8 Corridor Profile Study (2023)
◼ City of Yuma: Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines and Procedures (2023)
◼ Johns Hopkins: A National Investigation on the Impacts of Lane Width on Traffic Safety (2023)
◼ NACTO: Statement on the Release of the 11th Edition of the MUTCD (2023)
◼ YMPO: Rail/Heavy Freight Alignment Study (2023)
◼ ADOT: State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plan (2022)
◼ City of Yuma: General Plan (2022)
◼ YCIPTA/YMPO: Short Range Transit Plan (2021)
◼ YMPO: 2022-2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (2021)
◼ City of Yuma: Tree and Shade Master Plan (2020)
◼ City of Yuma: Intelligent Transportation System Strategic Plan (2020)
◼ YMPO: Bicycle and Pedestrian Study and Design Standards (2020)
◼ City of Yuma: Construction Standard Detail Drawings (2019)
◼ City of Yuma: Infrastructure Improvements Plan (2019)
◼ City of Yuma: Bikeways Plan (2018)
◼ City of Yuma: Transportation Master Plan (2014)
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ Past efforts made by the City and its partner agencies to develop and diversify the transportation system and various modes
of transportation are evident in the consistent planning efforts made year over year.
◼ The roadway network is well developed in the older parts of Yuma, with most planned roadway improvements being in the
south and east parts of Yuma that are rapidly developing.
◼ Improved east-west connectivity and better use of canals and abandoned rail corridors will help expand the bicyclist
network.
3

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ Vulnerable Road User (VRU) safety, particularly for pedestrians, is a concern. Providing additional VRU facilities and
crossings as well as modifying existing policies and standards to be more VRU-friendly will help promote VRU safety.
◼ Continued refinements to the existing transit service are planned.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Population, employment, demographics, and development type and intensity help define transportation needs and choices. As
the population and employment grows and changes, the need for appropriate facilities to meet travel and mobility demand also
grows and different travel options become necessary to fulfill those travel needs.
POPULATION
HISTORICAL POPULATION
Per the latest U.S. Census, the city of Yuma had a permanent resident population of approximately 95,500 people in 2020. The
permanent resident population increased by approximately 2,500 people (3%) between 2010 and 2020 as shown in Figure 10
Preliminary estimates from the U.S Census Bureau indicate Yuma’s population was 100,858 in 2023. During the winter months,
seasonal visitors and workers travel from colder regions to Yuma, which can increase the city’s population by upwards of 80,000
people for approximately six months of the year. Figure 11 illustrates the population density by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for
the study area per the YMPO regional travel demand model (TDM).
Figure 12 shows the dwelling unit density by TAZ for the study area per the YMPO regional TDM. Yuma has population
concentrations in the west and east portions of the study area, with a gap in the middle between Avenue 3E and Avenue 5E
where there are few residents.
Figure 10. City of Yuma Historical Population
105,000 95,548
88,838
90,000 77,545
75,000
Population 60,000
45,000
30,000
15,000
2000 2010 2020
Year
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
EMPLOYMENT
HISTORICAL EMPLOYMENT
Figure 13 shows the existing employment by TAZ, which is spread across the study area per the YMPO regional TDM.
Employment history within Yuma for the most recently available 10 years is shown in Figure 14. In 2021, the city had a total of
43,788 jobs. From 2012 to 2021, employment in Yuma fluctuated but generally increased at a rate of 604 jobs per year.
4

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 11. Existing Population Density by TAZ
Data Sources
Population Density: YMPO
5

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 12. Existing Dwelling Units by TAZ
6

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 13. Existing Employment by TAZ
7

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 14. City of Yuma Employment (2012 – 2021)
44,371 43,788
45,000
40,364
38,522
Population 40,000
35,000
30,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (2012-2021)
LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE
Land is predominantly privately owned within the study area with large portions of military, state, or federal (Bureau of
Reclamation) owned land in the south and northeast portions of the study area. The Marine Corps Air Station – Yuma (MCAS-
Yuma) covers a large amount of land in the center of the study area. The Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), a military testing
site, encompasses most of the southeast area of the region. Tribal reservation land is established to the north and to the west
of the study area. Outside of metropolitan Yuma, private land is predominantly agricultural. Land ownership is illustrated in
Figure 15.
Land use as illustrated in the City’s General Plan (2022) is shown in Figure 16. Agricultural land use encompasses most of the
land use within the study area at approximately 27%. This is followed by low density residential at 17% and rural density
residential at 15%. Much of the agricultural land use is located near the borders of the study area. Residential land uses are
more centrally located with surrounding uses including commercial, mixed use, and industrial. Commercial land uses are
typically adjacent to the major roadways in the study area. Industrial land uses are concentrated along I-8 and around MCAS-
Yuma. BMGR and MCAS-Yuma are the largest public/quasi-public land uses in the study area.
TRAVEL TRENDS
STUDY AREA COMMUTE PATTERNS
It is important to understand the relationship between employment and commuting in Yuma to better support commuters that
live inside and outside the city. There are an estimated 15,063 study area residents who travel outside the study area for work
or school, 21,496 people who work in the study area but live elsewhere, and 22,292 workers who both live and work in the study
area. Many of those employed in the study area live within 10 miles of their place of work (approximately 70%). An appreciable
number of workers are commuting to or from Somerton, San Luis, and Wellton.
Analysis of commuting modes over time shows that driving alone is the predominant means of travel to work, with 76% of Yuma
commuters driving alone in 2022. Carpooling accounted for the next largest mode of transportation used to travel to work. Work
from Home is believed to have increased significantly since 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts on in-person work.
8

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 15. Land Ownership
9

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 16. Land Use
10

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
SEASONAL IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC
Due to mild winter weather and agricultural harvesting seasons, Yuma experiences seasonal increases in traffic in the winter.
To understand the impact of seasonal traffic, YMPO daily traffic counts within the study area were reviewed to obtain daily traffic
counts for February 2023 (winter) and July 2023 (summer). The traffic volumes estimated by the YMPO TDM currently represent
an average of the summer and winter volumes as the model is calibrated to approximate the average of the summer and winter
traffic counts obtained by YMPO. Recognizing that this methodology reflects average traffic conditions instead of peak traffic
conditions, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare winter season traffic counts to the average condition traffic volumes
estimated by the YMPO TDM so that growth factors could be applied to the YMPO average condition traffic volumes to develop
estimated winter peak traffic volumes. Figure 17 illustrates the percentage change between the winter season traffic count
volumes and the YMPO TDM volumes within each of the traffic count sub-areas in Yuma that YMPO uses to organize traffic
counts, as noted in YMPO’s Traffic Counts Network Study (2019). The increase in winter season traffic count volumes compared
to YMPO model average condition volumes is smaller, closer to the urban core of the city and greater farther away from the
urban core. This phenomenon is attributed to the fact that most of the winter visitors and agricultural activities are located more
along the edges of Yuma rather than in its urban core.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ The population and job markets have been steadily growing and will likely continue to increase into the long-term future.
◼ Land ownership in the Yuma area is diverse, serving agricultural, tribal, federal, military, and private entities and residents,
who all influence the transportation network within the study area.
◼ Most commuters in the study area drive alone to work, with carpooling being the second largest mode of commuting.
◼ Seasonal traffic has an impact on the roadway network and both average and peak traffic conditions should be evaluated.
11

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 17. Sub-Area YMPO Winter Traffic Count Change Compared to YMPO Model Estimated Average Condition Volumes
Data Sources
Traffic Count Sub-Areas and
Locations: YMPO
Data Sources
Traffic Count Sub-Areas and
Volumes: YMPO
12

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This section reviews current transportation-related community health conditions and community design factors that
promote healthy communities within the city of Yuma. A modeling process was established to estimate current health
conditions at the neighborhood level. Current health-related accessibility conditions were investigated using spatial
data for local transportation networks, bike facilities, parks, health care facilities, and air quality data.
CURRENT HEALTH-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
AREAS OF PERSISTENT POVERTY AND HISTORICALLY DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES
The USDOT defined Areas of Persistent Poverty and Historically Disadvantaged Communities at the census tract level
as a census tract that has a poverty rate of at least 20%. These areas (shown in red checkered polygons in Figure
18) show locations within the Yuma study area that qualify as Areas of Persistent Poverty and Disadvantaged
Communities. In the study area, approximately 30,700 adults (ages 18 and over), or 20% of the adult population, live
in persistent poverty and/or historically disadvantaged areas.
Figure 18. Areas of Persistent Poverty and Historically Disadvantaged Communities
13

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
VEHICLE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE
Purple areas in Figure 19 show locations where most Yuma residents can access at least one of the two hospital
campuses within a 10-minute drive, including most of the populated disadvantaged areas. All the populated study area
is within a 20-minute drive of a hospital. These statistics suggest that Yuma residents have better hospital access than
the U.S. average.
Other state-licensed medical facilities, such as doctor offices, clinics, and outpatient centers (yellow dots), cluster
around the Yuma Regional Hospital complex. Fewer medical facilities are available in the eastern and southern portions
of the city, indicating that residents in those areas likely travel further than 15 minutes to access non-emergency health
care.
Figure 19. Vehicle Access to Healthcare
14

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ACCESS TO TRANSIT
Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) operates fixed route, vanpool, and demand responsive bus services throughout
Yuma and surrounding areas. Easy access to transit allows access to jobs and health care, promotes active
transportation alternatives, and supports individuals with limited mobility options.
Approximately 37% of the Yuma population (and 46% of the disadvantaged population) lives in neighborhoods with
walking access (within 1/4 mile) to at least one fixed route bus stop. Figure 20 shows walking access buffers in the
study area.
Fixed route access does not extend to lower populated areas in the southern portion of the study area.
Figure 20. City of Yuma Access to Transit
15

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ACCESS TO PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Yuma Parks and Recreation Department operates and maintains parks and recreational programs
throughout the city. The health benefits of parks and recreational programs are well documented. An Urban Institute
study - "The Health Benefits of Parks and their Economic Impacts" - highlights many of these benefits. Figure 21 shows
the walking/biking access distance to parks for neighborhoods surrounding the parks.
Approximately 37% of the Yuma population (and 58% of the disadvantaged population) lives in neighborhoods with
walking/biking access of ½-mile or less to at least one park. Park access is limited east of Avenue 3E.
Figure 21. City of Yuma Access to Parks
16

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ACCESS TO BICYCLIST FACILITIES
Yuma bicyclist facilities and areas of bicyclist facility access are shown in Figure 22. Using an index that includes the
presence of bicyclist facilities and levels of physical safety, the map’s darker areas are locations with good access.
Approximately 47% of Yuma’s population (and 60% of the disadvantaged population) lives in neighborhoods within ½-
mile network access to a separated or shared bicyclist lane. Bicyclist facility access is limited east of Avenue 3E.
Figure 22. City of Yuma Bicyclist Facility Access
17

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
EXPOSURE TO TRANSPORTATION-RELATED AIR POLLUTION
The study area was evaluated using a "sketch" air quality modeling software called the Community Line Source Model
(C-LINE). It helps assess potential locations of greater community exposure to emissions. It includes dispersion
methods to estimate concentrations throughout a community. At-risk populations include older adults with chronic heart
or lung conditions and young children.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard had been 12 micrograms
per cubic meter (µg/m3) since 2012 but has recently changed to 9 µg/m3. The average annual background
concentration of PM2.5 in Yuma County is 7.9 µg/m3. Most of the study area is at low risk, but some places are close
to the EPA's new limits. Figure 23 shows C-LINE estimated PM2.5 concentration areas in the Yuma study area. Areas
in darker purple are currently estimated to be at moderate risk of unhealthy PM2.5.
It should be noted that Yuma is in nonattainment PM10. Transportation-related PM10 is only one component of all PM10,
primarily related to unpaved roadways and sand/dust disrupted by vehicle traffic.
Figure 23. Long-term Transportation-Related PM2.5 Exposure Risk
18

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
EXPOSURE TO TRANSPORTATION-RELATED NOISE
Transportation-related noise is recognized as a health risk due to its impact on sleep and long-term hearing loss, among
other factors. In the Yuma study area, the primary noise risks, including areas with long-term exposure to 70 decibels
or more, are centered around the MCAS-Yuma/Yuma International Airport. Figure 24 shows noise exposure from the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics Noise Map. Some of the Casa de Encanto neighborhoods near the MCAS-
Yuma/Yuma International Airport may experience high noise exposure risk.
Figure 24. Transportation-Related Noise Exposure
19

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
The associations between land use, transportation, and community health are complex: individual lifestyles and daily
activities are influenced by local built environments that provide opportunity and accessibility. A growing body of
evidence suggests that health-focused community investments can have sustained broad-reaching population-level
health benefits for people who live, work, go to school, and play in those communities. Figure 25 describes the
pathways from environment/travel options that affect behaviors, exposures, biological responses, and chronic health
conditions. On average, more isolated and car-dependent communities typically have higher percentages of adults
with chronic disease and a higher average body mass index (BMI).
Figure 25: Linkages Between the Built Environment and Community Health
Source: UD4H
HEALTHY COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
Community characteristics and design components that promote a culture of health, wellbeing, and a sense of
community include establishing inviting communities that encourage active travel and physical activity, provide physical
safety, provide access to healthy goods and services, offer protection from environmental exposure, and encourage
social connections.
CURRENT ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION-RELATED COMMUNITY
HEALTH CONDITIONS
The causes and risks of having a chronic disease are many, interrelated, and complex. The risk of having one of the
health-related conditions presented below can be reduced through lifestyle choices (e.g., being physically active,
having healthy food availability, eating healthily, and not being overweight or obese). The ease of making the healthier
choice is impacted by how communities are designed (e.g., transportation options, proximity and connectivity of
different land uses, and access to greenspace). The National Public Health Assessment Model (N-PHAM) was
20

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
developed by Urban Design 4 Health (and customized for the City of Yuma study area) to assist in understanding how
the built environment currently affects community health and how future transportation alternatives might affect future
conditions.
Figure 26 shows the basic N-PHAM data flow where neighborhood-level social data are combined with built
environment data and processed through a suite of statistical models to forecast community health conditions. Baseline
health outcomes and health surveys from the 2020 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) and the US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were used to develop
and calibrate model estimates.
Figure 26: N-PHAM Model Data Inputs and Outcomes
The following pages show estimated outcomes from N-PHAM using baseline data from the City of Yuma, the Centers
for Disease Control, and other sources.
21

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ESTIMATED BASELINE HEALTH CONDITIONS: BODY MASS INDEX >30
Over 40% of U.S. adults (2017 – 2020) are obese, based on a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30. Being obese is
a serious risk factor for all causes of death, other chronic diseases, and a low quality of life. Having a healthy weight is
impacted by diet, physical activity, and many other factors.
Approximately 37% of the Yuma adult population (and also 37% of the disadvantaged adult population) is estimated to
have a body mass index greater than 30. Figure 27 illustrates the N-PHAM estimated adult prevalence of body mass
index greater than 30.
Figure 27. N-PHAM Estimated Adult Prevalence of Body Mass Index Greater Than 30
22

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ESTIMATED BASELINE HEALTH CONDITIONS: TYPE 2 DIABETES
Over 30 million people (~10%) in the U.S. are estimated to have diabetes, which is the eighth leading cause of death
in the U.S. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people with diabetes have a body that
doesn’t "make enough insulin or can't use it as well as it should. When there isn't enough insulin or cells stop responding
to insulin, too much blood sugar stays in your bloodstream. Over time, that can cause serious health problems, such
as heart disease, vision loss, and kidney disease." Lifestyle choices and other conditions can impact whether and when
Type 2 diabetes occurs. These include not being overweight, eating healthily, and being regularly physically active.
How communities are designed can make it harder or easier for people to live healthier lives.
Approximately 10% of the Yuma adult population (and 12% of the disadvantaged adult population) is estimated to have
been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. Figure 28 illustrates the N-PHAM estimated adult prevalence of Type 2 diabetes.
Figure 28. N-PHAM Estimated Adult Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes
23

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ESTIMATED BASELINE HEALTH CONDITIONS: CORONARY HEART DISEASE
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the U.S. About 5% of adults have it. According to the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the "term "heart disease" refers to several types of heart conditions.
The most common type of heart disease in the U.S. is coronary artery disease, which affects the blood flow to the
heart. Decreased blood flow can cause a heart attack."
The key risk factors are high blood pressure, cholesterol, and smoking. The lifestyle choices that increase the risk of
CHD and that can be more directly impacted by how communities are designed include levels of physical inactivity,
lack of healthy food availability, and being overweight or obese.
Approximately 4% of the Yuma adult population (and 4% of the disadvantaged adult population) is estimated to have
been diagnosed with CHD. Figure 29 illustrates the N-PHAM estimated adult prevalence of CHD.
Figure 29. N-PHAM Estimated Adult Prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease
24

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ESTIMATED BASELINE HEALTH CONDITIONS: HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE/HYPERTENSION
About 50% of U.S. adults (nearly 116 million) have high blood pressure (HBP), also known as hypertension. According
to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "high blood pressure is a leading cause of heart disease and
stroke because it damages the lining of the arteries, making them more susceptible to the buildup of plaque, which
narrows the arteries leading to the heart and brain."
Like with other chronic diseases, lifestyle choices, and other conditions can impact the risk of someone having HBP.
These include not being overweight, eating healthily, and being regularly physically active. How communities are
designed can make it harder or easier for people to live healthier lives.
Approximately 25% of the Yuma adult population (and 27% of the disadvantaged adult population) is estimated to have
been diagnosed with high blood pressure/hypertension. Figure 30 illustrates the N-PHAM estimated adult prevalence
of high blood pressure/hypertension.
Figure 30. N-PHAM Estimated Adult Prevalence of High Blood Pressure/Hypertension
25

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ESTIMATED BASELINE HEALTH CONDITIONS: COST OF ILLNESS
Direct medical expenditures, paid by individuals/families and insurance, were estimated using the most current, publicly
available data from analyses of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). MEPS is an annual, nationally
representative survey administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Figure 31 shows the density of chronic disease expenditure in relation to the location of state licensed medical facilities
and hospitals. This data can be used to identify locations that would benefit from improved mobility options in support
of disease treatment.
Figure 31. N-PHAM Estimated Cost of Illness
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ The study area population generally has good access to hospitals and transit.
◼ The study area population east of Avenue 3E does not have good access to parks and bicyclist facilities.
◼ The rates for BMI over 30, Type 2 diabetes, and coronary heart disease in Yuma are close to the U.S. average.
◼ Those in disadvantaged areas typically live along the north and west borders or older parts of Yuma.
◼ Making active transportation more appealing can improve community health.
26

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ROADWAY ASSESSMENT
Roadways serve as the foundation of the study area transportation network, accommodating motor vehicles, trucks,
transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Roadways are the main component of the transportation network throughout
the Yuma area, and the primary public space in which residents travel daily.
There are 348 centerline miles of roadways of various conditions and types in the study area (excluding local
roadways). The efficiency, safety, and condition of the study area’s roadway and bridge network is essential to the
functionality of the other transportation modes and to the economic prosperity and quality of life in the study area.
CITY STANDARDS ASSESSMENT
ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS
Roadway design standards for the City are outlined by the City of Yuma Engineering Department’s Construction
Standard Detail Drawings (2019). These drawings standardize design and construction of both private and public
infrastructure in the City. Design standards for roadways by City classification, right-of-way (ROW) requirements at
intersections, driveway spacing standards, sidewalk standards, turn lane standards, and bus bay designs are included.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
The City has developed a draft document that outlines the requirements of a traffic impact analysis (TIA). The goal of
this document is to ensure consistency in the preparation and review of TIAs and provide cost-sharing analysis for
impacts to and improvement of existing facilities.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Roadways are classified based on the type of traffic they are intended to serve. For example, arterials are designed to
move people long distances at higher speeds within a city or between cities. Collectors are designed for lower speeds
and shorter distances than arterials and connect travelers to arterials. Local roadways are designed for low speeds,
typically extend for short distances, and provide direct access to most residential properties. This categorization is
referred to as functional classification. Functional classifications have an inverse relationship between access and
mobility based on the types of trips they are intended to serve.
There are instances where a roadway’s function may not match its current infrastructure. Examples could include
overbuilding a roadway to accommodate future growth or unanticipated/unplanned growth causing capacity issues on
older roadways. Identifying these potential mismatches is important to ensure there is adequate planning to
appropriately size existing and future roadways to avoid negative consequences such as cut-through traffic, pavement
degradation, traffic congestion, decreased safety, or overinvestment in roadways that will not need a high capacity.
FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines three main functional classes: arterial, collector, and local. These
classifications are based on speed, vehicular capacity, and relationships with adjacent land uses according to the
character of service they are intended to provide. The federal functional classifications for the study area roadways are
shown in Figure 32. This map reflects the current functional classifications ADOT has assigned, which impacts federal
reporting and maintenance requirements as well as federal grant eligibility. Roadways classified as local are not shown
in the figure.
27

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 32. Existing Federal Functional Classifications
28

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
CITY ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION
In addition to the federal functional classification system defined by FHWA and ADOT, the City has a roadway
classification system set forth by the Yuma General Plan (2022). These classifications are for roadways within Yuma’s
boundaries and are used to highlight corridors of importance at the local level. These classifications are shown in
Figure 33. Descriptions of these classifications are provided below:
◼ Interstate/Freeways. Interstate 8 carries traffic across Yuma County and connects Yuma with other cities and
other major roadways in California and Arizona. Like most other interstate highways, this road is designed to carry
high volumes of high-speed traffic to, from, and through an area.
◼ Expressways. Expressways may include at-grade intersections rather than grade-separated interchanges as
found along freeways. Frontage roadways can be used in some locations along expressway corridors to facilitate
access to nearby commercial property. Expressways are often constructed so that access is limited only to
signalized cross-street intersections.
◼ Arterial Streets. Arterials connect with freeway interchanges or other arterials and provide continuity through the
City. Because these streets are designed to carry large traffic volumes and are designed to be continuous across
an urban area, high intensity land uses (e.g., shopping centers, business parks, industrial facilities) locate along
these streets.
◼ Collector Streets. These streets are usually shorter in length and have lower traffic volumes than arterials.
Collectors are not designed to carry large volumes of traffic for long distances.
◼ Local Streets. All public roadways that are not designated as a major roadway as listed above are, by default,
designated as local streets. These local streets can be a residential or commercial/industrial type. Private
driveways to residences usually connect directly to the local streets.
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES
The existing number of through travel lanes (i.e., excluding turn lanes) on study area roadways are shown in Figure
34. Generally speaking, principal arterials have either six or four through lanes, minor arterials have four or two through
lanes, and collectors have two through lanes, although there are some exceptions.
EXISTING AVERAGE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Daily total traffic volumes are estimated based on YMPO’s regional TDM. This regional model estimates volumes based
on population, employment, and dwelling unit assumptions. The volume estimates are then refined through a calibration
process that compares estimated volumes to actual traffic counts averaged between winter and summer seasons that
are collected by YMPO and adjusts model assumptions until estimated volumes approximate counted volumes.
Recognizing the seasonal fluctuation in traffic volumes due to winter visitors, agricultural activities, and tourism, the
traffic volumes represent “average” conditions that are an average of winter and summer volumes. The existing daily
traffic volumes for the study area are illustrated in Figure 35.
29

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 33. Existing City of Yuma Roadway Classifications
30

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 34. Existing Number of Through Lanes
31

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 35. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes for Average Traffic Conditions
32

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ROADWAY CONGESTION
The YMPO regional TDM uses the volumes and number of lanes to calculate estimated volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios
for all roadway segments in the model. These V/C ratios can then be translated to LOS values using the thresholds
shown in Table 4. LOS C or better is considered “acceptable”. LOS D is considered “of concern”. LOS E represents
“at capacity”. LOS F represents “over capacity”.
Table 4. Volume-to-Capacity LOS Thresholds
Volume-to-Capacity Threshold LOS Value
< 0.50 A
0.50-0.65 B
0.65-0.75 C
0.75-0.85 D
0.85-1.00 E
> 1.00 F
Source: YMPO
Existing conditions LOS values for the study area roadways are shown in Figure 36. There are no roadway segments
at LOS E or LOS F in the existing average traffic condition. The following roadway segments are at LOS D:
◼ South Frontage Road from Mesa Avenue to Avenue 10E.
◼ 24th Street from 27th Avenue to Avenue B.
◼ 24th Street from 17th Avenue to Ridgeview Drive.
◼ Yuma Palms Parkway from 16th Street to Castle Dome Avenue.
PEAK TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Daily total traffic volumes for peak traffic conditions anticipated during the winter season were estimated based on
YMPO’s regional TDM and the seasonal impact of winter visitors and workers. Figure 37 illustrates the daily total traffic
volumes for peak traffic conditions anticipated during the winter.
ROADWAY CONGESTION
The YMPO regional TDM uses the volumes and number of lanes to calculate estimated V/C ratios for all roadway
segments in the model. These V/C ratios can then be translated to LOS values using the thresholds shown in Table 4.
Existing conditions LOS values for peak traffic conditions within the study area roadways are shown in Figure 38.
There are no roadway segments at LOS F. The following roadway segments are at LOS E and D:
◼ South Frontage Road from Mesa Avenue to Westwind Boulevard (LOS E).
◼ Yuma Palms Parkway from 16th Street to Castle Dome Avenue (LOS E).
◼ South Frontage Road from Avenue 9E to Mesa Avenue (LOS D).
33

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 36. Existing Roadway LOS for Average Traffic Conditions
34

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 37. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes for Peak Traffic Conditions
Data Sources
Traffic Volumes: YMPO
35

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 38. Existing Roadway LOS for Peak Traffic Conditions
Data Sources
Level of Service: YMPO
36

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ South Frontage Road from Westwind Boulevard to Avenue 10E (LOS D).
◼ North Frontage Road from 0.21 miles west of Avenue 10E to Avenue 10E (LOS D).
◼ 16th Street from 2nd Avenue/3rd Avenue to 350 feet west of 1st Avenue (LOS D).
◼ 24th Street from 350 feet east of 31st Drive to Avenue B (LOS D).
◼ 24th Street from 17th Avenue to Elks Lane (LOS D).
◼ 32nd Street from Michigan Avenue to Hollywood Vista/Ginger Rodgers (LOS D).
TRUCK TRAFFIC
Trucking is a critical part of Yuma’s local and regional economy because of its adjacency to the international Andrade
Port of Entry and San Luis Port of Entry. The primary regional truck routes in the study area are I-8, US 95, and SR
195, all of which are ADOT facilities. Truck routes within the study area are illustrated in Figure 39. Notably, portions
of County 14th Street, Avenue 3E, Avenue 4E, Avenue A, and 32nd Street are designated as hazardous cargo routes.
The ADOT facilities in the study area generally have higher truck percentages compared to most non-ADOT facilities.
Non-ADOT facilities with high truck percentages that serve industrial and commercial land uses include Avenue B, 16th
Street, 32nd Street, Avenue 3E, Gila Ridge Road, and 4th Avenue.
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND ITS DEVICES
There are a total of 94 traffic signals in the study area that are owned by three separate agencies, as shown in Figure
40. The City owns 77 traffic signals, ADOT owns 10 traffic signals, and Yuma County owns seven traffic signals. Other
ITS devices in the study area include dynamic message signs (DMS) owned by ADOT and installed on I-8 north of 16th
Street and east of Avenue 9E. The City’s ITS Strategic Plan (2020) guides the City toward implementing the necessary
technology and infrastructure to centralize the control of field devices and coordination between transportation agencies
as none of the signals is coordinated with adjacent signals or devices.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ There is a generally well-connected grid network of arterial and collector roadways on the west side of the study
area. The east side of the study area is not as connected as the west side.
◼ The roadway network generally has sufficient capacity to accommodate current traffic volumes during average
traffic conditions with a few notable exceptions such as 24th Street and South Frontage Road, which have some
segments at LOS D in the existing condition.
◼ During the peak traffic conditions, the roadway network generally has adequate capacity to accommodate the
increase in traffic due to winter visitors with a few exceptions. Segments of 24th Street, 16th Street, and 32nd Street
go from LOS C in the average traffic condition to LOS D in the peak traffic condition. South Frontage Road and
Yuma Palms Parkway go from LOS D in the average traffic condition to LOS E in the peak traffic condition.
◼ The higher functionally classified roadways are generally the designated truck routes. Non-ADOT facilities with
high truck percentages include Avenue B, 16th Street, 32nd Street, Avenue 3E, Gila Ridge Road, and 4th Avenue.
◼ ITS infrastructure, such as traffic signals, is not currently interconnected but the ITS Strategic Plan’s goal is to
interconnect the ITS infrastructure.
37

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 39. Truck Routes
38

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 40. Signals and ITS Infrastructure
39

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
TRANSIT ASSESSMENT
EXISTING YCAT SYSTEM
YCIPTA is responsible for the YCAT transit system, which provides nine routes Monday through Friday from 5:27 AM
to 8:15 PM and Saturday from 9:09 AM to 6:43 PM. YCAT service is largely funded by federal transit grants and by
local tribes. The system generally services Yuma County along with a few locations in California. The existing YCAT
system is shown in Figure 42.
YCAT also provides vanpool and demand-responsive bus services within the study area. The YCAT vanpool service
operates as a monthly fee service for a group of 7-15 commuters who share the cost. This service is beneficial to a
group of co-workers or neighbors who work and live in the same area. The YCAT OnCall bus service is a door-to-door
transportation mode eligible for those experiencing temporary or permanent mobility impairment.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The YCAT system experiences its highest average daily ridership and highest total ridership on weekdays during the
wintertime when temperatures are moderate, attracting winter visitors and agricultural workers. Ridership is lowest
during the summertime when temperatures are high. Saturday ridership represents a small portion of the total ridership.
HISTORICAL ANNUAL RIDERSHIP
Annual ridership is shown for the most recent five-year period (2019-2023) in Figure 41. Ridership dropped significantly
during the COVID-19 pandemic but has since been steadily trending upwards.
Figure 41. Total YCAT Ridership (2019 – 2023)
500,000 428,383
400,000 376,119 284,065 351,251
Riders
300,000 227,895
of
200,000
Number
100,000
0
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year
Weekday Ridership Saturday Ridership Total Ridership
Source: YCAT Operating Summary – System Wide (2019 – 2023)
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ Yuma has a well-developed transit system userbase and ridership has been on an upwards trend since 2021.
◼ There are several routes that serve residents on reservation land, and the maintenance of these routes is critical
for the users on these routes.
40

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 42. Bus Routes and Stops
41

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
There are a variety of active transportation facilities in the study area for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other micromobility
users (scooters, skateboards, etc.). Providing an accessible and connected active transportation system is integral to
a more livable and healthy community. Existing active transportation facilities include bicyclist lanes, paved shoulders,
sidewalks, wide curb lanes, and shared-use paths.
BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Existing active transportation facilities are shown in Figure 43. The system is primarily concentrated around the north-
south corridor along the East Main Canal that provides access through the center of the city, and east-west along the
Colorado River towards the northern portion of the study area. From there, bicyclist lanes, sidewalks, and shared-use
facilities provide generally good access to neighborhoods, community facilities (schools, parks, etc.), and higher
volume roadways. Community facilities are shown in Figure 44. As it exists now, the active transportation system
caters more to specific communities traveling within their neighborhood as opposed to those who wish to commute
longer distances using these modes. There are gaps in the active transportation network for bicyclists and pedestrians
that prevent true connectivity around the city, especially for commuters traveling east-west where there are either short
or disconnected bikeways. A sidewalk deficiency map is shown in Figure 45. There are also locations where no active
transportation facility is provided, particularly on the east side of the study area.
MICROMOBILITY
In February 2021, the City permitted Bird electric scooters to operate in the City due to the growing interest in
micromobility devices. The number of Bird electric scooter rides peaked in May 2021 but has steadily declined since
then.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ The existing bicyclist facilities (primarily consisting of shared-use paths) serve certain areas of the study area but
there is not good connectivity between the different bicyclist facility areas.
◼ Most roadways include sidewalk but there are some gaps. Larger gaps exist along 40th Street, 32nd Street, Pacific
Avenue, Avenue 3E, 4th Avenue, Arizona Avenue, and Avenue A.
◼ Bird scooter usage has significantly dropped since they were first introduced to the City but still serves a group of
users with an average of 1,500 rides per month in 2023.
42

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 43. Active Transportation Facilities
43

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 44. Community Facilities
44

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 45. Existing Sidewalk Facilities and Deficiencies
Data Sources: City of Yuma
45

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
RAIL ASSESSMENT
The Union Pacific Railroad company (UPRR) operates a regular rail freight service known as the east-west Sunset
Route on the main railroad track located in the northern portion of the study area. Typically, there are an estimated 35-
40 trains daily on the Sunset Route. Also using that same track are the Amtrak passenger routes known as the Sunset
Limited, which travels from Los Angeles to New Orleans, and the Texas Eagle, which travels from Los Angeles to
Chicago. An Amtrak passenger depot exists in north Yuma near the Downtown Yuma Transit Center. Several spur
tracks connect the main railroad track to industrial facilities where rail freight can be loaded/unloaded.
Several grade-separated crossings exist for the railroad at roadways, minimizing conflicts and train noise in most of
Yuma. Mainline at-grade roadway-rail crossings exist at Avenue 9E near the eastern edge of the study area and at
Fortuna Road just east of the study area. These two mainline at-grade crossings were ranked #54 and #52,
respectively, in terms of highest safety risk score, in ADOT’s State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plan. Several
at-grade roadway-rail crossings also exist along the spur tracks, but volumes are generally low for both trains and
vehicles at these crossings.
The existing rail infrastructure, including at-grade and grade-separated railroad crossings, is shown in Figure 46.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ The existing UPRR main railroad track provides freight and passenger rail service in the Yuma area.
◼ Most main railroad track crossings of the study area roadway network are grade-separated, but there are two at-
grade crossings at Avenue 9E and Fortuna Road.
AVIATION ASSESSMENT
Yuma International Airport (YUM) is adjacent to MCAS-Yuma. Civilian air activity consists of commercial regional
service to Phoenix, AZ and Dallas, TX, via American Airlines. Currently there are four runways, with two being used
primarily for military aircraft operations and the other two primarily for civilian operations, but all runways are used for
both activities. The taxiway system includes full-length parallel taxiways, runway exit/entrance taxiways, and stub
taxiways providing access to landside facilities (passenger terminal, aircraft storage, aircraft parking aprons, and
support facilities). The passenger terminal building provides five air carrier gate positions, expanded ticketing and
departure areas, as well as a mechanized baggage claim system. Air cargo facilities are located on 40th Street directly
west of the airport runways. A FedEx facility is located within the Defense Contractor Complex.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ The Yuma International Airport/MCAS-Yuma serves both commercial and military traffic.
46

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 46. Existing Rail Infrastructure and Crossings
Data Sources: City of Yuma
47

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY REVIEW
Crash history for the study area was analyzed using data obtained from ADOT for the most recent ten-year period
available (2014-2023). There was a total of 30,654 crashes over these ten years. Trends identified in the crash data
are summarized in the following sections. More detailed crash analysis will be undertaken by the City’s Safe Streets
and Roads for All (SS4A) Road Safety Action Plan that was recently initiated by the City.
CRASHES BY YEAR
Crash totals for each of the past ten years for the study area are shown in Figure 47. The annual number of crashes
is represented by the solid line while the overall trend over the past ten years is represented by the dashed line. There
was an average of approximately 3,064 crashes annually within the study area. A drop in total crashes occurred in
2020, which was most likely a result of changes in travel patterns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but crashes were
generally trending down prior to 2019. In 2021, crashes increased to pre-pandemic levels and overall are beginning to
trend downward.
Figure 47. Crashes by Year (2014-2023)
3,600 3294 3354
3,400 3196 3318 3197
3,200 3036
Crashes
3,000
of 2,800 3006 2939
2,600 2809
Number 2,400 2496
2,200
2,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year
Source: ADOT
CRASH DENSITY
Crash densities for all crashes within the same ten-year period were analyzed and mapped to identify crash “hot spots”
in the study area. A crash density map is shown in Figure 48. Identified crash hot spots include the following locations:
◼ 1st Street and 4th Avenue
◼ 8th Street and 4th Avenue
◼ 16th Street between 6th Avenue and Arizona Avenue
◼ 24th Street between Avenue A and Arizona Avenue
◼ 32nd Street and 4th Avenue (Big Curve Area)
◼ 16th Street and Avenue B
◼ 24th Street and Avenue B
48

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 48. All Crashes Densities and Severities (2014-2023)
Data Sources: City of Yuma, ADOT
49

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
CRASHES BY SEVERITY
From 2014 through 2023, 147 fatal crashes (0.5% of the total crashes) and 663 suspected serious injury crashes (2.2%
of the total crashes) occurred, as shown in Figure 49. Over 58% of total crashes were property damage only (no
injuries).
Figure 49. All Crashes by Severity (2014-2023)
0.5% 2.2%
Fatal
13.8%
Suspected Serious Injury
Suspected Minor Injury
24.6%
58.9% Possible Injury
No Injury
Source: ADOT
CRASHES BY TYPE
The three most common types of crashes that occurred in the most recent ten years of data were rear end (11,398
crashes, 37.2% of total), angle (front to side other than left turn) (6,399 crashes, 20.9% of total), and left turn (5,081
crashes, 16.6% of total), as shown in Figure 50.
Figure 50. All Crashes by Type (2014-2023)
2% 1%
5% Angle (Front To Side)(Other Than Left Turn)
6%
37% Other
Left Turn
11%
Rear End
Single Vehicle
Head On
17%
Sideswipe Same Direction
21% Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Source: ADOT
50

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Crash types for fatal and serious injury crashes were compared to crash types for all crashes to see if there are any
difference in trends. The three most common types of fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred in the most recent
ten years of data were angle (219 crashes, 27% of total), other (176 crashes, 22% of total), and left turn (159 crashes,
20% of total), as shown in Figure 51. Note that the “other” crash type includes 145 (82% of “other” crashes) pedestrian-
involved and bicyclist-involved fatal and serious injury crashes.
Figure 51. Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Type (2014-2023)
3%
5% Angle (Front To Side)(Other Than Left Turn)
27%
11% Other
Left Turn
12% Rear End
Single Vehicle
Head On
20% 22% Sideswipe Same Direction
Source: ADOT
PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED AND BICYCLIST-INVOLVED CRASHES
In the most recent ten-year period, there were 979 crashes involving vulnerable road users (such as pedestrians and
bicyclists), representing 3.2% of all crashes. Of the 979 crashes, 450 were pedestrian-involved crashes resulting in 43
fatal crashes (9.6%) and 106 suspected serious injury crashes (23.6%). There were 529 bicyclist-involved crashes, 8
of which were fatal crashes (1.5%) and 58 of which were suspected serious injury crashes (11.0%).
Figure 52 shows the annual pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved crashes from 2014 through 2023. The annual
number of pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved crashes has generally declined slightly, from a maximum of 133
total pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved crashes in 2014 to 2023’s total of 98 pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-
involved crashes. Figure 53 shows the locations of pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved crashes by severity.
Figure 52. Bicyclist-Involved and Pedestrian-Involved Crashes (2014-2023)
80 70 74
70 60 62
60 50 53 54
Crashes 50 63 42 40 48
of 40 51 54 50
30 42 40 40
Number
20 28 26 32
10
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year
Bicyclist Pedestrian
Source: ADOT
51

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 53. Pedestrian-Involved and Bicyclist-Involved Crash Densities and Severity (2014-2023)
Data Sources: City of Yuma, ADOT
52

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
TRUCK CRASHES
In the most recent ten-year period, there were 1,869 truck-involved crashes. Of the truck-involved crashes, 11 were
fatal crashes and 22 were suspected serious injury crashes. Of the truck-involved crashes, 107 were on I-8, 20 were
on US 95, 62 were on SR 195, and the other crashes were on non-ADOT facilities. The annual number of truck-involved
crashes is shown in Figure 54. Truck-involved crashes remained relatively steady over the ten-year period between
2014 and 2023 except for a one-year decline in 2020 (which was most likely a result of changes in travel patterns due
to the COVID-19 pandemic ).
Figure 54. Truck-Involved Crashes by Year
300 249
250 223 199
Crashes 200 175 173 178 179 171 175
147
of 150
100
Number
50
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year
Source: ADOT
VULNERABLE ROAD USER SAFETY ASSESSMENT
ADOT completed a Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment in 2023 in which Yuma was ranked third highest
community in Arizona recommended for VRU safety improvements due to high pedestrian crash rates and a high equity
(disadvantaged population impact) score in the northern part of Yuma, particularly along 4th Avenue and 2nd Street.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ Since 2014, the total number of crashes has generally declined slightly.
◼ Crash hotspots include 1st Street and 4th Avenue, 8th Street and 4th Avenue, 16th Street between 6th Avenue and
Arizona Avenue, 24th Street between Avenue A and Arizona Avenue, 32nd Street and 4th Avenue (Big Curve Area),
16th Street and Avenue B, and 24th Street and Avenue B.
◼ Fatal and suspected serious injury crashes accounted for 3% of all crashes but 27% of all pedestrian-involved and
bicyclist-involved crashes.
◼ Pedestrian-involved and bicyclist-involved crashes represented 3% of all crashes but accounted for 35% of all
fatal crashes and 25% of all suspected serious injury crashes.
◼ The number of truck-involved crashes has remained relatively steady over the most recent 10-year period.
◼ Rear end, angle, and left-turn crashes accounted for the most common crash types overall but angle, left-turn, and
pedestrian-involved/bicyclist-involved accounted for the most common fatal and serious injury crash types.
◼ More detailed crash analysis will be undertaken by the City’s recently initiated Road Safety Action Plan.
53

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
To holistically evaluate the key takeaways, a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis
was conducted to identify where to focus on developing feasible improvement recommendations for the TMP study
area. Figure 55 shows the overall structure of the SWOT analysis and the following sections organize the key
takeaways into the four groupings.
Figure 55. Existing Conditions SWOT Analysis Components
STRENGTHS
Strengths are topics or metrics that are both helpful to the existing transportation system in Yuma and are within the
control of the City of Yuma (of internal origin). Strengths of the Yuma transportation system include:
◼ Well-connected roadway network on the west side of the study area
◼ The YCAT system has a strong rider base with the ridership trending upwards since 2021.
◼ The City makes considerable effort in developing long-term plans to improve all aspects of transportation and
community health.
◼ Several projects are in place to improve the transit system, bicyclist network, pedestrian network, and roadway
network.
WEAKNESSES
Weaknesses are topics or metrics that are harmful to the transportation system but are within the control of the City of
Yuma (of internal origin). Weaknesses of Yuma’s transportation system include:
◼ Motorist, pedestrian, and bicyclist crashes are concentrated along 16th Street, 4th Avenue, and 24th Street. Safety-
related improvements should be prioritized along these corridors.
54

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ The east side of the study area transportation network is not as connected as the west side, particularly for bicyclist
and pedestrian travel. Priority should be placed on improving connectivity on the east side of the study area
transportation network.
OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunities are topics or metrics that are helpful in the City of Yuma transportation system’s continued improvement
but are largely out of the control of the City of Yuma (of external issue) and are more a result of the general environment.
Opportunities for Yuma’s transportation system include:
◼ Projected population and employment growth provide opportunities to install additional transportation infrastructure
that can address some of the identified transportation needs.
◼ Making active transportation more appealing provides the opportunity to improve overall community health.
THREATS
Threats are topics or metrics that are harmful to Yuma’s transportation system’s improvement but are largely out of the
control of the City of Yuma (of external origin) and are more a result of the general environment. Threats to Yuma’s
transportation system include:
◼ Major highways and roadways within the study area experience a significant increase in traffic during the winter
months due to winter visitors, tourists, and agricultural activities.
◼ Large tracts of agricultural land, federal land, and military land limit development to certain areas of the study area.
This may restrict expansion of the transportation network.
◼ Improper human behavior (e.g., driving aggressively, impaired, or distracted) is a major contributing factor to many
of the crashes in the study area.
55

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
FUTURE CONDITIONS
PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS
PROGRAMMED/FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS
Several plans, policies, and recommendations related to future conditions were identified in previously completed
documents. The funding allocated to different transportation-related improvement project types in the City of Yuma’s
Capital Improvement Program (2025-2029), or CIP, is summarized in Figure 56. Approximately $45.2 million (37%) of
the $122.5 million in programmed City transportation improvement funds have been allocated to pavement
rehabilitation projects. The next highest project type for which funding is allocated is traffic signal projects at $20.0
million (16%).
Figure 56. Programmed Transportation Improvements by Cost and Project Type (2025-2029)
$50.0
$45.2M
$45.0
$40.0
$35.0
$30.0
($M)
$25.0
Cost $20.0M $18.4M
$20.0
$15.0 $10.7M $10.1M
$10.0 $6.8M $5.3M
$5.0 $3.3M $1.8M $0.9M
$-
Source: City of Yuma Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2025-2029
Other sources of programmed projects related to transportation include the ADOT Five Year Program (2025-2029) and
the latest YMPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
Planned improvements are those from previously reviewed documents that have not yet received funding.
FUTURE ROADWAY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
The planned future roadway improvements from these studies include 112 recommendations ranging from capacity
increases, constructing new roadways, improving existing roadways, pavement rehabilitation, safety, and constructing
bridges/overpasses totaling approximately $634 million in improvement costs. A summary of the planned roadway
improvements by type and cost is summarized in Figure 57.
56

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 57. Future Roadway Planned Improvements by Cost and Type
$400 $364 M
$350
$300
($M) $250
$200
Cost $150
$100 $79 M $63 M $59 M $52 M
$50 $16 M
$-
Capacity New Roadway Roadway Pavement Bridge Safety
Improvements Rehabilitation
Improvement Type
Source: City of Yuma Transportation Master Plan (2014); YMPO 2022-2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Update (2021)
FUTURE TRANSIT PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
The YCIPTA/YMPO Short Range Transit Plan (2021) presents a five-year plan to redesign the existing transit system
in response to the growing population and needs of the Yuma region and its users. The total projected operating and
capital cost at the time of the study for the planned 2025-2026 improvements, if implemented, was approximately $1.5
million. The improvements, none of which is currently funded, are listed below:
◼ Personal Mobility on Demand (PMoD) Demonstration: This project aims to on-demand ride-share and taxi
service to the residents on the Quechan Reservation. This area is currently served by the Yuma County Area
Transit (YCAT) Blue Route 5; however, it is the preference of the residents and the nature of the low density area
that an on-demand ride-share/taxi service would better service the Reservation.
◼ Expand Turquoise 10 Station: Reservice options include expanding the five-day per week service from eastern
Imperial County to important destinations in El Centro such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, State Courts,
and the Public Health Department.
◼ Central Yuma Route Restructuring: This project proposes a system redesign around the West Yuma Transit
Hub (WYTH) and the Downtown Yuma Transit Center (DYTC) to provide better east-west coverage in the region.
This would result in capital improvements to the two transit centers and priority bus stops and rescheduling,
rerouting, and adding buses to complete the grid network and provide a “Dual Hub Grid Network”.
◼ US 95 South Corridor Service Integration: This is a multi-year proposal that would integrate three YCAT routes
into a common schedule in the service area south of the WYTH. The existing schedule for routes Yellow 95, Purple
6, and Silver 9 overlap with varying headways. The goal of the proposal is to provide 15-minute headways on the
Yellow 95 and Purple 6 routes between the WYTH and San Luis. Thirty-minute headways would be provided to
Cocopah and San Luis destinations, which branch off the mainline.
◼ East County Redesign: This redesign would consolidate the Orange 2, Brown 3, and Gold 8 routes into a
common line providing all-day local in the 32nd Street corridor and peak period limited stop service on I-8. The
existing system is sparsely used and not user-friendly as it requires transfers. The redesign aims to provide direct
services, expand flex zones to MCAS-Yuma, and implement a FLEX Microtransit Feeder (on-demand transit
service).
57

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
FUTURE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
The planned future pedestrian improvements from previously completed studies include 14 recommendations ranging
from constructing new sidewalk, filling gaps in the network, and pedestrian bridges totaling approximately $11.4 million
in improvement costs. The largest portion of these costs are associated with constructing new sidewalk for long spans.
A summary of the improvements by type and cost is summarized in Figure 58.
Figure 58. Future Pedestrian Planned Improvements by Cost and Type
$12.0
$10.1 M
$10.0
$8.0
($M)
$6.0
Cost
$4.0
$2.0 $0.8 M $0.5 M
$-
New Sidewalk Fill Sidewalk Gaps Pedestrian Bridge
Improvement Type
Source: City of Yuma Transportation Master Plan (2014); YMPO 2022-2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Update (2021)
The planned future bicyclist improvements from previously completed studies include 14 recommendations ranging
from six-foot shoulders, sharrows, and bicyclist lanes totaling approximately $446,000 in improvement costs. A
summary of the improvements by type and cost is summarized in Figure 59.
Figure 59. Future Bicycle Planned Improvements by Cost and Type
$400.0 $366.1 K
$350.0
$300.0
$250.0
($K)
$200.0
Cost
$150.0
$92.5 K
$100.0
$50.0 $7.9 K
$-
6-Foot Shoulder Sharrow Bike Lanes
Improvement Type
Source: City of Yuma Transportation Master Plan (2014); YMPO 2022-2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Update (2021)
The planned future multimodal improvements from previously completed studies include 49 recommendations ranging
from shared-use paths, shared-use trails, and upgrading crossings totaling approximately $32.9 million in improvement
costs. A summary of the improvements by type and cost is summarized in Figure 60.
58

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 60. Future Multimodal Planned Improvements by Cost and Type
$25.0
$19.9 M
$20.0
($M) $15.0 $12.5 M
Cost $10.0
$5.0
$0.5 M
$-
Shared Used Path Shared Use Trail Upgrade Crossing
Improvement Type
Source: City of Yuma Transportation Master Plan (2014); YMPO 2022-2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Update (2021)
FUTURE RAIL PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
The City, in conjunction with Yuma County and the Town of Wellton, recently received funding from the Federal
Highway Administration’s Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program to assess the feasibility of grade-separating
three at-grade crossings in Yuma County, one of which is on Avenue 9E between 24th Street and 28th Street.
UPRR is planning to double-track the Sunset Route, a portion of which runs through Yuma. The portion that is already
double-tracked is from the intersection at 1st Street and Gila Street to approximately 0.23 miles west of Avenue 4E (0.7
miles above 32nd Street). The track north of the Colorado River at 1st Street and the track east of Avenue 4E is only
single-tracked. Double-tracking is anticipated to result in more train activity, which will likely lead to more frequent
closures of the at-grade roadway-rail crossings.
FUTURE AVIATION PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
A traffic circulation plan has been proposed for the Yuma International Airport area to address congestion issues on
Airport Loop Road. As part of the study, impacts of partial closure of Airport Loop Road and the extension of 4th Avenue
should be considered. No major landside transportation projects pertaining to the Yuma International Airport are
planned.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ The $122.5 million of funding allocated over the next five years by the City for transportation improvements is
primarily allocated to pavement rehabilitation, followed by traffic signals and transit enhancements.
◼ Future transportation needs identified in prior planning efforts for Yuma’s transportation network are close to $700
million, using the cost values from the year they were identified. Costs would be significantly higher if adjusted to
account for inflation. The cost of identified transportation needs far exceeds the anticipated funding available for
transportation, assuming similar future funding levels for transportation as has historically been available.
59

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
FUTURE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
FORECASTED POPULATION
The Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) has developed low, medium, and high population forecasts for
Yuma County, extending through 2060, as shown in Figure 61.The low forecast anticipates a county-wide population
increase of 23% by 2060 while the medium and high forecasts project county-wide population to increase by 44% and
65%, respectively.
Figure 61. Historical and Forecasted Population for Yuma County
550,000
Population 350,000
150,000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Yuma High Yuma Medium Year Yuma Low Historic
Source: United States Census Bureau; Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity
YMPO has developed 2050 projections for population and dwelling units and incorporated these projections into
YMPO’s regional TDM, organized by traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The 2050 forecasted population by TAZ is illustrated
in Figure 62. The 2050 forecasted dwelling unit density by TAZ is illustrated in Figure 63.
FORECASTED EMPLOYMENT
The Arizona OEO has developed industry employment projections for 2022-2032 at the county level. Yuma County’s
annual employment percentage change is anticipated to be 0.9%, with a base employment of 83,071 (2022) and a
projected employment of 90,883 (2032). YMPO has also developed 2050 projections for employment and incorporated
these projections into YMPO’s regional TDM, organized by TAZ. The 2050 employment growth by TAZ is illustrated in
Figure 64.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ Population and employment are projected to continue to grow in Yuma, with population growing at a faster rate
than employment.
◼ Population growth through 2050 is projected to primarily occur west of Avenue A and east of Avenue 5E.
◼ Employment growth through 2050 is projected to primarily occur east of Arizona Avenue and west of Avenue 9E.
60

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 62. Population Growth (2050) by TAZ
61

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 63. Dwelling Unit Growth (2050) by TAZ
62

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 64. Employment Growth (2050) by TAZ
63

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
FUTURE HEALTH ASSESSMENT
2050 NO BUILD ESTIMATED HEALTH CONDITIONS
The 2023 Baseline and 2050 No Build scenarios were evaluated using Urban Design 4 Health's National Public Health
Assessment Model (N-PHAM). N-PHAM estimated population-weighted prevalence rates of BMI greater than 30, Type
2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and high blood pressure/hypertension (see Figure 65). There is minimal change
in these outcomes in the 2050 No Build scenario compared to 2023. Small reductions in the prevalence rates can be
attributed to the built environment changes from the programmed projects and the forecasted changes in population
and employment. In 2023, the average annual per capita cost of illness in the City of Yuma is estimated to be $2,812
(based on N-PHAM estimated prevalence rates and average treatment costs), with a total annual cost of $599 million.
By 2050, in the No Build scenario, the average per capita cost of illness is expected to remain $2,812 r(in 2023 dollars),
but the total annual cost increases to $799 million due to the projected population growth.
Figure 65: N-PHAM Estimated Chronic Disease Rates in 2023 and 2050 No Build
45.0% 40.4%
39.4%
40.0%
35.0% 29.8% 29.7%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0% 14.8% 14.1%
15.0%
8.4% 8.4%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Body Mass Index > 30 Type 2 Diabetes Coronary Heart Disease Hypertension
(considered high)
Baseline 2023 No Build 2050
Source: UD4H
ACCESS TO BICYCLIST FACILITIES
Anticipated bicyclist facilities and areas of bicyclist facility access in the 2050 No Build scenario are shown in Figure
66. Purple areas have existing access to bicyclist facilities within 500 meters, and yellow areas show additional bicyclist
facility access provided by programmed improvements. Access to bicyclist paths and lanes increases options for safe
active travel, recreation, and fitness. Increased availability and use of bicyclist lanes can help build a culture of health
and physical activity that can benefit entire communities.
64

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 66: 2050 No Build Access to Bicyclist Features
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ Study area population health conditions in 2050 are generally projected to experience minimal change compared
to existing health conditions if the only improvements to the existing transportation network are those already
programmed with funding.
◼ Individual programmed projects expected to improve localized health conditions are those that promote active
travel and physical activity, improve safety, increase access to health goods and services, reduce adverse
environmental exposure, and/or improve social connectivity.
◼ Without intentional planning and community investment, future population and employment growth is forecast to
generally occur in less walkable locations farther from established areas that contain parks, bike facilities, transit
service, and mixed land use (e.g., complete communities with shops and services).
◼ When considering health impacts, future transportation and land use plans should (to the extent possible) focus
development into existing areas served by diverse transportation alternatives and land uses. Any new
development in less central locations should include infrastructure to support active transportation and, in key
locations, clustering of development into nodes where shops and services are provided.
65

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
FUTURE ROADWAY ASSESSMENT
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
2050 traffic volumes and anticipated traffic congestion were forecasted using the updated YMPO regional TDM. The
2050 No Build TDM assumes the improvements already funded for construction are implemented as planned, a
scenario known as ‘Existing Plus Committed’ (E+C), where ‘Committed’ refers to projects already programmed and
funded. This scenario is more commonly called the “No Build” scenario. The following programmed and funded projects
within the Yuma TMP study area were incorporated into the 2050 No Build model:
◼ Construct Bridge on Avenue 7E and 40th Street over A Canal
◼ Construct 40th Street between Avenue 7 ½ E and Avenue 6 ¾ E (one lane each way with a raised median – with
no at-grade connection to SR 195/Araby Rd)
◼ Widen Avenue 9E from two to four lanes between South Gila Canal (City Limits) and North Frontage Road.
2050 NO BUILD AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Figure 67 shows forecasted 2050 No Build average daily traffic volumes during average traffic conditions. 16th Street,
32nd Street, Avenue 3E, and Araby Road are projected to be high-volume corridors in 2050. Figure 68 shows
anticipated LOS and traffic congestion in 2050 during average traffic conditions if no improvements are implemented
beyond those already funded for construction. The existing congestion throughout Yuma is anticipated to worsen over
time with the following segments nearing capacity (LOS E) or over capacity (LOS F):
◼ 24th Street between Avenue 5E and Araby Road ◼ 24th Street between Avenue 4E and Avenue 5E
(LOS F) (LOS E)
◼ 32nd Street between SR 195 and Avenue 7E ◼ I-8 Eastbound On-Ramp from Avenue 3E (LOS E)
(LOS F)
◼ Avenue 3E between Gila Ridge Road and I-8
◼ Avenue 8E between 40th Street and 42nd Place Eastbound On-Ramp (LOS E)
(LOS F)
◼ Yuma Palms Parkway between Castle Dome
◼ South Frontage Road between Mesa Avenue and Avenue and 16th Street (LOS E)
Westwind Boulevard (LOS F)
◼ 16th Street between El Paseo Real and 14th
◼ North Frontage Road between Avenue 10E and Avenue (LOS E)
Avenida Compadres (LOS F)
◼ 24th Street between 17th Avenue and Ridgeview
◼ South Frontage Road between Avenue 9E and Drive (LOS E)
Mesa Avenue (LOS E)
◼ 32nd Street between 15th Avenue and Avenue A
◼ South Frontage Road between Westwind (LOS E)
Boulevard and Avenue 10E (LOS E)
◼ Airport Loop/4th Avenue between County 14th
◼ Gila Ridge Road between 750 feet west of SR 195 Street and Avenue A (LOS E)
and SR 195 (LOS E)
Figure 69 shows the anticipated changes in daily traffic volumes between the 2023 TDM scenario and the 2050 No
Build scenario. Locations experiencing congestion currently are expected to continue to experience congestion in 2050.
66

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 67. 2050 No Build Average Traffic Condition Volumes
67

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 68. 2050 No Build Average Traffic Condition LOS
68

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 69. Change in Traffic Volumes (2023-2050 No Build Average Traffic Condition)
69

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
The locations that experience the greatest change in volume are west of Avenue A and east of Avenue 3E, including
along I-8. Key locations that experience large changes in volume are:
◼ Avenue B between 24th Street and County 14th Street
◼ Avenue 3E between US 95/16th Street and 40th Street
◼ SR 195 between 36th Street and County 14th Street
◼ Avenue 9E between 24th Street and 32nd Street
◼ 1st Street between Avenue B and 4th Avenue
◼ 8th Street between Avenue D and East Main Canal
◼ 16th Street between Avenue C and Avenue A
◼ US 95/16th Street between Arizona Avenue and Avenue 10E
◼ 24th Street between Araby Road and Avenue 9E
◼ 32nd Street between Avenue B and Avenue 8 ½ E
2050 NO BUILD PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Figure 70 shows forecasted 2050 No Build average daily traffic volumes during the winter season when traffic volumes
are typically at their peak. 16th Street, 32nd Street, Avenue 3E, and SR 195 are projected to be high-volume corridors
in the 2050 No Build peak traffic condition.
Figure 71 shows anticipated 2050 No Build peak traffic condition LOS if no improvements are implemented beyond
those already funded for construction. Congestion throughout Yuma is generally anticipated to worsen over time. The
following segments that were LOS E or LOS F in the 2050 average traffic condition did not experience a change in
LOS in the 2050 peak traffic condition:
◼ 24th Street between Avenue 5E and Araby Road ◼ Yuma Palms Parkway between Castle Dome
(LOS F) Avenue and 16th Street (LOS E)
◼ 32nd Street between SR 195 and Avenue 7E (LOS ◼ 16th Street between El Paseo Real and 14th
F) Avenue (LOS E)
◼ Avenue 8E between 40th Street and 42nd Place ◼ 32nd Street between 15th Avenue and Avenue A
(LOS F) (LOS E)
◼ South Frontage Road between Mesa Avenue and ◼ Airport Loop/4th Avenue between County 14th
Westwind Boulevard (LOS F) Street and Avenue A (LOS E)
◼ North Frontage Road between Avenue 10E and
Avenida Compadres (LOS F)
70

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 70. 2050 No Build Peak Traffic Condition Volumes
71

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 71. 2050 No Build Peak Traffic Condition LOS
72

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Notable segments that were LOS E in the 2050 No Build average traffic condition but that are now LOS F in the 2050
No Build peak traffic condition are:
◼ 24th Street between Avenue 4E and Avenue 5E
◼ South Frontage Road between Avenue 9E and
Mesa Avenue ◼ Gila Ridge Road between 750 feet west of Araby
Road and Araby Road
◼ South Frontage Road between Westwind
Boulevard and Avenue 10E ◼ I-8 Eastbound On-Ramp from Avenue 3E
◼ 24th Street between 17th Avenue and Ridgeview ◼ Avenue 3E between Gila Ridge Road and I-8
Drive Eastbound On-Ramp
The following segments were LOS D in the 2050 No Build average traffic condition but are now LOS E in the 2050 No
Build peak traffic condition:
◼ 24th Street between 18th Avenue and 17th Avenue ◼ I-8 Eastbound Off-Ramp at Araby Road
◼ I-8 Westbound Off-Ramp at Avenue 3E ◼ North Frontage Road between 30th Street and I-8
Westbound On-Ramp/Off-Ramp at Avenue 8 ½ E
◼ 40th Street between Avenue 3E and Avenue 4E
◼ North Frontage Road between ¼ mile west of
◼ Avenue 3E between 43rd Street and County 13th
Avenue 10E and Avenue 10E
Street
◼ 32nd Street between Avenue 6E and the First ◼ I-8 Eastbound On-Ramp/Off-Ramp at Avenue 8 ½
Christian Church Access Driveway (Avenue 6 ¼ E
E)
KEY TAKEAWAYS
◼ The 2050 No Build scenario only minimally improves the study area roadway network connectivity.
◼ Traffic volumes are projected to increase in the future due to the projected population and employment growth.
Roadways projected to see significant increases in volume include I-8, SR 195, 16th Street, 32nd Street, Avenue
3E, many of the mile-grid roadways west of Avenue A, and many of the roadways east of SR 195.
◼ There are many more segments nearing capacity (LOS E) or over capacity (LOS F) in the 2050 No Build scenario
than in existing conditions, with peak winter traffic conditions further exacerbating congestion compared to average
traffic conditions.
◼ Segments nearing or over capacity during peak conditions include segments of 16th Street, 24th Street, and 32nd
Street (all between Avenue B and Avenue A), 4th Avenue north of County 14th Street, segments of Avenue 3E near
MCAS-Yuma and near I-8, North Frontage Road, South Frontage Road, 40th Street east of Avenue 3E, and the
roadways around the I-8/SR 195/Araby Road interchange and the I-8/Avenue 8 ½ E interchange.
73

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
To holistically evaluate the key takeaways, a SWOT analysis was conducted to identify where to focus on developing
feasible improvement recommendations for the TMP study area. Figure 55 shows the overall structure of the SWOT
analysis and the following sections organize the key takeaways into the four groupings.
Figure 72. Future Conditions SWOT Analysis Components
STRENGTHS
Strengths of the 2050 No Build Yuma transportation system include:
◼ The City’s current allocation of transportation funding, with system maintenance being the highest priority, aligns
well with public input on priorities.
◼ The City’s CIP is multimodal in nature, with funding allocated to various modes of travel.
◼ Prior planning efforts and recent regional modeling provide a comprehensive outlook on anticipated future
multimodal needs.
◼ The programmed construction of a shared-use pathway along 32nd Street will provide critical connectivity between
the west and east parts of Yuma for bicyclists and pedestrians.
WEAKNESSES
Weaknesses of the 2050 No Build Yuma transportation system include:
◼ Many of the identified capacity, bicyclist/pedestrian, and safety needs are not currently funded.
◼ Much of the projected growth in population and employment is in the Foothills area that already experiences
congestion and the current roadway network does not provide redundant parallel routes to help distribute traffic.
74

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ Much of the City’s population, particularly the disadvantaged population, does not live near transit, bicyclist, and
pedestrian facilities, limiting modal choice and mobility.
OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunities for the 2050 No Build Yuma transportation system include:
◼ Projected population and employment growth provide opportunities for developers to help install additional
transportation infrastructure that can address identified transportation needs.
◼ Making active transportation more appealing provides the opportunity to improve overall community health.
◼ The potential is there to create an integrated multimodal transportation system if additional funding can be obtained
for transportation improvements.
◼ Technological advancements may bring new ways to travel and/or improve the safety and efficiency of travel.
THREATS
Threats to the 2050 No Build Yuma transportation system include:
◼ Insufficient or unreliable funding for transportation could adversely affect the ability to make improvements to
Yuma’s transportation system, which could have negative economic, health, and safety ramifications.
◼ Federal and state changes in policies, programs, funding levels, and laws could restrict the City’s ability to make
needed transportation improvements.
◼ Features such as railroad tracks, canals, and drainage washes are constraints that could limit options for
expanding and connecting the transportation network.
75

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
2025 TMP VISION, GOALS, METRICS, AND OBJECTIVES
2025 TMP VISION STATEMENT
The vision for the 2025 City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan is founded on establishing a
clear vision of the City’s short-term and long-term transportation priorities that align with the mobility needs for all.
Previously completed planning documents, public engagement input, and feedback obtained at Steering Committee
meetings influenced the development of the 2025 TMP vision.
Vision: A well-maintained and integrated transportation system that prioritizes safety, efficiency, inclusivity of all modes
of travel, and community health.
2025 TMP GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND METRICS
Goals are overarching statements that define a desired result. Objectives are achievements and actions that contribute
to the completion of a goal. A series of objectives can provide a roadmap that illustrates progress towards a goal.
Metrics are the quantifiable indicators used to measure progress towards achieving the objectives and goals. Previously
completed planning documents, public engagement input, and feedback obtained at Steering Committee meetings
influenced the development of the 2025 TMP goals, objectives, and metrics.
The TMP’s general overarching goals through 2050 are:
◼ Maintain overall transportation infrastructure condition at acceptable levels
◼ Reduce fatal and serious injury crashes by 75% by 2050, with an ultimate goal of zero fatal and serious injury
crashes to achieve Vision Zero
◼ Provide acceptable traffic operations on major roadways
◼ Provide an interconnected multimodal network by improving transit, bicyclist, and pedestrian facilities
◼ Implement context-sensitive multimodal projects, policies, and processes that improve community health
The following sections contain mode-specific goals, objectives, and metrics that relate to travel on the roadway, transit,
and active transportation networks.
ROADWAY NETWORK
The goals, objectives, and metrics for the roadway network in Yuma are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Roadway Network Goals, Objectives, and Metrics
Goal Objectives Metrics
◼ Continue to utilize and update a pavement management
◼ Pavement Condition Index
Goal 1: Maintain pavement surface program that tracks pavement condition and identifies needed
conditions on all roadways at acceptable maintenance activities (PCI) values
◼ Number of crashes related to
levels ◼ Prioritize pavement maintenance along major roadways and
pavement condition
where crash trends related to pavement condition exist
Goal 2: Reduce fatal and serious injury ◼ Develop a Safety Action Plan ◼ Number of fatal and serious
crashes by 75% by 2050, with an ◼ Target high-crash and high-risk locations with FHWA-approved injury crashes
ultimate goal of zero fatal and serious safety countermeasures ◼ Fatal and serious injury crash
injury crashes ◼ Develop a crash dashboard to track crash hotspots and trends rates
76

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Goal Objectives Metrics
◼ Incorporate Vision Zero and Safe System Approach concepts, ◼ Number of safety-related
including predictive safety analysis, into City policies, updates to City policies,
processes, and standards processes, and standards
◼ Conduct targeted safety education campaigns that are ◼ Number of education
supplemented by enforcement campaigns
◼ Incorporate technological advances in traffic control devices and ◼ Number of enforcement stops
communication infrastructure to promote connectivity to vehicles ◼ Usage of intelligent
transportation system devices
◼ Construct a Traffic Management Center ◼ Volume-to-capacity ratio on
◼ Increase capacity at locations nearing, at, and over capacity roadways
Goal 3: Provide acceptable traffic ◼ Implement coordinated signal timing along major roadways ◼ Level of service
operations on major roadways ◼ Improve roadway connectivity to provide alternate routes ◼ Travel time reliability
◼ Incorporate technological advances in traffic control devices and ◼ Usage of intelligent
communication infrastructure transportation system devices
◼ Number of health-related
updates to City roadway
network design policies,
◼ Update City roadway network design policies, processes, and
processes, and standards
standards to improve access to community health facilities such
◼ Number of approved “complete
as parks and medical centers
Goal 4: Promote improved community streets” roadway cross-sections
◼ Develop “complete streets” roadway cross-sections that
health through context-sensitive ◼ Miles of new bike lanes,
accommodate all modes of travel
roadway network design shared-use paths, and
◼ Incorporate traffic calming design elements that encourage
sidewalks
active transportation and reduce vehicle speeds
◼ Number of traffic calming
◼ Reduce exposure to traffic-related air pollution and noise
devices installed
◼ Changes in air quality and noise
levels
TRANSIT NETWORK
The goals, objectives, and metrics for the transit network in Yuma are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Transit Network Goals, Objectives, and Metrics
Goal Objectives Metrics
◼ Completion of short-range and
Goal 1: Maintain transit vehicles, ◼ Support YCIPTA in developing updated short-range and long-
long-range transit plans
facilities, and infrastructure at range transit plans that address maintenance of transit vehicles,
◼ Condition of transit vehicles,
acceptable levels facilities, and infrastructure
facilities, and infrastructure
◼ Number of protected
pedestrian/bicyclist crossings
◼ Number of bus stops
◼ Provide “protected” pedestrian/bicyclist crossings near bus
◼ Number of bus pull-outs
stops (e.g., pedestrian/bicyclist phasing at signalized
◼ Number of bus stops with
intersections and pedestrian/bicyclist signal mid-block)
shade and seating
Goal 2: Improve transit user safety and ◼ Provide shaded bus stops with seating
◼ ADA-related transit
comfortability ◼ Construct curbside bus pull-outs
improvements
◼ Improve bus stop amenities
◼ Percent of disadvantaged
◼ Eliminate barriers for travel by disadvantaged populations (e.g.,
population subgroups within a
low income, people with disabilities, and older adults)
15-minute walk of a bus stop
using ADA-compliant
pedestrian infrastructure.
77

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Goal Objectives Metrics
◼ Number of bus stops and routes
◼ Invest in restructuring and expanding the transit network ◼ Transit network coverage
◼ Improve transit coverage in disadvantaged areas ◼ Transit ridership
◼ Improve transit coverage to activity centers (e.g., parks, schools, ◼ Bus headways
Goal 3: Increase accessibility, coverage, major employers, shopping centers, medical centers, libraries) ◼ Timeliness of notifications
and reliability of the transit system ◼ Improve bus headways ◼ Feasibility study for microtransit
◼ Improve the notification system to inform riders on upcoming ◼ Percent and count of activity
buses or interruptions to the system centers with a bus stop within a
◼ Assess feasibility of microtransit 15-minute walk of the centers’
entrances
◼ Update City design policies, processes, and standards to ◼ Number of transit-related
accommodate access to transit updates to City design policies,
Goal 4: Make riding transit more processes, and standards
◼ Educate and raise awareness of existing services and upcoming
appealing service improvements/updates ◼ Number of transit education
◼ Provide assistance programs to low-income users campaigns
◼ Number of transit riders
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
PEDESTRIANS
The goals, objectives, and metrics for the pedestrian network in Yuma are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Pedestrian Network Goals, Objectives, and Metrics
Goal Objectives Metrics
Goal 1: Maintain sidewalk and shared-
◼ Conduct regular inventory of pedestrian facility conditions and ◼ Sidewalk and shared-use path
use path surface and crossing
conduct needed maintenance to provide acceptable conditions and crossing condition ratings
conditions at acceptable levels
Goal 2: Reduce pedestrian-involved ◼ Establish a standard detail and guidance regarding ◼ Development of pedestrian/
fatal and serious injury crashes by 75% pedestrian/bicyclist signals at mid-block crossings. bicyclist signal standard detail
by 2050, with an ultimate goal of zero ◼ Provide “protected” pedestrian/bicyclist crossings (e.g., and guidelines
pedestrian-involved fatal and serious pedestrian/bicyclist phasing at signalized intersections and ◼ Number of pedestrian-involved
injury crashes pedestrian/bicyclist signal mid-block) fatal and serious injury crashes
◼ Mileage of gaps in sidewalk and
shared-use path networks
◼ Conduct sidewalk and shared-use path gap inventory ◼ Mileage of sidewalk and
Goal 3: Improve sidewalk and shared-
◼ Install new sidewalk and shared-use paths to address identified shared-use paths
use path connectivity
gaps ◼ Number and percentage of road
centerline miles with continuous
sidewalks on both sides
◼ Percentage or mileage of
sidewalks that have shading
◼ Number of pedestrian-related
◼ Increase shaded sidewalk coverage updates to City policies,
◼ Update development standards to improve pedestrian access processes, and standards
Goal 4: Make walking more appealing ◼ Raise awareness, educate, and promote the use of pedestrian ◼ Number of pedestrian education
facilities at community events campaigns
◼ Increase streetlight coverage along sidewalks and at crossings ◼ Number of pedestrians
◼ Number of new streetlights
along sidewalks and at
crossings
78

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
BICYCLISTS
The goals, objectives, and metrics for the bicyclist network in Yuma are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. Bicyclist Network Goals, Objectives, and Metrics
Goal Objectives Metrics
Goal 1: Maintain bicyclist facility and ◼ Bicyclist facility and shared-use
◼ Conduct regular inventory of bicyclist facility conditions and
shared-use path surface and crossing path and crossing condition
conduct needed maintenance to provide acceptable conditions
conditions at acceptable levels ratings
◼ Development of pedestrian/
◼ Establish a standard detail and guidance regarding
Goal 2: Reduce bicyclist-involved fatal bicyclist signal standard detail
pedestrian/bicyclist signals at mid-block crossings.
and serious injury crashes by 75% by and guidelines
2050, with an ultimate goal of zero ◼ Provide “protected” pedestrian/bicyclist crossings (e.g.,
◼ Number of bicyclist-involved
bicyclist-involved fatal and serious injury pedestrian/bicyclist phasing at signalized intersections and
fatal and serious injury crashes
crashes pedestrian/bicyclist signal mid-block)
◼ Miles of separated bicyclist
◼ Incorporate separated bicyclist facilities where feasible
facilities
◼ Conduct bicyclist facilities and shared-use path gap inventory ◼ Mileage of gaps in bicyclist
◼ Install new bicyclist facilities and shared-use paths to address facilities and shared-use path
identified gaps networks
Goal 3: Improve bicyclist facilities and
◼ Target connecting neighborhoods to activity centers (i.e., parks, ◼ Mileage of bicyclist facilities and
shared-use path connectivity
schools, major employers, shopping centers, medical centers, shared-use paths
libraries, etc.) ◼ Connectivity of bike network
◼ Improve cross-town connectivity of bicyclist facilities ◼ Bicycle lane inventory
◼ Number of bicyclist-related
updates to City policies,
processes, and standards
◼ Update development standards to improve bicyclist access ◼ Number of bicyclist education
Goal 4: Make bicycling more appealing ◼ Raise awareness, educate, and promote the use of bicyclist campaigns
facilities at community events ◼ Number of bicyclists
◼ Number of bicycle parking
spaces and locations (in
general) and at activity centers
79

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Scenarios were developed for roadway users, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians to aid in developing a list of
potential improvements that can subsequently be refined into prioritized recommended improvements. The reason for
providing a suite of scenarios for each mode of transportation was to identify how each scenario impacts the
transportation network. The potential improvements within each scenario were identified from previously completed
plans, the existing and future conditions analysis findings, and public/stakeholder input.
ROADWAY SYSTEM SCENARIOS
Roadway scenarios were developed based on targeted improvements to improve the LOS and capacity around the
city compared to the aforementioned 2050 No Build Scenario. A total of five main “build” scenarios, along with sub-
scenarios for certain scenarios, were developed and evaluated in comparison to the 2050 No Build Scenario. The
following sections describe each of the scenarios.
It should be noted that the volumes used in the scenario analysis were average annual volumes rather than peak
season volumes for simplicity in working with the YMPO regional TDM. A check was performed on the recommended
scenario to confirm the assumed roadway network can accommodate both average annual volumes as well as peak
season volumes. Maps displaying analysis results related to the roadway system scenarios can be found in Appendix
A.
SCENARIO 1
Scenario 1 analyzed if an expressway loop along Avenue D and County 14th Street would relieve congestion on I-8
and the city’s arterial network. This expressway would feature two lanes in each direction with a speed limit of 55 miles
per hour (mph), connecting to SR 195 on the east via an at-grade intersection and to I-8 on the west in California
through a new traffic interchange (TI). Access would be limited to mile-street intersections, with no mid-block access.
No additional improvements beyond currently funded projects were included in this scenario.
While the expressway loop would provide a more direct route for traffic traveling between West Yuma, San Luis,
Somerton, and California, its feasibility presents challenges. The construction of a new TI in California and bridge
crossing the Colorado River would require approval from Caltrans and significant funding, making implementation
difficult. Ultimately, despite some localized congestion relief and improved LOS, Scenario 1 does not sufficiently
address key areas experiencing LOS E or LOS F. Given the high costs, institutional challenges, and minimal reduction
in LOS E or LOS F segments, Scenario 1 (the expressway loop) is not considered a cost-effective solution and was
not recommended for further consideration.
SCENARIO 2
Scenario 2 analyzed if widening I-8 from four to six lanes between the Foothills Boulevard TI and the 4th Avenue TI
would reduce congestion on both the interstate (due to increased freeway capacity) and Yuma’s arterial network (by
diverting trips on arterials to instead use I-8). No additional improvements beyond currently funded projects were
included in this scenario.
While I-8 is projected to maintain an acceptable LOS through 2050 without widening (per the 2050 No Build Scenario),
the proposed expansion of I-8 in Scenario 2 successfully alleviates congestion on the arterial network, particularly
80

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
south of 16th Street. However, Scenario 2 does increase congestion at key TIs, resulting in the need for additional TI-
related improvements. Additionally, widening I-8 between Giss Parkway and 4th Avenue, including the Colorado River
crossing, would be very expensive and require Caltrans approval, presenting feasibility challenges. Widening I-8
between the Foothills Boulevard TI and the 16th Street TI appears to be a cost-effective solution and was recommended
for further consideration. Widening I-8 between the 16th Street TI and the 4th Avenue TI is not considered a cost-
effective solution and was not recommended for further consideration.
SCENARIO 3
Scenario 3 analyzed if making arterial street improvements in East Yuma, specifically in the Foothills area, would
alleviate congestion by expanding and enhancing the local roadway network. Scenario 3 included the following
improvements:
◼ 40th Street: Construct as a four-lane minor arterial facility from Avenue 6½E to Avenue 10E with a speed limit of
45 mph
◼ County 13th Street: Construct as a minor arterial with one lane in each direction from Avenue 3E to Avenue 10E,
including an overpass over SR 195, with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ Avenue 8E:
◼ Construct as a collector with one lane in each direction from County 14th Street to 40th Street with a
speed limit of 45 mph
◼ Construct as a collector with two lanes in each direction from 40th Street to I-8 North Frontage Road
with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ Avenue 9E: Construct as a collector with one lane in each direction from County 14th Street to I-8 South Frontage
Road with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ Avenue 10E: Construct as a minor arterial with two lanes in each direction from County 14th Street to I-8 South
Frontage Road with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ Fortuna Road: Construct as a minor arterial with two lanes in each direction from County 14th Street to 40th Street
with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ County 14th Street: Remains at-grade at SR 195, with two lanes in each direction from SR 195 to Foothills
Boulevard with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ 24th Street: Change roadway classification to a minor arterial with one lane in each direction from Avenue 3E to
SR 195 with a speed limit of 45 mph
Two sub-scenarios to Scenario 3 were considered: Scenario 3A, where 40th Street intersects with SR 195 at-grade or
as a TI; and Scenario 3B, where 40th Street crosses SR 195 via a bridge but does not have direct access to SR 195.
Scenario 3, which includes full arterial development in the Foothills area, effectively addresses LOS deficiencies and
is considered cost-effective. Scenario 3A is preferred over Scenario 3B as Scenario 3A provides greater traffic relief to
parallel corridors because 40th Street connects directly to SR 195 via an at-grade intersection or a TI, although Scenario
3B is also viable. Making 40th Street continuous across SR 195 was recommended for advancement. To mitigate
anticipated congestion in doing so, widening 40th Street between Avenue 3E and Avenue 3¼E is likely also necessary.
81

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
SCENARIO 4
Scenario 4 analyzed if enhancements to I-8 reduce congestion by widening the freeway, constructing new TIs, and
upgrading existing TIs. Scenario 4 included the following improvements:
◼ I-8: Widen to six lanes between the Foothills Boulevard TI and the 4th Avenue TI
◼ Pacific Avenue TI: Construct a new half-diamond TI with an eastbound on-ramp and westbound off-ramp
◼ Avenue 5E TI:
◼ Construct a new full-diamond TI
◼ Construct Avenue 5E as a minor arterial with two lanes in each direction between 32nd Street and US
95 with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ Avenue 10E Overpass:
◼ Construct a minor arterial as an overpass of I-8 with two lanes in each direction between the I-8 South
Frontage Road and I-8 North Frontage Road and with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ Avenue 8½E TI:
◼ Reconfigure as a full-diamond TI
◼ Connect the north leg to the Avenue 9E/28th Street intersection
◼ Connect the south leg to 32nd Street
Two sub-scenarios to Scenario 4 were considered to explore different connections between Winterhaven and Yuma:
Scenario 4A links Yuma to Winterhaven with a bridge crossing the Colorado River along the Avenue B alignment and
a new road connecting the existing Winterhaven Drive TI to 1st Street at Avenue B; Scenario 4B links Yuma to
Winterhaven with a bridge crossing the Colorado River along the Avenue B alignment and a new road connecting the
existing Winterhaven Drive TI to 1st Street at Avenue C.
In Scenario 4, widening I-8 between the Foothills Boulevard TI and the 16th Street TI is determined to be cost-effective
and was recommended for advancement. Widening I-8 between the 16th Street TI and the 4th Avenue TI, including a
Colorado River crossing, was not recommended due to high costs and required Caltrans approval, as noted previously
in Scenario 2. The new TI at Avenue 5E and the half-TI at Pacific Avenue were also recommended for advancement
because they reduce congestion at existing TIs.
The added connectivity at the Avenue 8½E TI provides some localized benefit to congestion but does not appear to
demonstrate sufficient benefit to justify cost and was not recommended for further consideration. Similarly, connecting
to the Winterhaven Drive TI in California (whether via the Scenario 4A alignment or Scenario 4B alignment) is not
considered cost-effective, would require Caltrans approval, and was not recommended for further consideration.
SCENARIO 5
Scenario 5 combines effective improvements from prior scenarios to address congestion along I-8 and Yuma's arterial
network. A total of eight sub-scenarios to Scenario 5 were considered (5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F, 5G, and 5H) with
relatively small changes between the sub-scenarios. Scenarios 5E and 5F were scenarios developed by YMPO for
other member agencies and do not pertain to the City of Yuma, so they are not included here.
82

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
SCENARIO 5A
Scenario 5A included the following improvements:
◼ I-8: Widen from four lanes to six lanes between the Foothills Boulevard TI and the 16th Street TI
◼ 40th Street: Widen from two lanes to four lanes between SR 195 and Avenue 10E, with an at-grade intersection at
SR 195 in the near term and a TI in the long term
◼ Pacific Avenue TI: Construct a new half-diamond TI with an eastbound on-ramp and westbound off-ramp
◼ Avenue 5E TI:
◼ Construct a new full-diamond TI.
◼ Construct Avenue 5E as a minor arterial with two lanes in each direction between 32nd Street and US
95 with a speed limit of 45 mph
◼ 16th Street: Widen from four lanes to six lanes between 3rd Avenue and Maple Avenue
◼ Gila Ridge Road: Widen from one lane to two lanes eastbound between the I-8 eastbound off-ramp and the I-8
eastbound on-ramp at the Avenue 5E TI .
Scenario 5A is effective at redistributing traffic from the arterial network onto I-8 and alleviating congestion. Widening
I-8 and constructing the new TIs result in a balanced network with substantial LOS improvements. This scenario is
considered cost-effective and was recommended for further advancement. The only notable deficiency is LOS E on
40th Street east of Avenue 3E, which can be addressed by widening 40th Street from two to four lanes between Avenue
3E and Avenue 3¼E.
SCENARIO 5B
Scenario 5B included the same improvements as Scenario 5A except for the following changes:
◼ I-8: Remains four lanes like existing condition instead of being widened to six lanes like is done in Scenario 5A
◼ 40th Street: Widen from two lanes to four lanes between Avenue 3E and Avenue 4E
Scenario 5B is effective at improving traffic conditions on most of the arterial network but does not deliver the broader
regional benefits seen in Scenario 5A due to the absence of I-8 widening. Scenario 5B serves as a lower-cost
improvement alternative but does not fully address long-term congestion challenges.
SCENARIO 5C
Scenario 5C included the same improvements as Scenario 5B except that gate access to MCAS-Yuma is relocated
from Avenue 3E to County 14th Street at Avenue 2E (which is known as Pacific Avenue north of MCAS-Yuma).
Scenario 5C reflects the system-wide impacts on traffic volumes of relocating the MCAS-Yuma access. While some
areas benefit from traffic volume reductions, other areas experience volume increases. Significant congestion is
expected on the roadways close to the planned relocated MCAS-Yuma gate if no improvements are made to those
roadways.
83

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
SCENARIO 5D
Scenario 5D assumed the same MCAS-Yuma gate relocation as Scenario 5C and included the following improvements
to support the MCAS-Yuma gate relocation:
◼ I-8: Widen from four lanes to six lanes between the Foothills Boulevard TI and the 16th Street TI.
◼ County 14th Street: Widen from two lanes to four lanes between Avenue A and Avenue 3E.
◼ Airport Loop/4th Avenue: Widen from two lanes to four lanes between Avenue A and County 14th Street.
◼ Avenue 2E: Widen from two lanes to four lanes between County 14th Street and County 15th Street.
◼ Gila Ridge Road: Widen from one lane to two lanes eastbound between the I-8 eastbound off-ramp and the I-8
eastbound on-ramp at the Avenue 5E TI.
Scenario 5D effectively accommodates traffic shifts caused by the MCAS-Yuma gate relocation through widening
projects along Airport Loop/4th Avenue, County 14th Street, and Avenue 2E. LOS performance improves across all
critical corridors. This scenario is operationally effective and was recommended for advancement.
It should be noted that Scenario 5D (and all the other scenarios) contains the following two small segments of LOS E:
◼ Yuma Palms Parkway between Castle Dome Avenue and 16th Street
◼ 24th Street between 17th Avenue and Ridgeview Drive (across the East Main Canal)
These segments are essentially built-out, and as the adjacent segments contain acceptable LOS, the City has
determined no improvements need to be developed to address these two LOS E segments.
SCENARIO 5G
Scenario 5G included the same assumptions as Scenario 5D except for the following changes:
◼ 40th Street: Bridge over SR 195 with no access to SR 195 (as opposed to access between 40th Street and SR 195
being provided in Scenario 5D)
◼ 40th Street: Widen from two lanes to four lanes between Avenue 6E and Araby Road
Scenario 5G provides a scenario that includes a bridge on 40th Street over SR 195 to be consistent with a grant
application being submitted by the City of Yuma for a bridge on 40th Street over SR 195.
Scenario 5G was evaluated for both average traffic volume conditions and peak traffic volume conditions, with the peak
condition serving as a sensitivity analysis on the roadway network’s ability to handle additional traffic.
Scenario 5G shows the resilience of the proposed roadway network, providing acceptable LOS in both average and
peak traffic conditions (except for the two small LOS E segments noted in Scenario 5D) and whether 40th Street has a
bridge over SR 195 (Scenario 5G) or connects to it (Scenario 5D). This scenario is operationally effective and was
recommended for advancement.
SCENARIO 5H
Scenario 5H included the same assumptions as Scenario 5G except that the assumed speed limit on several roadway
segments was reduced to match the City’s proposed changes to speed limits to promote safety.
84

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Speed limit changes affect the regional TDM results because the model calculates travel time on each roadway
segment and selects the quickest route when determining where to assign vehicle trips.
Scenario 5H was evaluated for both average traffic volume conditions and peak traffic volume conditions, with the peak
condition serving as a sensitivity analysis on the roadway network’s ability to handle additional traffic.
Scenario 5H shows the resilience of the proposed roadway network even with the proposed speed limit reductions,
providing acceptable LOS in both average and peak traffic conditions (except for the two small LOS E segments noted
in Scenario 5D and the additional small LOS E segment on 32nd Street mentioned above). Scenario 5H is operationally
effective and was recommended as the preferred 2050 Build Scenario for roadway improvements.
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS
Multimodal transportation scenarios were developed for transit, bicyclist, and pedestrian modes of travel. The
multimodal transportation scenarios categorize potential improvements into low, medium, and high investment level
scenarios. The categorization into investment levels was based on source planning documents and through
discussions with the City and stakeholders. High-priority projects are included across all investment categories while
medium-priority projects are included in the high and medium investment scenarios. Low-priority projects are included
only in the high investment scenario. A list of the potential transit, bicyclist, and pedestrian projects considered in the
multimodal transportation scenarios are included in Appendix B.
TRANSIT SCENARIOS
Potential transit projects were identified based on recommendations in the YMPO Long-Range Transportation Plan
2021 Update (LRTP) and the YCIPTA/YMPO 2021 Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Projects that have been
completed or deemed unnecessary following discussions with YCIPTA were removed from consideration. The
remaining projects were categorized by priority based on their implementation timeline in the SRTP:
◼ High priority: SRTP projects proposed for implementation in one to two years after funding is identified
◼ Medium priority: SRTP projects proposed for implementation in two to four years after funding is identified
◼ Low priority: SRTP projects proposed for implementation in four to five years after funding is identified
Additionally, new bus pullouts have been included as identified in the YMPO Complete Streets Concept Study (2025).
LOW INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The low investment scenario included high-priority transit projects that focus on service reliability, safety, and
foundational infrastructure. Projects include improved schedule coordination for Blue 5 and Turquoise 10 to reduce
transfer wait times and enhanced school-day capacity for Green 4A’s Catalina Loop. The conversion of this same loop
to FLEX service reflects a strategic move toward demand-responsive transit in lower-density areas. Vehicle
replacements are included, consistent with YCIPTA’s fleet management plan to ensure service reliability. Infrastructure
projects such as the installation of ten new bus shelters along 4th Avenue and construction of the highest prioritized
bus pullouts from the YMPO Complete Streets Corridor Study will improve passenger safety and reduce traffic conflicts.
85

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
MEDIUM INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The medium investment scenario added medium-priority initiatives focused on transit system expansion and route
optimization. Notable improvements include additional weekday and Saturday service on Yellow 95, providing more
frequent access between the Downtown Yuma Transit Center (DYTC) and the West Yuma Transfer Hub (WYTH).
Route realignments, such as modifying Orange 2 to run via 32nd Street and 4th Avenue and adjusting Purple 6 between
8th Street and 24th Street to better align service with current travel demand. Microtransit services like the Blue 5 FLEX
Microtransit Feeder and the Quechan PMoD (Personal Mobility on Demand) enhance coverage in rural and tribal areas.
Additional bus pullouts further improve safety and operational efficiency.
HIGH INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The high investment scenario incorporated the low-priority projects to complete a system-wide expansion. It includes
the introduction of new routes, such as Red 7 service between the DYTC and the WYTH via 16th Street, and the
restructuring of underperforming corridors, including the consolidation of Orange 2 and Brown 3 along 32nd Street. The
East County FLEX feeder and increased deviation capacity for Cocopah enhance access in hard-to-serve areas. The
remaining bus pullouts from the YMPO Complete Streets Corridor Study are also included. This level of investment is
aligned with YMPO’s regional mobility goals and supports a more adaptive, accessible, and multimodal transit system.
BICYCLIST SCENARIOS
Potential bicyclist infrastructure improvements were identified based on recommendations in the YMPO LRTP, the
Yuma Bikeways Plan (2018), and discussions with the City. Prioritization of the projects is based on input from the City
of Yuma, implementation timelines from the LRTP, and prioritization from the Yuma Bikeways Plan.
LOW INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The low investment scenario included high-priority bicyclist facilities outlined in the Yuma Bikeways Plan, emphasizing
corridors with existing demand, safety concerns, or connectivity importance. Notable projects include dedicated
bicyclist facilities (e.g., bicyclist lanes or wide shoulders) along 16th Street from 1st Avenue to Pacific Avenue, 1st Street
from Avenue C to 4th Avenue, and Avenue B from 1st Street to 24th Street. These corridors intersect with major arterials,
transit routes, and commercial zones, and serve as backbone routes for cyclists commuting to downtown Yuma,
schools, or transit hubs. Many of these projects address current gaps in protection or connectivity for bicyclists,
replacing shared-lane environments with striped or buffered bicyclist lanes where space allows. Prioritizing these
corridors supports immediate safety benefits, especially along higher-speed roadways with constrained shoulders.
MEDIUM INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The medium investment scenario incorporated medium-priority bicyclist facility projects that enhance east-west and
north-south connectivity across the city. These projects typically build upon the backbone network established in the
low investment phase, filling in gaps that limit route choice and reducing reliance on high-traffic arterials. Corridors
such as 24th Street, 8th Street, and Avenue A are included, offering improved access to civic facilities, schools, and
parks. Additionally, the inclusion of connectors between residential zones and the regional shared-use path network
supports recreational bicycling and first/last-mile transit access. This level of investment significantly increases the
network’s density and improves route redundancy, making bicycling a more practical option for a broader user base.
86

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
HIGH INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The high investment scenario completes the citywide bicyclist facilities network as envisioned in the Yuma Bikeways
Plan, implementing all remaining low-priority corridors and connector routes. These projects round out access in
suburban and lower-density areas and improve continuity for long-distance or recreational travel. Additional routes
along corridors such as Avenue D, 40th Street, and 20th Drive connect other parts of the city currently not well connected
to the bicyclist facilities network. Some projects in this scenario also introduce alternative bikeway typologies, such as
buffered bicyclist lanes, signed bicyclist boulevards, or shared-use paths where road width or safety considerations
suggest alternatives to standard bicyclist lanes. Full implementation under this scenario results in a continuous, safe,
and legible network that accommodates riders of all skill levels and supports citywide goals for sustainability, health,
and congestion mitigation.
PEDESTRIAN SCENARIOS
Potential pedestrian infrastructure improvements were identified based on gaps identified in the City’s Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan and discussions with the City regarding areas with demonstrated pedestrian
activity but insufficient infrastructure.
LOW INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The low investment scenario included high-priority sidewalk and shared-use path projects that address safety and
accessibility needs. Major corridors include 32nd Street, Pacific Avenue, Arizona Avenue, and Walnut Avenue. Sidewalk
segments along 32nd Street provide critical east-west continuity for pedestrian travel. Projects like the Walnut Avenue
sidewalk from 15th Street to 10th Street address residential areas with limited ADA-compliant routes, improving access
to essential services
MEDIUM INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The medium investment scenario builds upon the high-priority network with medium-priority pedestrian facility projects
that extend pedestrian access and shared-use connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods, corridors, and civic
destinations. This scenario includes connections along Avenue A, 24th Street, and Giss Parkway—corridors that
experience steady pedestrian activity but currently lack complete sidewalk coverage. Sidewalk and path extensions in
this scenario fill gaps in partial networks and link residents to destinations such as parks, shopping centers, and transit
facilities. For instance, completing sidewalks along Giss Parkway between 1st Avenue and Gila Street will provide
continuous pedestrian access between downtown Yuma and key transit corridors. This scenario focuses on linking
high-priority routes to secondary destinations, improving pedestrian comfort, and reducing exposure to vehicular traffic
along arterial streets.
HIGH INVESTMENT SCENARIO
The high investment scenario included remaining planned pedestrian and shared-use projects, including those
designated as low priority in planning documents. This scenario aims to complete a citywide, continuous pedestrian
network, extending infrastructure to lower-density and future growth areas. It includes improvements along Avenue D,
32nd Street east of Araby Road, and infill sidewalk work across various residential areas. The expansion of shared-use
paths in this scenario also supports shared access for both pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly where off-street
facilities are warranted for safety or recreation. While some segments may currently serve fewer users, their inclusion
ensures long-term network cohesion and supports future development, equity goals, and community livability.
87

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
RECOMMENDED SCENARIOS
Based on discussions with the City, the roadway Scenario 5H and the high and medium investment transit, bicyclist,
and pedestrian scenarios were identified as the recommended TMP scenarios. The improvement projects within the
recommended TMP scenarios were advanced to project prioritization.
PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
A prioritization matrix was developed to help identify the timeframes (near-term, mid-term, and long-term) in which the
various potential improvement projects should be completed based on the following evaluation criteria (and weighting):
Facility Quality (25%), Roadway Operational Efficiency (20%), Safety/Vision Zero Approach (25%), Multimodal
Integration (20%), and Community Health (10%). These evaluation criteria were created to align with the TMP vision,
goals, objectives, and metrics established based on public and stakeholder input. Each category was assigned a
quantifiable measure to determine how effective each proposed project will be at achieving those goals. Table 9 shows
the quantitative measures and weighting within each prioritization criterion used to help produce a prioritization score.
Table 9. Goal Alignment with Prioritization Metrics and Weighting
Prioritization Goals Served Metric Goal Total
Criteria Weight Weight*
Maintain pavement surface conditions on all Existing pavement condition 60% 15%
roadways at acceptable levels
Facility Quality Maintain transit vehicles, facilities, and
(25%) infrastructure at acceptable levels
Maintain sidewalk and shared-use path
surface and crossing conditions at Improves facility's existing condition 40% 10%
acceptable levels
Maintain bicyclist facility and shared-use
path surface and crossing conditions at
acceptable levels
Peak 2023 LOS (Lowest) 30% 6%
Roadway
Operational Peak 2050 No Build LOS (Lowest) 20% 4%
Efficiency
(20%) Provide acceptable traffic operations on Peak Change in LOS Score (2050 Build - 30% 6%
major roadways 2050 No Build)
Project improves freight conditions on a 10% 2%
truck route (yes or no)
Project incorporates the use of intelligent 10% 2%
transportation system devices
Safety/Vision ▪ Reduce fatal and serious injury
Zero Approach crashes by 75% by 2050, with an Number of fatal crashes 30% 8%
(25%) ultimate goal of zero fatal and serious
injury crashes
▪ Improve transit user safety and Number of serious injury crashes 15% 4%
comfortability
88

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Prioritization Goal Total
Goals Served Metric
Criteria Weight Weight*
▪ Reduce pedestrian-involved fatal and
serious injury crashes by 75% by Number of FHWA proven safety 20% 5%
2050, with an ultimate goal of zero countermeasures
pedestrian-involved fatal and serious
injury crashes Number of VRU-involved (pedestrian and
▪ Reduce bicyclist-involved fatal and bicyclist) crashes 15% 4%
serious injury crashes by 75% by
2050, with an ultimate goal of zero Improves the safety of an active
bicyclist-involved fatal and serious transportation facility, crossing, or transit 20% 5%
injury crashes stop (yes or no)
Improves transit coverage or frequency 20% 4%
Number of new multimodal connections
that improve access to community 20% 4%
facilities
Multimodal ▪ Increase accessibility, coverage, and
Integration reliability of the transit system
(20%) ▪ Improve sidewalk and shared-use path Number of non-medical activity centers
connectivity within 1/4 mile of a project improving 20% 4%
▪ Improve bicyclist facilities and shared- multimodal transportation
use path connectivity
▪ Improve the quality of existing facilities Mileage of addressed pedestrian and
20% 4%
bicyclist network gaps from the project
Improves existing quality of
pedestrian/bicyclist facility (Converts
existing facility into shared use path, 20% 4%
widens bicyclist lanes, reconstruction of
sidewalk, etc.)
Number of new connections that improve
access to medical facilities within 1/4 mile 20% 2%
of a project
Community Number of disadvantaged community
Health ▪ Promote improved community health block groups whose travel is improved by 25% 3%
(10%) through context-sensitive roadway a multimodal project
network design
▪ Make walking more appealing Number of block groups with high health
▪ Make bicycling more appealing expenditure whose travel is improved by a 25% 3%
multimodal project
Project enhances the comfort of an active
transportation facility, crossing, or transit 30% 3%
stop (yes or no)
*Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding
PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
A spreadsheet tool was developed to calculate prioritization scores based on the goal weight and the total weight. The
goal weight and total weight were used to create a single composite prioritization score. An additional 50 points were
allocated to projects identified as a priority in previous plans to create a final score. The prioritization results for all 129
recommended projects are shown in Appendix C.
89

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS BY MODE
The recommended 129 projects are shown by project type and mode of transportation in Figure 73 (roadway), Figure
74 (pedestrian), Figure 75 (bicyclist), and Figure 76 (transit). It should be noted these recommended projects do not
include any projects currently programmed for construction in the City’s CIP as those projects are assumed to be
implemented.
PLANNING-LEVEL UNIT COSTS
Planning-level unit costs were developed for the primary project improvement components based on cost data from
other relevant recently constructed projects in Arizona. These unit costs are total costs, meaning they include
construction item costs plus below-the-line costs such as design and construction engineering. The roadway project
unit costs are shown in Table 10. Active transportation (i.e., pedestrian and bicyclist) project unit costs are shown in
Table 11. Transit project unit costs are shown in Table 12 and come from the YCIPTA SRTP with an inflation factor of
2.0 applied. Right-of-way unit costs are shown in Table 13.
Table 10. Roadway Project Unit Costs
Improvement Description Unit Cost (2025 $) Unit
Widen roadway Construct one additional lane on existing roadway $3,520,000 Lane-mile
Roadway resurfacing Resurface and restripe existing roadway $500,000 Lane-mile
New roadway Construct new roadway $3,900,000 Lane-mile
Raised median Construct new median $1,045,000 Mile
Curb and gutter Install curb and gutter $1,440,000 Mile
New bridge Construct new bridge $518.70 Square-foot
New traffic signal Install new traffic signal $1,100,000 Intersection
Railroad crossing grade separation Railroad crossing grade separation $11,920,000 Location
Table 11. Active Transportation Project Unit Costs
Improvement Description Unit Cost (2025 $) Unit
Shared-use path Construct new 10’ off-street paved path $2,200,000 Mile
New sidewalk Construct new sidewalk $22.00 Square-foot
Install signalized crossing (HAWK) for pedestrians and
Enhanced crossing $550,000 Location
bicyclists
Buffered bike lane Construct 5' bike lane with buffer $127,500 Mile
Buffered bike lane with widening Construct 5’ bike lane with buffer with roadway widening $1,658,000 Mile
Pedestrian curb extension Install pedestrian curb extension $330,000 Intersection
Pedestrian bridge Construct pedestrian bridge $518.70 Square-foot
Pedestrian refuge island Install pedestrian refuge island $125,000 Location
90

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Table 12. Transit Project Unit Costs
Improvement Description Unit Cost (2025 $) Unit
New bus route Implement new bus route $4,157,305 Mile
New bus pullout Construct new bus pullout and shelter $158,750 Location
New bus shelter Construct new bus shelter $98,200 Location
Number of
School capacity increase Increase capacity on the bus during school $30,154
routes
Table 13. Right-of-Way Unit Costs
Improvement Description Unit Cost (2025 $) Unit
Right-of-way Obtain new right-of-way $20.00 Square-foot
91

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 73. Recommended Roadway Projects
92

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 74. Recommended Pedestrian Projects
93

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 75. Recommended Bicyclist Projects
94

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 76. Recommended Transit Projects
95

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAMES
The total cost of the recommended 129 projects is approximately $500 million. As this amount is much larger than the
City will likely have available to invest in the transportation system through 2050, the projects were grouped into three
implementation timeframes (near-term, mid-term, and long-term) to help the City prioritize which projects to focus on
implementing. Recommendations from previous plans and input from the City and other stakeholders helped inform
how the recommended projects should be distributed among the near-term, mid-term, and long-term implementation
timeframes. The top-scoring projects in each modal category (roadway, pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit) were included
in the near-term timeframe. The breakdown of overall TMP project costs by priority level is shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Recommended Projects Cost Summary by Implementation Timeframe
Implementation Timeframe Number of Recommended Projects Total Planning-Level Cost
Near-Term (2026-2030) 47 $133,830,000
Mid-Term (2031-2035) 21 $66,380,000
Long-Term (2036-2050) 61 $300,590,000
All Recommended Projects 129 $500,800,000
The prioritization scoring, costs, ranking, and implementation timeframe for each recommended project are shown and
listed in the subsequent subsections.
RECOMMENDED NEAR-TERM PROJECTS
Table 15 shows the recommended near-term projects in order of their final score. The recommended near-term
projects are illustrated in Figure 77. It should be noted the improvements recommended for 40th Street between Avenue
6E and Avenue 10E are intended to be consistent with the 40th Street Improvements from Ave 6E to Fortuna Rd Design
Concept Report that is currently underway.
Table 15. Recommended Near-Term Projects
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Operational Zero Integration Health Prioritization Cost
Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Roadway Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Rank Project Primary Facility Priority Final
ID
Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4 City of
1 R-07 100.0 68.0 20.0 20.6 30.0 50.7 Yes 100.7 $9,270,000
Lanes between Avenue 3E and Avenue 4E Yuma
New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes City of
2 R-08 from Avenue 6E to Avenue 6 ¾ E Yuma 70.0 73.0 20.0 20.4 30.0 44.2 Yes 94.2 $8,900,000
Roadway Widening, 16th Street from 4 to 6
City of
3 R-06 Lanes between 3rd Avenue and Maple 40.0 49.0 44.3 20.1 6.3 35.5 Yes 85.5 $2,900,000
Avenue Yuma
Roadway Widening, Avenue 10E from 2 to
City of
5 R-46 4 Lanes between 32nd Street and 40th 70.0 35.0 21.0 0.6 0.0 29.9 Yes 79.9 $9,020,000
Yuma
Street
96

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Integration Prioritization Cost
Operational Zero Health Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Project Primary Facility Roadway Priority
Rank Final
ID
New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes City of
9 R-15 55.0 66.5 1.2 0.7 0.0 27.5 Yes 77.5 $21,960,000
from Avenue 8 ¾ E to Avenue 10E Yuma
Roadway Widening, Avenue 9E from 2 to 4
City of
16 R-45 Lanes between South Gila Canal and North 55.0 31.5 6.7 0.6 0.0 21.8 Yes 71.8 $9,510,000
Yuma
Frontage Road
New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes City of
17 R-13 55.0 33.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 20.4 Yes 70.4 $9,040,000
from Avenue 8E to Avenue 8 ½ E Yuma
B- Restripe to Add Shoulder, 28th Street City of
18 15.0 0.0 29.0 29.4 32.3 20.1 Yes 70.1 $30,000
007 Westbound from Avenue B to 21st Drive Yuma
Pathway, 1st Street from Avenue B to 4th City of
26 M-04 0.0 0.0 29.3 31.6 40.8 17.7 Yes 67.7 $3,380,000
Avenue Yuma
City of
28 I-43 Turn Lane, 32nd Street and Arizona Avenue 40.0 24.0 6.7 0.7 0.0 16.6 Yes 66.6 $860,000
Yuma
Pathway, 28th Street from East Main Canal City of
37 M-05 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.9 32.1 15.0 Yes 65.0 $570,000
to Avenue A Yuma
Pathway, Redondo Center Drive from Giss City of
40 M-85 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.9 34.4 14.9 Yes 64.9 $2,410,000
Parkway to 7th Street Yuma
Sidewalk, 22nd Street from 8th Avenue to City of
41 P-02 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.8 30.0 14.8 Yes 64.8 $120,000
6th Avenue Yuma
Crossing, 21st Drive from Gary A Knox City of
42 C-21 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.7 30.0 14.8 Yes 64.8 $550,000
Elementary to Main Library Yuma
Sidewalk, 16th Street between 3rd Avenue
City of
44 P-37 and Maple Avenue (included in roadway 0.0 0.0 29.3 20.9 32.1 14.7 Yes 64.7 -
Yuma
widening)
Pathway, Avenue 6E from 32nd Street to City of
45 M-64 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.1 32.3 14.5 Yes 64.5 $1,080,000
36th Street Yuma
Sidewalk, 4th Avenue/32nd Street at Big City of
49 P-03 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.1 36.4 14.3 Yes 64.3 $300,000
Curve Yuma
City of
50 C-43 Crossing, Avenue 6E and 36th Street 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.1 32.3 14.3 Yes 64.3 $550,000
Yuma
Sidewalk Gaps, Pacific Avenue from 28th City of
52 P-08 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.7 30.0 14.0 Yes 64.0 $570,000
Street to 32nd Street Yuma
Pathway, Avenue 10E between 32nd Street
City of
53 M-59 and 40th Street (included in roadway 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 32.3 14.0 Yes 64.0 -
Yuma
widening)
Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 6 ¾
City of
54 M-54 E and Avenue 8E (included in roadway 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.3 30.0 13.9 Yes 63.9 -
Yuma
widening)
Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 8E to City of
55 M-51 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.0 30.0 13.9 Yes 63.9 -
Avenue 8 ½ E (included in new roadway) Yuma
Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 8 ¾ E to City of
57 M-52 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.7 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 -
Avenue 10E (included in new roadway) Yuma
Pathway, Avenue 9E between South Gila
City of
58 M-53 Canal and North Frontage Road (included in 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 -
Yuma
roadway widening)
Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 3E
City of
59 M-49 and Avenue 4E (included in roadway 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 -
Yuma
widening)
97

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Integration Prioritization Cost
Operational Zero Health Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Project Primary Facility Roadway Priority
Rank Final
ID
Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 6E to City of
61 M-50 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.5 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 -
Avenue 6 ¾ E (included in new roadway) Yuma
Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 8 ½
City of
62 M-55 E and Avenue 8 ¾ E (included in roadway 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.2 30.0 13.7 Yes 63.7 -
Yuma
widening)
4th Avenue and 24th Street Corridors Bus
65 T-01 YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 11.7 15.7 69.5 13.0 Yes 63.0 $980,000
Stop Shelters/Amenities (10)
Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4
City of
75 R-14 Lanes between Avenue 6 ¾ E and Avenue 40.0 6.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 11.4 Yes 61.4 $11,650,000
Yuma
8E
Pathway, 32nd Street from Avenue 3E to City of
76 M-07 0.0 0.0 28.0 1.2 30.0 10.2 Yes 60.2 $6,670,000
Avenue 6E Yuma
Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4
City of
78 R-47 Lanes between Avenue 8 ½ E and Avenue 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 Yes 60.0 $2,630,000
Yuma
8 ¾ E
Bus Pullout, 32nd Street WB at Pacific City of
82 T-08 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.7 0.0 5.1 Yes 55.1 $160,000
Avenue for Green 4 and Purple 6A Yuma
Blue 5 and Turquoise 10 transit services –
85 T-02 YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 -
Schedule Coordination
Green 4A Catalina Loop transit service
85 T-03 YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 $30,000
School Day capacity increase
Green 4A Catalina Loop transit service
85 T-04 conversion from fixed route to FLEX YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 -
deviation
Grade Separation, 40th Street with 4 Lanes City of
90 R-12 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Yes 52.6 $15,920,000
at SR 195 Yuma
City of
91 I-44 Turn Lane, 32nd Street and Avenue 8E 30.0 60.5 54.3 20.0 30.0 40.2 No 40.2 $530,000
Yuma
Turn Lane, Avenue 3E and I-8 Eastbound
93 I-41 ADOT 40.0 90.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 29.7 No 29.7 $530,000
Ramp
Crossing, Add Pedestrian Island to 32nd City of
104 C-19 0.0 0.0 30.3 22.1 32.1 15.2 No 15.2 $550,000
Street and East Main Canal Crossing Yuma
Pathway, Arizona Avenue from 17th Street City of
105 M-73 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.4 34.4 15.2 No 15.2 $1,690,000
to 22nd Street Yuma
Pathway, 16th Street from Avenue B to 7th City of
107 M-70 0.0 0.0 29.3 22.2 32.3 15.0 No 15.0 $2,840,000
Avenue Yuma
Pathway, 12th Street from Avenue B to 14th City of
108 M-84 0.0 0.0 28.0 23.3 32.3 14.9 No 14.9 $1,650,000
Avenue (excluding bridge over canal) Yuma
City of
109 C-11 Crossing, Arizona Avenue and 22nd Street 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.0 32.1 14.9 No 14.9 $550,000
Yuma
Sidewalk, Engler Avenue from 24th Place to City of
118 P-38 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.0 30.0 14.3 No 14.3 $260,000
San Marcos Drive Yuma
City of
119 C-28 Crossing, Engler Avenue and 25th Place 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.9 30.0 14.2 No 14.2 $550,000
Yuma
Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 4E to City of
120 M-76 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.4 32.3 14.2 No 14.2 $5,450,000
Avenue 6E Yuma
Sidewalk, 18th Street from Arizona Avenue City of
123 P-39 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.8 32.1 14.0 No 14.0 $170,000
to Riley Avenue Yuma
98

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 77. Recommended Near-Term Projects
99

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
RECOMMENDED MID-TERM PROJECTS
Table 16 shows the recommended mid-term projects in order of their final score. The recommended mid-term projects
are illustrated in Figure 78.
Table 16. Recommended Mid-Term Projects
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Integration Prioritization Cost
Operational Zero Health Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Project Primary Facility Roadway Priority
Rank Final
ID
Roadway Widening, County 14th Street from
City of
6 R-10 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue A and Avenue 55.0 61.0 12.0 1.7 0.0 29.3 Yes 79.3 $27,970,000
Yuma
3E
Roadway Widening, Airport Loop/4th Avenue
City of
7 R-09 from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue A and 55.0 53.0 15.5 0.6 2.1 28.5 Yes 78.5 $9,580,000
Yuma
County 14th Street
Roadway Widening, Avenue 2E from 2 to 4
Yuma
14 R-11 Lanes between County 14th Street and 55.0 48.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 23.6 Yes 73.6 $9,290,000
County
County 15th Street
Pathway, Giss Parkway/8th Street from Gila City of
27 M-82 0.0 0.0 26.7 35.4 32.1 16.9 Yes 66.9 $4,140,000
Street to Castle Dome Avenue Yuma
City of
30 I-11 Turn Lane, 16th Street and Pacific Avenue 30.0 31.5 9.3 0.7 0.0 16.3 Yes 66.3 $530,000
Yuma
Pathway, 32nd Street from Avenue 6E to City of
32 M-48 0.0 0.0 32.5 22.1 32.3 15.8 Yes 65.8 $3,300,000
Avenue 7 ½ E Yuma
City of
33 I-18 Intersection Safety, 16th Street and Avenue B 30.0 30.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 Yes 65.5 $1,060,000
Yuma
City of
38 C-02 Crossing, 16th Street and 33rd Drive 0.0 0.0 30.3 22.1 30.0 15.0 Yes 65.0 $1,100,000
Yuma
Bus Pullout, 4th Avenue NB at 24th Street for City of
80 T-06 0.0 0.0 21.3 2.9 2.1 6.1 Yes 56.1 $160,000
Yellow 95 Yuma
Bus Pullout, 4th Avenue SB at 24th Street for City of
81 T-07 0.0 0.0 21.3 2.1 0.0 5.8 Yes 55.8 $160,000
Yellow 95 Yuma
Turn Lane, 16th Street and I-8 Westbound
94 I-40 ADOT 40.0 55.5 7.3 0.7 0.0 23.1 No 23.1 $530,000
Ramp
City of
95 C-47 Crossing, Avenue A and 36th Street 0.0 0.0 32.7 30.0 34.4 17.6 No 17.6 $550,000
Yuma
Pathway, Araby Road from 24th Street to City of
97 M-72 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.0 50.0 16.3 No 16.3 $550,000
26th Street Yuma
Median Extension, Avenue 6E between 32nd City of
106 R-19 30.0 8.0 22.3 0.6 2.3 15.0 No 15.0 $1,910,000
Street and 40th Street Yuma
Pathway, Avenue 6E from 36th Street to 41st City of
112 M-65 0.0 0.0 28.0 23.2 30.0 14.6 No 14.6 $1,390,000
Street Yuma
Pathway, Pacific Avenue from 8th Street to City of
113 M-74 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.1 32.1 14.5 No 14.5 $1,110,000
12th Street Yuma
Pathway, 8th Street from Castle Dome City of
114 M-66 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.1 32.1 14.5 No 14.5 $980,000
Avenue to Pacific Avenue Yuma
100

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Integration Prioritization Cost
Operational Zero Health Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Project Primary Facility Roadway Priority
Rank Final
ID
Bicyclist/Pedestrian Bridge, East Main City of
122 C-49 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.7 32.3 14.0 No 14.0 $2,070,000
Canal/12th Street Alignment Yuma
Pathway, County 14th Street between
City of
124 M-56 Avenue A and Avenue 3E (included in 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.7 30.0 14.0 No 14.0 -
Yuma
roadway widening)
Pathway, Airport Loop/4th Avenue between
City of
126 M-58 Avenue A and County 14th Street (included in 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 No 13.8 -
Yuma
roadway widening)
Pathway, Avenue 2E between County 14th
City of
127 M-57 Street and County 15th Street (included in 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 No 13.8 -
Yuma
roadway widening)
101

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 78. Recommended Mid-Term Projects
102

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM PROJECTS
Table 17 shows the recommended long-term projects in order of their final score. The recommended long-term projects
are illustrated in Figure 79.
Table 17. Recommended Long-Term Projects
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Integration Prioritization Cost
Operational Zero Health Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Project Primary Facility Roadway Priority
Rank Final
ID
Roadway Widening, I-8 from 4 to 6
4 R-01 Lanes between Avenue 10E and ADOT 40.0 41.5 45.8 10.7 25.0 34.4 Yes 84.4 $129,410,000
16th Street
Roadway Realignment/Expansion,
Gila Ridge Road with 2 Lanes EB City of
8 R-05 60.0 48.5 13.3 0.6 0.0 28.1 Yes 78.1 $3,930,000
at the I-8/Avenue 5E Traffic Yuma
Interchange
Initiate new Red 7 transit service
10 T-30 YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 38.9 25.6 Yes 75.6 $570,000
via 16th Street
Turn Lane, 24th Street and 1st City of
11 I-42 55.0 41.5 6.7 0.7 11.0 25.0 Yes 75.0 $530,000
Avenue Yuma
Restructure Green 4 transit service
12 T-31 YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 21.3 57.6 79.2 24.8 Yes 74.8 -
(Pacific Avenue/Avenue B)
Reroute Orange 2 transit service
13 T-16 via 32nd Street and 4th Avenue to YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 30.4 53.2 58.5 24.1 Yes 74.1 -
WYTH
15 T-14 Discontinue Silver 9 transit service YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 20.0 47.1 75.0 21.9 Yes 71.9 $(190,000)
Reroute Purple 6 transit service
19 T-17 via 4th Avenue between 8th Street YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 29.1 37.1 52.1 19.9 Yes 69.9 -
and 24th Street
Consolidate Orange 2 and Brown
20 T-29 YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 20.0 39.0 70.5 19.8 Yes 69.8 -
3 transit services
Initiate Gold 2X Express transit
21 T-15 YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 21.3 43.2 56.6 19.6 Yes 69.6 $90,000
service
Crossing, 4th Avenue and Court City of
22 C-45 0.0 0.0 46.6 20.7 34.4 19.2 Yes 69.2 $50,000
Street Yuma
Crossing, Avenue C and Crane City of
23 C-46 0.0 0.0 46.6 21.4 30.0 18.9 Yes 68.9 550,000
Street Yuma
Pathway, Thacker Lateral Linear
City of
24 M-18 Park from West Main Canal to 24th 0.0 0.0 29.3 33.0 43.6 18.3 Yes 68.3 $5,960,000
Yuma
Street
Grade Separation, Avenue 9E with City of
25 RR-01 70.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 Yes 68.0 $11,920,000
4 Lanes at Railroad Crossing Yuma
Crossing, 4th Avenue and 4th City of
29 C-44 0.0 0.0 26.7 32.9 32.1 16.4 Yes 66.4 $550,000
Street-5th Street Yuma
Pathway, Colorado River Levee
City of
31 M-12 Linear Park from East Wetlands to 0.0 0.0 26.7 29.6 32.1 15.8 Yes 65.8 $12,240,000
Yuma
Avenue 7E
Sidewalk, Arizona Avenue/Walnut
City of
34 P-07 Avenue from 16th Street to 10th 0.0 0.0 26.7 24.7 38.7 15.5 Yes 65.5 $2,130,000
Yuma
Street
Pathway, 32nd Street from East City of
35 M-09 0.0 0.0 28.0 26.0 32.3 15.4 Yes 65.4 $1,010,000
Main Canal to Avenue A Yuma
103

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Integration Prioritization Cost
Operational Zero Health Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Project Primary Facility Roadway Priority
Rank Final
ID
Sidewalk, 4th Avenue from Yuma
City of
36 P-20 Regional Corporate Center to 40th 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.5 43.1 15.1 Yes 65.1 $1,400,000
Yuma
Street
Pathway, B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park
City of
39 M-11 from Kennedy Park to Pacific 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.3 32.1 14.9 Yes 64.9 $1,060,000
Yuma
Avenue
Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Pacific City of
43 P-05 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.2 30.0 14.7 Yes 64.7 $1,330,000
Avenue to Avenue 3E Yuma
Crossing, 4th Avenue and 12th City of
46 C-29 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.9 32.1 14.4 Yes 64.4 $550,000
Street Yuma
Pathway, Redondo Center Drive City of
47 M-86 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.3 34.4 14.4 Yes 64.4 $1,080,000
from 7th Street to 16th Street Yuma
Bus Pullout, 24th Street WB at
48 T-28 Avenue A for Green 4, Purple 6A, ADOT 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.7 52.3 14.4 Yes 64.4 $160,000
and Yellow 95
Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Winsor City of
51 P-06 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.3 30.0 14.1 Yes 64.1 $340,000
Avenue to Suni Sands RV Resort Yuma
Bicyclist Lane, Castle Dome
City of
56 B-166 Avenue from 8th Street to Yuma 15.0 0.0 26.7 2.1 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 $140,000
Yuma
Palms Parkway
Pathway, Avenue 5E from 32nd
City of
60 M-61 Street to 24th Street (included in 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 Yes - -
Yuma
new roadway)
Pathway, Avenue 9E Grade
Separation at Railroad Crossing City of
63 M-62 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.1 30.0 13.7 Yes 63.7 -
(included in grade separation Yuma
project)
Bus Pullout, Giss Parkway WB at
City of
64 T-27 Gila Street for Orange 2 and 0.0 0.0 20.0 25.0 34.4 13.4 Yes 63.4 $160,000
Yuma
Green 4
Bus Pullout, 21st Drive SB at 32nd City of
66 T-25 0.0 0.0 22.6 20.0 32.3 12.9 Yes 62.9 $160,000
Street for Purple 6A and Silver 9 Yuma
Bus Pullout, Redondo Center
67 T-24 Drive NB at 16th Street for Green YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 21.3 20.0 34.4 12.8 Yes 62.8 $160,000
4
Bus Pullout, 24th Street EB at 18th
68 T-39 Avenue for Green 4, Purple 6A, YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 20.0 21.4 32.3 12.5 Yes 62.5 $160,000
and Yellow 95
Bus Pullout, 24th Street EB at 21st
69 T-26 Drive for Green 4, Purple 6A, and YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.7 32.3 12.4 Yes 62.4 $160,000
Yellow 95
New Roadway, Avenue 5E with 4
City of
70 R-04 Lanes from 32nd Street to 24th 30.0 18.0 4.6 0.6 0.0 12.4 Yes 62.4 $8,900,000
Yuma
Street
Bus Pullout, Araby Road SB at City of
71 T-35 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 $160,000
32nd Street for Gold 8 and Silver 9 Yuma
Bus Pullout, 32nd Street EB at
71 T-36 Avenue B for Purple 6A and YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 $160,000
Yellow 95
Bus Pullout, Avenue B SB at 32nd City of
71 T-37 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 $160,000
Street for Purple 6A and Yellow 95 Yuma
104

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Integration Prioritization Cost
Operational Zero Health Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Project Primary Facility Roadway Priority
Rank Final
ID
Bus Pullout, 32nd Street EB at
71 T-38 YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 $160,000
Avenue 3E for Orange 2
Full-Diamond Traffic Interchange,
77 R-03 YCIPTA 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.8 2.1 10.2 Yes 60.2 $64,300,000
I-8 at Avenue 5E
Half-Diamond Traffic Interchange, City of
79 R-02 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.2 6.3 7.5 Yes 57.5 $18,240,000
I-8 at Pacific Avenue Yuma
Bus Pullout, 26th Street WB at
82 T-10 23rd Avenue for Green 4, Purple YCIPTA 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.7 0.0 5.1 Yes 55.1 $160,000
6A, and Yellow 95
Bus Pullout, Avenue B NB at 24th
City of
84 T-09 Street for Green 4, Purple 6A, and 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Yes 55.0 $160,000
Yuma
Yellow 95
Add bus to Yellow 95 transit
City of
85 T-12 service - Saturdays from DYTC to 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 $500,000
Yuma
WYTH
Add bus to Yellow 95 transit
City of
85 T-13 service - Weekdays from DYTC to 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 $70,000
Yuma
WYTH
Turn Lane, 24th Street and City of
92 I-16 55.0 30.0 40.5 1.4 0.0 30.2 No 30.2 $530,000
Avenue A Yuma
Pathway, 8th Street from Avenue City of
96 M-78 0.0 0.0 33.2 26.0 34.4 16.9 No 16.9 $6,600,000
D to Avenue A Yuma
Pathway, 16th Street from 4th City of
98 M-69 0.0 0.0 31.9 22.3 32.1 15.6 No 15.6 $570,000
Avenue to Maple Avenue Yuma
Pathway, 1st Street from Avenue City of
99 M-71 0.0 0.0 26.7 27.0 34.4 15.5 No 15.5 $2,160,000
C to Avenue B Yuma
Crossing, 8th Street and 6th City of
100 C-48 0.0 0.0 32.6 20.7 32.1 15.5 No 15.5 $550,000
Avenue Yuma
Pathway, Arizona Avenue from City of
101 M-83 0.0 0.0 26.7 26.8 34.4 15.5 No 15.5 $1,580,000
22nd Street to Palo Verde Street Yuma
Pathway, 16th Street from Maple City of
102 M-68 0.0 0.0 31.2 22.1 32.1 15.4 No 15.4 $2,750,000
Avenue to Pacific Avenue Yuma
Pathway, Avenue B from 1st City of
103 M-79 0.0 0.0 26.7 26.6 34.4 15.4 No 15.4 $540,000
Street to 3rd Street Yuma
Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue City of
110 M-63 0.0 0.0 26.7 24.9 32.1 14.8 No 14.8 $2,210,000
A to Arizona Avenue Yuma
Pathway, Avenue B from 8th City of
111 M-81 0.0 0.0 29.3 21.3 32.3 14.8 No 14.8 $2,200,000
Street to 16th Street Yuma
Pathway, Avenue B from 3rd City of
115 M-80 0.0 0.0 28.0 21.0 32.3 14.4 No 14.4 $1,280,000
Street to 8th Street Yuma
Crossing, 24th Street and Engler City of
116 C-31 0.0 0.0 29.0 20.7 30.0 14.4 No 14.4 $550,000
Avenue Yuma
Pathway, B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park City of
117 M-88 from Kennedy Park to Palo Verde Yuma 0.0 0.0 20.0 26.0 40.8 14.3 No 14.3 $1,580,000
Street
Pathway, Palo Verde Street from City of
121 M-75 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.0 30.0 14.1 No 14.1 $2,240,000
Pacific Avenue to Avenue 3E Yuma
Pathway, Arizona Avenue from City of
125 M-87 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 32.1 14.0 No 14.0 $2,190,000
32nd Street to 40th Street Yuma
105

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Prioritization Criteria Scores
(Yes/No)
Efficiency Score
Approach Plan?
Integration Prioritization Cost
Operational Zero Health Previous
Name Owner Quality
in Score Planning-Level
Safety/Vision Multimodal Community Composite
Project Primary Facility Roadway Priority
Rank Final
ID
Sidewalk, 24th Street from Avenue City of
128 P-13 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.5 30.0 13.8 No 13.8 $2,600,000
C to Avenue D Yuma
Sidewalk, 16th Street from 45th City of
129 P-12 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.3 30.0 13.7 No 13.7 $1,380,000
Avenue to West City Limit Yuma
106

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 79. Recommended Long-Term Projects
107

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
CONGESTION ASSESSMENT WITH RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS
The YMPO regional TDM was used to determine how well the recommended projects address congestion issues on
the study area roadway network. As described previously, Scenario 5H represents the recommended 2050 Build
scenario. TMP study area roadway network modeling metrics were compared between the 2050 Build scenario and
the 2050 No Build scenario to identify the change in congestion levels across the roadway network. These metrics,
shown in Table 18, include:
◼ LOS: A metric used to describe operational conditions of a roadway or intersection.
◼ Congested Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The number of daily miles driven on roadway segments that are
nearing or over capacity (LOS E or LOS F).
◼ Congested Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT). The number of hours driven on the regional roadway system in a day
that are on roadway segments that are nearing or over capacity (LOS E or LOS F).
Table 18. 2023 Existing, 2050 No Build, and 2050 Build Scenario Performance Metric Comparison
Performance Metric 2023 Existing 2050 No Build 2050 Build
Miles of LOS A, B, and C 310 299 316 (+17 [+6%])
Miles of LOS D 0.90 10 0.79 (-9.21 [-92%])
Miles of LOS E 0 3.61 0.37 (-3.24 [-90%])
Miles of LOS F 0 0.66 0 (-0.66 [-100%])
VMT 2,308,207 3,279,753 3,256,890 (-22,863 [-0.70%])
VHT 60,416 142,220 103,140 (-39,080 [-27%])
Congested VMT - 57,073 9,958 (-47,115 [-83%])
Congested VHT - 9,180 1,227 (-7,953 [-87%])
The model comparison results indicate that the recommended roadway projects are largely effective because they
reduce the congested VMT and congested VHT, increase the roadway mileage at LOS A, LOS B, and LOS C, and
decrease the roadway mileage at LOS D, LOS E, and LOS F. Notably, no LOS F roadway segments are present in the
2050 Build (Scenario 5H) scenario and the LOS E roadway segment mileage is very small and at locations the City
has deemed acceptable LOS. The roadway network number of through lanes per the 2050 Build scenario is shown in
Figure 80.
108

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 80. 2050 Build Number of Lanes
109

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The Health Assessments and Recommendations report in Appendix D, prepared by Urban Design 4 Health, Inc.
(UD4H) for the TMP, assesses the health impacts of various proposed transportation scenarios and the recommended
projects and provides recommendations to further enhance community health outcomes through strategic infrastructure
investments.
HEALTH ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The UD4H health assessment consisted of five main sections:
◼ Baseline 2023 Assessment: UD4H developed a geospatial model mapping existing multimodal transportation
systems and quantifying accessibility levels across the City of Yuma. This model integrated transportation
infrastructure with community demographics and key destinations, laying the foundation for subsequent
evaluations.
◼ Future 2050 No Build Scenario Assessment: This scenario incorporated all planned transportation projects in
the City's 2025-2029 CIP. Each CIP project was qualitatively evaluated across five healthy community impact
categories, revealing that over 60% of the planned improvements are expected to generate positive health
outcomes.
◼ Major New Roadway Project Scenarios Review: UD4H analyzed five major roadway project scenarios to assess
their potential health implications. The scenarios included changes in VHT, impacts on healthcare accessibility,
environmental exposure, and active transportation connectivity. The review highlighted the complex trade-offs of
congestion mitigation strategies.
◼ Project Prioritization Framework Review: UD4H reviewed the prioritization framework that scored 129 projects
using five categories: Quality, Operational Efficiency, Safety/Vision Zero Approach, Multimodal Integration, and
Community Health. UD4H supports the framework, noting the significant emphasis on health and safety
considerations, which constitute 55% of the overall prioritization score.
◼ Recommended Projects (2050 Build) Assessment: UD4H assessed the health impacts of the recommended
projects compared to the 2050 No Build scenario. UD4H also assessed how changes in the intensity of
densification and land use mix in the City’s General Plan Growth Areas due to the recommended TMP projects
could further impact community health.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The health impact assessment projected several positive outcomes for community health through transportation
infrastructure enhancements. Investments in shared-use paths, sidewalks, and bicyclist lanes close gaps in Yuma’s
existing network and improve connectivity in key areas. Health is promoted through 58 projects that provide additional
active transportation facilities. Safety is addressed through 14 new pedestrian crossings and a pedestrian bridge over
the East Main Canal. A total of 46 projects improve access to parks and healthcare, while 11 new bus stop shelters
enhance transit safety and comfort. Importantly, 61 projects are located near the city’s six Growth Areas, supporting
walkable, health-oriented community development.
Bicyclist network accessibility improves, with the population living within ¼ mile of a connected bicycle facility increasing
from 41.4% in existing conditions to 46.0% overall and to 48.0% within the Growth Areas. Transit accessibility improves
for residents within a ¼ mile walk of a bus stop, increasing from 54.3% to 55.7%.
110

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
In the Growth Areas, if the recommended TMP transportation projects are implemented and incentivize a high intensity
of residential and land use mix densification, health outcomes in 2050 could change compared to the 2050 No Build
scenario by as much as follows:
◼ Obesity (BMI >30) decreases on average by 8% across all Growth Areas combined
◼ Type 2 diabetes prevalence decreases on average by 2% across all Growth Areas combined
◼ Coronary heart disease declines by 0.2% across all Growth Areas combined
◼ High Blood Pressure/Hypertension remains about the same across all Growth Areas combined
◼ Per capita healthcare costs related to chronic illness decline by $239 annually across all Growth Areas
combined, resulting in a total annual cost of $794 million, a decrease of $5 million compared to the 2050 No Build
◼ Walking for transportation increases on average by 6% across all Growth Areas combined
These projections indicate that while the TMP alone yields modest improvements in health, the greatest health benefits
occur when transportation infrastructure is integrated with walkable, mixed-use development. This underscores the
importance of coordinated planning between land use, mobility, and public health policy to create long-term,
community-wide benefits
STUDY LIMITATIONS
While the Health Assessments and Recommendations report provides invaluable insights into the potential impacts of
transportation investments, several limitations must be considered:
◼ Health Conditions Influenced by Multiple Factors: The estimated results are affected by many factors not
represented in the N-PHAM models, including genetics, age, diet, and levels of physical activity.
◼ Demographic Forecasts: Future health models rely heavily on demographic forecasts, which can have significant
margins of error. Factors like age, income, race, family type, employment, and car ownership influence health
outcomes at a population level. Long-range forecasts for small area demographics may not be precisely accurate.
◼ Economic Impact Estimates: The regional economic impacts of workforce productivity and transportation/land
use investments are not accounted for in detail, meaning indirect effects on the local economy might be
underestimated.
◼ Air Quality Effects: This analysis does not extensively consider the effects of the recommended projects on local
air quality and its well-known impacts on community health.
◼ Scenario Comparisons: While the same methodologies are applied to evaluate different scenarios, uncertainty
remains about the exact numeric values. Comparing directional changes and relative differences across scenarios
is useful for planning, even if precise values are uncertain.
111

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
UPDATES TO CITY OF YUMA STANDARD DETAILS
The City of Yuma recognizes and supports the evolving national approach to bicyclist infrastructure, which increasingly
prioritizes separated and protected bicyclist facilities over traditional on-street bicyclist lanes, particularly on high-speed
or high-volume roadways. This shift is consistent with guidance from leading transportation agencies such as FHWA,
the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—all of which promote separated bicyclist facilities as safer and more comfortable
options for a broader range of users.
In response to this shift, the City of Yuma is in the process of updating its Standard Detail Drawings to reflect a more
modern and safety-focused approach to bikeway design. Specifically:
◼ Designated on-street bike lanes have tentatively been removed from the standard sections for principal arterials,
minor arterials, and collector roads and replaced by a paved shoulder adjacent to the outside travel lane.
◼ A shared/multi-use pathway has tentatively been added behind the curb on arterials and collectors, providing
physical separation from vehicular traffic and a more attractive, safer option for bicyclists and pedestrians.
◼ These design updates also tentatively apply to the rural expressway section, reinforcing the City’s commitment to
safety and multimodal connectivity even in less urbanized areas.
This change in roadway design standards, if ultimately approved by the City, will position Yuma to implement a more
comfortable and connected bicycle network that better accommodates users of all ages and abilities. By prioritizing
separated facilities, such as multi-use paths, the City is taking measurable steps to reduce bicycle-vehicle conflicts,
increase ridership, and support community health.
PAVEMENT CONDITION METRIC
Pavement condition was a top concern of the community. As such, a potential service standard metric to improve
pavement conditions is to, per the City of Yuma Pavement Condition Index, maintain 10% or less of roadways
categorized as “poor” and “very poor” (when summed together). Currently, the percentage of pavement categorized as
“poor” and “very poor” is 14%.
INTERSECTION SPACING STANDARDS
Spacing standards based on facility type and speed are important to maintaining harmony in the traffic flow throughout
a city and to avoid unnecessary conflict points along roadways. While the City of Yuma has driveway spacing
standards, intersection spacing standards specifically target the creation of new intersections and specify the level of
access (full access signalized, full access unsignalized, right-in/right-out only, left-in/right-in/right-out only, etc.). It is
recommended that the City develop intersection spacing standards or adopt the standards defined by the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) or the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO).
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE
LOS is a measure used to describe the operational conditions of a roadway or intersection from the perspective of
drivers. It reflects factors such as speed, travel time, comfort, delay, and safety. Currently, for purposes of traffic impact
112

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
analysis review, an acceptable LOS for the City is LOS C or better for the overall intersection, if signalized, or for the
worst-case approach if unsignalized, for the horizon year for all roadways and intersections in the study area. If the
study area roadways and intersections are expected to operate at worse than LOS C without the proposed
development, then the traffic impact of the proposed development must be mitigated to provide that same LOS or
better. The standard for acceptable LOS should take into account the environment a roadway is within (surrounding
land uses, existing speed limits, adjacent pedestrian and bicyclist facilities, etc.). As such, it is recommended that an
acceptable LOS for purposes of traffic impact analysis review in Yuma be defined as follows:
◼ On freeways, highways, and principal arterials, the acceptable LOS in the horizon year is LOS C or better for
roadways adjacent to the proposed development being considered and LOS D or better for other roadways within
the city. If the study area roadways and intersections are expected to operate at worse than these LOS values
without the proposed development, then the traffic impact of the proposed development must be mitigated to
provide that same LOS or better.
◼ On minor arterials and collectors, the acceptable LOS in the horizon year is LOS D or better for roadways adjacent
to the proposed development being considered and LOS E or better for other roadways within the city. If the study
area roadways and intersections are expected to operate at worse than these LOS values without the proposed
development, then the traffic impact of the proposed development must be mitigated to provide that same LOS or
better.
INCREASED TREE AND SHADE COVERAGE
Providing shade through tree planting is a vital strategy to improve walkability, encourage active transportation, and
enhance comfort, safety, and visual appeal across Yuma’s transportation network. In Yuma’s desert climate, shaded
corridors significantly improve the experience for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users by reducing heat exposure
and making travel routes more hospitable.
To support this goal, it is recommended that the City includes funding for tree planting and maintenance within the CIP.
This strategy directly aligns with the Tree and Shade Master Plan (2020), which outlines key implementation policies
that can be applied across the transportation system.
The following locations have been identified as priorities for tree planting in coordination with the transportation system:
◼ Gateway Routes – Including “Welcome to Yuma” entranceways.
◼ Pathways identified in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan.
◼ New major roadways and development spine roadways.
◼ Partnerships on adjacent right-of-way where the City plants trees and neighbors take over maintenance.
◼ Corridors where pedestrian activity would be increased substantially if shade via trees were provided, including:
◼ 40th Street.
◼ 32nd Street.
◼ 24th Street.
◼ Giss Parkway.
113

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ Pacific Avenue.
◼ 4th Avenue.
◼ Avenues A, B, and C.
◼ Street corners where corner sight distance is not compromised.
These priority areas align with the following policies from the Tree and Shade Master Plan:
◼ Shady Pathways – Supports shade tree planting along multi-use pathways and canal routes, such as those
identified in the Bicycle Master Plan, to benefit cyclists, joggers, and pedestrians. This directly supports
improvements to designated bikeways.
◼ Walkable Streets – Encourages tree planting along major roadways and development corridors, as well as high-
pedestrian streets, to improve walkability and reduce heat exposure. This supports planting on spine roads and
corridors like 24th Street, Giss Parkway, and Pacific Avenue.
◼ Shady Bus Stops – While not called out explicitly, this policy supports planting trees at street corners and transit
areas, provided safety and sight distance are preserved—aligning with the City's interest in corner treatments that
don’t compromise visibility.
◼ Tree-Lined Neighborhoods – Promotes tree planting in residential and shared-maintenance areas, supporting
the City's desire to create partnerships where the City plants and neighbors maintain.
Incorporating these principles into street and corridor improvements will support a safer, more sustainable, and more
inviting transportation system. The TMP recommends budgeting for tree planting in the planning, design, and
construction phases of roadway projects, particularly where multimodal activity is expected to grow.
PLAN FOR FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES
The City of Yuma should plan for and embrace future technologies that improve transportation efficiency, safety, and
modal choice, which could include some or all of the following:
◼ Autonomous personal vehicles.
◼ Autonomous trucks.
◼ Advanced air mobility autonomous transit.
◼ More efficient electric vehicle charging stations.
◼ New personal micromobility devices.
◼ Space travel.
CHANGES TO CITY BUILDOUT ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
The City’s 2014 TMP and 2022 General Plan included a recommended buildout roadway classification and laneage
map. The following changes to that map are recommended to better match existing and anticipated traffic conditions:
◼ Avenue 5E between 24th Street and 32nd Street as a 4-Lane Minor Arterial
◼ 16th Street as a 6-Lane Principal Arterial between 6th Avenue and Arizona Avenue
114

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ 4th Avenue as a 6-Lane Principal Arterial between 15th Street and 17th Street
◼ 32nd Street as a 6-Lane Principal Arterial between the Avenue 6 ¼ E alignment and Michigan Avenue
◼ Avenue 3E as a 6-Lane Principal Arterial between I-8 and 24th Street
◼ 32nd Street as a 4-Lane Principal Arterial between just west of Avenue B and the Big Curve
◼ Pacific Avenue/Avenue 2E as a 4-Lane Collector between County 14th Street and County 15th Street
◼ Arizona Avenue as a 2-Lane Collector between County 14th Street and County 15th Street
◼ Yuma Palms Parkway as a 4-Lane Minor Arterial between the northern intersection with Castle Dome Avenue
and 16th Street
◼ Castle Dome Avenue as a 2-Lane Collector between 12th Street and the southern intersection with Yuma Palms
Parkway
◼ Castle Dome Avenue as a 4-Lane Collector between 8th Street and 12th Street
◼ Gila Ridge Road as a 2-Lane Collector between Pacific Avenue and Avenue 2 ½ E
◼ View Parkway as a 2-Lane Collector between Avenue 5E and Chelsea Avenue
◼ Avenue 7E as a 2-Lane Collector between 24th Street and 26th Street
Figure 81 shows the recommended ultimate buildout roadway network classifications and laneage in Yuma.
CHANGES IN SPEED LIMITS
Figure 82 shows the recommended changes in roadway speed limits in the study area. These changes are anticipated
to promote safety by taking into account the context and land uses surrounding the roadway in determining the
appropriate speed limit. It is acknowledged that ADOT and Yuma County have jurisdiction over the speed limits on
their respective facilities and as such will ultimately determine if any of the recommended speed limit changes on their
facilities should be implemented.
115

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 81. Recommended Roadway Network at Buildout
116

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 82. Recommended Speed Limit Changes
117

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Public participation and input were key in developing the TMP to ensure it responds to Yuma’s transportation needs.
The City and YMPO conducted joint public outreach as both agencies were conducting long-range transportation plans
(the City TMP and YMPO LRTP). The first of three rounds of public engagement was conducted in June/July 2024.
The first round of public engagement pertained to existing conditions, needs, and deficiencies and consisted of a joint
project website (https://www.greateryumamoves.com/), interactive map tool, and online survey. Detailed input provided
by the public can be found in Appendix E.
ADVERTISEMENT METHODS
Figure 83. Social Media Post To notify the public of the
engagement efforts, social
media posts, local news
reports, news releases,
Signals AZ and KYMA radio
station shoutouts, and links on
the official City and YMPO
websites were all utilized. An
example of a social media post
for the two projects is shown in
Figure 83.
PUBLIC OUTREACH ROUND 1 (MID-JUNE 2024 – END OF JULY 2024)
INTERACTIVE MAP COMMENTS
A user-friendly online interactive map platform was developed to share project information and allow the public to place
icons representing eight different transportation categories at specific locations along with comments about issues or
desired improvements. Users could also see and reply to comments posted by others. Figure 84 shows the interactive
map landing page that displayed the website’s instructions and live map with the placement of icons by the public.
118

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 84. Online Interactive Comment Map
There were 193 comments made on the map that were within the Yuma TMP study area. The breakdown of comments
by type (Biking or Walking, Driving, Safety, and Other) is shown in Figure 85 and provided in Appendix E. The key
takeaways from the interactive maps are:
◼ Respondents believe more traffic interchanges are needed along I-8.
◼ Respondents want improved network connectivity via additional overpasses/bridges.
◼ Respondents identified the need for more multi-use paths and other bicyclist/pedestrian facilities.
Figure 85. Public Coordinate Website Comment Types
Transit Safety Bicyclist Safety
4% 10%
General Comments
Intersection Safety 3% Bicyclist Safety
14%
General Comments
Multi-use Paths
11% Multi-use Paths
Pedestrian Safety
Roadway Safety
Pedestrian Safety Intersection Safety
Roadway Safety 22%
36% Transit Safety
119

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
ONLINE MAP RESPONSES
An online survey was developed using the Survey Monkey platform. The survey included 21 questions: 15 questions
on modal priorities; three questions on the condition of Yuma’s transportation facilities; and six optional demographic
questions. There were 336 people who took the survey.
Figure 86 provides a summary of responses when survey respondents were asked which modes of transportation they
use regularly. More than 93% of respondents indicated they travel regularly by automobile. Next most commonly used
modes of transportation were bicycle (23%) and walking/running (21%).
Figure 86. Survey Responses for Modes of Transportation Regularly Used
100.00% 93%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00% 23% 21%
20.00% 10% 10%
10.00% 4% 2%
0.00%
Figure 87 provides a summary of responses when survey respondents were asked what is their biggest
transportation challenge or concern. The top concerns of the respondents were traffic safety (32%) and
congestion (23%).
Figure 87. Survey Responses for the Biggest Transportation Challenge or Concern
35.00% 32%
30.00%
25.00% 23%
20.00%
15%
15.00%
11% 10%
10.00%
5%
5.00% 3%
0.00%
120

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
Figure 88 provides a weighted average of rankings when survey respondents were asked to rate the conditions of the
roadway surfaces, sidewalks, bike lanes, and/or shared use paths, and transit. Each ranking had a corresponding point
value with one being poor, two being adequate, three being good, and four being very good.
Figure 88. Survey Responses for Conditions of Facilities Used to Travel
2.45
2.27 2.21
Roadway Surface Sidewalks, bike lanes, and/or shared Transit (Bus)
use paths
Figure 89 provides a summary of responses when survey respondents were asked which modes of transportation
should be focused on by the City in planning for future improvements. The highest modal priority for planning
improvements was travel by automobile at 67%, followed by bicycle which had 44%, and then transit (bus) at 42%.
Figure 89. Survey Responses for Future Modal Improvement Planning Priorities
80.00%
70.00% 67%
60.00%
50.00% 44% 42%
40.00% 34%
30.00%
20.00% 15%
10.00% 5% 3%
0.00%
121

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
The key takeaways from the survey responses are:
◼ Respondents indicate their predominant mode of travel and priority for future improvements is travel by automobile.
◼ Respondents feel that the roadway surface conditions, sidewalk, bicyclist lanes, and shared-use path conditions,
and transit (bus) conditions, are above adequate but not quite good.
◼ The biggest concerns of the respondents are traffic safety and congestion.
◼ A higher percentage of respondents wants improvements to focus on bicycle, transit, and walking modes of travel
than regularly use those modes of travel now, indicating respondents want to see a more balanced multimodal
transportation network.
PUBLIC OUTREACH ROUND 2 (OCTOBER 2024 – JUNE 2025)
Round 2 focused on in-person engagement at various Figure 90. Public Outreach at the Downtown Winter Fest
community events scheduled between October 2024 and June
2025 in Yuma County. YMPO staff provided information on the
City’s TMP at the events held outside of the city of Yuma. The
primary event held in the city of Yuma was the Yuma Downtown
Winter Fest on December 7, 2024. This outreach event provided
a valuable opportunity to engage directly with community
members and gather input on transportation priorities.
Kimley-Horn representatives, alongside staff from the City of
Yuma and Core Engineering Group, were present from 3 pm to
7 pm. During this time, an estimated 60 conversations were held
with event attendees as pictured in Figure 90. Kimley-Horn and City staff focused primarily on discussions related to
the TMP and LRTP. Core Engineering Group focused primarily on discussions related to ADA improvements, a
separate project also being presented to the public in conjunction with the TMP and LRTP outreach.
The outreach booth featured project flyers, postcards, and information boards highlighting key elements of the TMP
and LRTP. Boards focused on priority topics, project descriptions, and invited attendees to rank priorities and vote for
investment areas.
REGIONAL PRIORITY TOPICS (TOP 5 BY VOTES)
1. Improve pavement surface of roads – 50 votes
2. Add shared-use paths/sidewalks/bike lanes – 35 votes
3. Widen existing roads – 28 votes
4. Widen I-8 to six lanes – 21 votes
5. Install more roundabouts – 20 votes
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PRIORITIES (TOP 5 BY VOTES)
1. Expand biking/walking/transit infrastructure – 28 votes
2. Improve safety – 19 votes
122

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
3. Promote healthy lifestyle choices – 18 votes
4. Maintain existing transportation infrastructure – 16 votes
5. Expand roadway network – 15 votes
PUBLIC FEEDBACK THEMES
Community members provided a range of comments and suggestions, including:
◼ Widening 24th Street between Avenue B and Avenue C
◼ Expanding 16th Street near the police garage to three lanes in each direction
◼ Improving traffic flow in business areas to reduce abrupt stops
◼ Considering the impact of a potential Pacific Avenue freeway connection
◼ Reducing medians and using jersey barriers to widen lanes
◼ Concerns about roundabouts and preference for their removal
◼ Amtrak platform safety improvements, including lighting
◼ Need for a freeway loop around the city
◼ Enhanced safety education for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists
This event demonstrated strong community interest in improving transportation safety, multimodal infrastructure, and
roadway maintenance. The insights gathered were used to inform future planning decisions and ensure the TMP and
LRTP align with public priorities.
The key takeaways from the in-person public outreach were:
◼ Participants value the surface quality of their roads, shared-use paths, sidewalks, and bike lanes the most.
◼ Traffic congestion is a concern for many residents.
◼ Many participants showed support for roundabouts while others indicated they are opposed to roundabouts.
◼ Participants identified active transportation and safety as the top priorities in terms of investment.
PUBLIC OUTREACH ROUND 3 (JUNE 2025 – JULY 2025)
Draft versions of the proposed improvements were published on the project website for public feedback. The website
received over 400 visitors and 18 comments during this period. There was strong support for the proposed 40th Street
improvements. There were several requests for:
◼ Additional active transportation improvements such as more shared-use paths and crossings
◼ Small-scale intersection improvements such as adding a turn lane or improving the corner turning radius at specific
locations
◼ Transit service enhancements such as bus pull-outs, shade, option to pay with phone, weekend routes, and a
more consistent schedule
Additionally, residents raised concerns with existing traffic congestion. As a result of this public outreach effort,
additional projects were added or reprioritized based on input received.
123

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES
Coordinating with other entities will be imperative to implementing the recommended TMP projects plus other future
transportation improvements that arise. These entities include:
◼ YMPO – The YMPO 2026-2050 Long-Range Transportation Plan includes the TMP recommendations that pertain
to the City of Yuma as well as additional recommendations that pertain to adjacent jurisdictions such as Yuma
County, Somerton, San Luis, Wellton, YCIPTA, and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) that could
impact travel in the city of Yuma. In addition, YMPO manages federal funding that is allocated to the YMPO region
for use by YMPO member agencies like the City of Yuma.
◼ ADOT – Some of the most impactful recommendations in the TMP are the widening of I-8, improving existing I-8
traffic interchanges, and constructing additional I-8 traffic interchanges, all of which are under ADOT’s jurisdiction.
It is recommended that the City of Yuma support ADOT and YMPO in conducting an I-8 corridor study in the near
future that will look in more detail at the existing and projected operational and safety needs of I-8 and its traffic
interchanges in the Yuma area. Any improvements to ADOT facilities, including speed limit changes, will need to
be approved and implemented by ADOT.
◼ Yuma County – Some of Yuma’s anticipated growth is expected to be in unincorporated parts of Yuma County.
The City should coordinate regularly with Yuma County regarding potential future roadway annexations and
proposed developments that could generate traffic on City roadways.
◼ YCIPTA – Transit can help remove single-occupant vehicles from the network and promote traveling by bicycle or
walking. The City should continue to support and promote the use and expansion of YCIPTA.
◼ MCAS-Yuma – If MCAS-Yuma relocates its main gate to County 14th Street/Pacific Avenue, that will significantly
change travel patterns in Yuma near the base. The City should coordinate regularly with MCAS-Yuma to ensure
any future impacts to transportation are mitigated properly.
◼ Private Entities – Private developers and other entities such as the Union Pacific Railroad and the Wellton-
Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District will be key partners in implementing/improving/permitting transportation
facilities in Yuma.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Per the City’s CIP and YMPO’s LRTP, funding for transportation in Yuma currently comes from a mix of sources. This
is anticipated to continue to be the case moving forward, with new or expanded funding sources being needed if all
recommended improvements are to be implemented within the desired timeframes.
LOCAL FUNDING
◼ General Fund: This is funded primarily by City property taxes, City sales tax, and permit fees. While this is the
main operating fund for the City, it has historically not been used much for transportation improvements.
◼ Bonds: The City has funding from the sale of bonds to finance capital projects such as transportation
improvements.
◼ City Road Tax: The City has a one-half percent sales tax used primarily for maintenance and construction of City
roads.
124

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ Development Fees: The City has a development impact fee for transportation that is used to counter the cost of
providing new developments with access to, and increased capacity for, the City’s transportation network.
◼ Public-Private Partnerships: Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) are contracts between a government agency and
a private company that enable increased private sector involvement in project implementation.
REGIONAL FUNDING
◼ Regional Sales Tax: Yuma County does not currently have a regional sales tax dedicated to transportation, but
this is an idea that is being considered to put before voters for approval in the near future.
STATE FUNDING
◼ State Gas Tax: Arizona has a state gas tax known as the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). HURF funds are
distributed to cities and counties such as the City of Yuma based on population.
◼ State Vehicle License Tax: Arizona collects fees on vehicle registrations that are then distributed to cities and
counties similar to HURF distributions.
◼ Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Grant: The Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS)
provides grant funding for programs aimed at enhancing road safety. The programs address critical areas such as
speeding, reckless driving, impaired driving, occupant protection, motorcycle safety, and pedestrian/bicyclist
safety.
◼ AZ State Match Advantage for Rural Transportation (SMART) Fund: The AZ SMART Fund assists cities,
towns, counties, and ADOT in competing for federal discretionary surface transportation grants. Applicants may
request AZ SMART Funds for eligible uses associated with developing a project for, applying for, or providing a
local, non-federal match on a federal grant.
FEDERAL FUNDING
◼ Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Funds: STBG is a flexible federal funding program primarily funded
from the federal gas tax (Highway Trust Fund) for a broad range of transportation capital needs including roads,
transit, airport access, vanpool, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. STBG funds can also be swapped with
Arizona HURF funds to avoid federal regulations and reduce costs if certain conditions are met.
◼ Competitive Federal Grant Programs: Several federally funded competitive grant programs are available that
require the submittal of an application to determine eligibility and ranking. These competitive grant programs
include the following:
◼ Carbon Reduction Program (CRP): CRP is designated for projects that reduce transportation
emissions, including advanced truck stop electrification systems, public transportation projects, on-
road and off-road trail facilities, and advanced transportation and congestion management
technologies.
◼ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): HSIP aims to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on
public roadways.
◼ Off-System Bridge (OSB) Program: OSB funds are used for bridges located off the federal-aid
highway system.
◼ Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program: TA funds are available for projects that enhance
transportation alternatives, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
125

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
◼ Multiple Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) Opportunity: The MPDG opportunity includes the
National Infrastructure Project Assistance grants program, the Nationally Significant Multimodal
Freight and Highway Projects grant program, and the Rural Surface Transportation Grant program.
The funding opportunities are awarded on a competitive basis for surface transportation infrastructure
projects with significant national or regional impact, or to improve and expand the surface
transportation infrastructure in rural areas.
◼ Bridge Investment Program (BIP): The BIP provides funding for bridge replacement, rehabilitation,
preservation, and protection projects that reduce the number of bridges in poor condition, or in fair
condition at risk of declining into poor condition.
◼ Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program: The BUILD grant
program provides funding for surface transportation infrastructure projects with significant local or
regional impact. It supports innovative projects, including multi-modal projects, which can be difficult
to fund through traditional federal programs.
◼ Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation
Program (PROTECT): The PROTECT grant program provides funding to ensure surface
transportation resilience to natural hazards including climate change, flooding, extreme weather
events and other natural disasters.
◼ Discretionary Grant Opportunities: Various discretionary grant opportunities are available through the
U.S. Department of Transportation for specific transportation projects, including competitive grants
that can support large-scale and innovative transportation solutions.
NEXT STEPS
With approximately $500 million in recommended projects in the TMP over the course of near-term, mid-term, and
long-term timeframes, the City of Yuma should focus primarily on implementing near-term projects. The near-term
projects are anticipated to need approximately $134 million of funding above and beyond the City’s currently available
funding. The City should support the pursuit of additional funding sources such as a regional transportation sales tax
or federal grant programs.
126

FINAL REPORT APPENDICES I OCTOBER 2025

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
APPENDIX A
ROADWAY SYSTEM SCENARIOS

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 1. 2050 No Build Scenario Volumes
3

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 2. 2050 No Build Scenario LOS
4

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 3. 2050 Scenario 1 Change in Daily Traffic Volume
6

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 4. 2050 Scenario 1 LOS
7

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 5. 2050 Scenario 2 Change in Daily Traffic Volume
9

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 6. 2050 Scenario 2 LOS
10

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 7. 2050 Scenario 3A Change in Daily Traffic Volume
13

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 8. 2050 Scenario 3B Change in Daily Traffic Volume
14

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 9. 2050 Scenario 3A LOS
15

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 10. 2050 Scenario 3B LOS
16

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 11. 2050 Scenario 4A Change in Daily Traffic Volume
19

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 12. 2050 Scenario 4B Change in Daily Traffic Volume
20

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 13. 2050 Scenario 4A LOS
21

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 14. 2050 Scenario 4B LOS
22

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 15. 2050 Scenario 5A Change in Daily Traffic Volume
25

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 16. 2050 Scenario 5A LOS
26

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 17. 2050 Scenario 5B Change in Daily Traffic Volume
28

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 18. 2050 Scenario 5B LOS
29

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 19. 2050 Scenario 5C Change in Daily Traffic Volume
31

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 20. 2050 Scenario 5C LOS
32

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 21. 2050 Scenario 5D Change in Daily Traffic Volume
34

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 22. 2050 Scenario 5D LOS
35

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 23. 2050 Scenario 5G Change in Daily Traffic Volume
37

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 24. 2050 Scenario 5G LOS
38

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 25. 2050 Scenario 5G Change in Peak Traffic Conditions Daily Traffic Volume
39

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 26. 2050 Scenario 5G LOS for Peak Traffic Conditions
40

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 27. Proposed Speed Limit Changes
42

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 28. 2050 Scenario 5H Change in Daily Traffic Volume
43

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 29. 2050 Scenario 5H LOS
44

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 30. 2050 Scenario 5H Change in Peak Traffic Conditions Daily Traffic Volume
45

Appendix A
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Figure 31. 2050 Scenario 5H LOS for Peak Traffic Conditions
46

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL TRANSIT, BICYCLIST, AND PEDESTRIAN SOLUTIONS

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Table 1. Transit Improvement Scenarios and Project Prioritization
ID Project Name Primary Route/Description Priority Low Investment Medium Investment High Investment
T-01 4th Avenue Corridor Bus Stops (10) Preferred Service Plan Improvement: 10 bus shelters/bus stop amenities High ● ● ●
T-02 Blue 5 and Turquoise 10 – Schedule Coordination Schedule Coordination High ● ● ●
T-03 Green 4A Catalina Loop School Day Capacity Increase High ● ● ●
T-04 Green 4A Catalina Loop Conversion from Fixed Route to FLEX Convert Catalina Loop from fixed route to FLEX deviation High ● ● ●
T-05 Vehicle Replacement Replace Vehicles #150, #151, #152 & #153 High ● ● ●
T-06 Bus Pullout, 4th Avenue/24th Street Yellow 95 High ● ● ●
T-07 Bus Pullout, 4th Avenue/24th Street Yellow 95 High ● ● ●
T-08 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street/Pacific Avenue Green 4 and Purple 6A High ● ● ●
T-09 Bus Pullout, Avenue B/24th Street Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 High ● ● ●
T-10 Bus Pullout, 26th Street/23rd Avenue Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 High ● ● ●
T-12 Add bus to Yellow 95 - Saturdays from DYTC to WYTH DYTC to WYTH Medium ● ●
T-13 Add bus to Yellow 95 - Weekdays from DYTC to WYTH DYTC to WYTH Medium ● ●
T-14 Discontinue Silver 9 SR 195 Medium ● ●
T-15 Gold 2X Express I-8, 32nd Street, and AWC/NAU/UA Campus Medium ● ●
T-16 Reroute Orange 2 via 32nd Street and 4th Avenue to WYTH 32nd Street Medium ● ●
T-17 Reroute Purple 6 via 4th Avenue between 8th Street and 24th Street 4th Avenue Medium ● ●
T-18 Blue 5 FLEX Microtransit Feeder Subsidize max 25 one-way trips up to $5.00 Medium ● ●
T-19 Blue 5 Improved Headway Improving the Blue 5 headway to the Andrade Port of Entry to hourly (currently every two hours) Medium ● ●
T-20 Orange 2 FLEX Zone Modification FLEX Zone Modification Medium ● ●
T-21 Quechan PMoD On demand shared ride taxi service direct on Reservation Medium ● ●
T-22 Turquoise 10 Add Tuesday and Thursday service Medium ● ●
T-23 US 95 South Corridor Service – Improve Cocopah Headways Adds one bus south of WYTH Medium ● ●
T-24 Bus Pullout, 16th Street Across Redondo C Green 4 Medium ● ●
T-25 Bus Pullout, 21st Drive/32nd Street Purple 6A and Silver 9 Medium ● ●
T-26 Bus Pullout, 24th Street/21st Drive Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 Medium ● ●
T-27 Bus Pullout, Giss Parkway/Gila Street Orange 2 and Green 4 Medium ● ●
T-28 Bus Pullout, 24th Street/Avenue A Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 Medium ● ●
T-29 Consolidate Orange 2 and Brown 3 E 32nd Street and AWC/NAU/UA Campus Low ●
T-30 Initiate new Red 7 via 16th Street 16th Street Low ●
52

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
ID Project Name Primary Route/Description Priority Low Investment Medium Investment High Investment
T-31 Restructure Green 4 (Pacific/Avenue B) 3rd Street and Avenue B Low ●
T-32 Cocopah FLEX Deviation Capacity Convert fixed route to deviation Low ●
T-33 East County Redesign - FLEX Microtransit Feeder Subsidize max 25 one-way trips up to $5.00 Low ●
T-34 US 95 South Corridor Service – Integrated Schedule Reschedule Purple 6 and Yellow 95 Low ●
T-35 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street/Araby Road Gold 8 and Silver 9 Low ●
T-36 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street/Avenue B Purple 6A and Yellow 95 Low ●
T-37 Bus Pullout, Avenue B/32nd Street Purple 6A and Yellow 95 Low ●
T-38 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street/Avenue 3E Orange 2 Low ●
T-39 Bus Pullout, 24th Street/18th Avenue Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 Low ●
53

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Table 2. Bicyclist Facilities Investment Scenarios and Project Prioritization
Low Medium High
ID Project Name Priority
Investment Investment Investment
B-001 Bicyclist Lane, 1st Street from Avenue B to 4th Avenue High ● ● ●
B-002 Bicyclist Lane, 16th Street from 1st Avenue to Pacific Avenue High ● ● ●
B-003 Bicyclist Lane, 16th Street from 4th Avenue to Maple Avenue High ● ● ●
B-004 Bicyclist Lane, 16th Street from Avenue B to 7th Avenue High ● ● ●
B-005 Bicyclist Lane, 1st Street from Avenue C to Avenue B High ● ● ●
B-006 Bicyclist Lane, 24th Street from East Main Canal to Avenue A High ● ● ●
B-007 Bicyclist Lane, 28th Street from Avenue B to 21st Drive High ● ● ●
B-008 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue 7E to Mississippi Avenue High ● ● ●
B-009 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue 8 1/2 E to Cactus Way High ● ● ●
B-010 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue 8E to Avenue 8 1/2 E High ● ● ●
B-011 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Mississippi Avenue to Avenue 8E High ● ● ●
B-012 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Cactus Way to Avenue 10E High ● ● ●
B-013 Bicyclist Lane, Araby Road from 24th Street to 32nd Street High ● ● ●
B-014 Bicyclist Lane, Arizona Avenue from 16th Street to Palo Verde Street High ● ● ●
B-015 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 9E, South Gila Canal to North Frontage Road High ● ● ●
B-016 Bicyclist Lane, North Frontage Road from Avenue 9E to Avenue 10E High ● ● ●
B-017 Bicyclist Lane, Pacific Avenue from 8th Street to 12th Street High ● ● ●
B-018 Bicyclist Lane, Palo Verde Street from Avenue 2 1/2 E to Avenue 3E High ● ● ●
B-019 Bicycle Route, 22nd Street from 3rd Avenue to B 3.7 Lateral High ● ● ●
B-020 Bicycle Route, Arizona Avenue from Palo Verde Street to 32nd Street High ● ● ●
B-021 Bicycle Route, Palo Verde Street from Barbara Avenue Alignment to Pacific High
● ● ●
Avenue
B-022 Bicyclist Lane, 10th Street from 14th Avenue to Arizona Avenue Medium ● ●
B-023 Bicyclist Lane, 12th Street from 14th Avenue to Arizona Avenue Medium ● ●
B-024 Bicyclist Lane, 12th Street from Avenue D to Avenue C Medium ● ●
B-025 Bicyclist Lane, 12th Street from Castle Dome Avenue to Avenue 3E Medium ● ●
B-026 Bicyclist Lane, 16th Street from Avenue D to Avenue C Medium ● ●
B-027 Bicyclist Lane, 1st Avenue from 9th Street to 16th Street Medium ● ●
B-028 Bicyclist Lane, 21st Drive from 24th Street to 25th Street Medium ● ●
B-029 Bicyclist Lane, 22nd Street from 8th Avenue to 4th Avenue Medium ● ●
B-030 Bicyclist Lane, 24th Street from Avenue D to Avenue C Medium ● ●
B-031 Bicyclist Lane, 24th Street from Pacific Avenue to Avenue 3E Medium ● ●
B-032 Bicyclist Lane, 28th Street from 45th Avenue/Lawler Lateral to Thacker Lateral Medium ● ●
B-033 Bicyclist Lane, 28th Street from Avenue 9E to Avenue 10E Medium ● ●
B-034 Bicyclist Lane, 28th Street from Avenue A to Palo Verde Street Medium ● ●
B-035 Bicyclist Lane, 32nd Street from 33rd Drive to 28th Drive Medium ● ●
B-036 Bicyclist Lane, 32nd Street from 45th Avenue/Lawler Lateral to Thacker Lateral Medium ● ●
B-037 Bicyclist Lane, 32nd Street from Avenue D to 45th Avenue Medium ● ●
B-038 Bicyclist Lane, 3rd Street from 1st Avenue to Gila Street Medium ● ●
B-039 Bicyclist Lane, 3rd Street from Avenue B to 4th Avenue Medium ● ●
B-040 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue 3 1/2 E to Avenue 6E Medium ● ●
B-041 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue 3E to Avenue 3 1/2 E Medium ● ●
B-042 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue 6E to Avenue 7E Medium ● ●
B-043 Bicyclist Lane, 8th Street from 4th Avenue to 1st Avenue Medium ● ●
B-044 Bicyclist Lane, 8th Street from Avenue A to 4th Avenue Medium ● ●
B-045 Bicyclist Lane, 8th Street from Avenue D to Avenue A Medium ● ●
B-046 Bicyclist Lane, Airport Loop from Avenue A to County 14th Street Medium ● ●
B-047 Bicyclist Lane, Araby Road from Highway 95 to Telegraph Street Medium ● ●
B-048 Bicyclist Lane, Araby Road from Telegraph Street to 24th Street Medium ● ●
B-049 Bicyclist Lane, Arizona Avenue from 12th Street to 16th Street Medium ● ●
56

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Low Medium High
ID Project Name Priority
Investment Investment Investment
B-050 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 3E from 8th Street to 32nd Street Medium ● ●
B-051 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 4E from 14th Street to County 16th Street Medium ● ●
B-052 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 5E from County 14th Street to County 15th Street Medium ● ●
B-053 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 7 1 /2 E from Gila Valley Canal to Desert Mesa Medium
● ●
Elementary School
B-054 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 8E from 32nd Street to 38th Lane Medium ● ●
B-055 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 8E from 38th Lane to 48th Street Medium ● ●
B-056 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue A from 40th Street to County 14th Street Medium ● ●
B-057 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue A from County 14th Street to County 16th Street Medium ● ●
B-058 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue B from 16th Street to 24th Street Medium ● ●
B-059 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue B from 1st Street to 3rd Street Medium ● ●
B-060 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue B from 24th Street to 26th Street Medium ● ●
B-061 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue B from 3rd Street to 8th Street Medium ● ●
B-062 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue B from 8th Street to 16th Street Medium ● ●
B-063 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue C from 1st Street to 16th Street Medium ● ●
B-064 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue C from 24th Street to 32nd Street Medium ● ●
B-065 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue C from 24th Street to County 14th Street Medium ● ●
B-066 Bicyclist Lane, County 15th Street from Avenue 3E to Avenue 5E Medium ● ●
B-067 Bicyclist Lane, County 16th Street from Avenue D to Avenue 4E Medium ● ●
B-068 Bicyclist Lane, County 18th Street from Avenue A to Avenue 3E Medium ● ●
B-069 Bicyclist Lane, County 19th Street from Avenue A to Avenue 3E Medium ● ●
B-070 Bicyclist Lane, Giss Parkway from 4th Avenue to Prison Hill Road Medium ● ●
B-071 Bicyclist Lane, Giss Parkway from Prison Hill Road to Castle Dome Medium ● ●
B-072 Bicyclist Lane, Ocean To Ocean Bridge from California to Arizona Medium ● ●
B-073 Bicyclist Lane, Otondo Drive from School Entrance to 24th Street Medium ● ●
B-074 Bicyclist Lane, Penitentiary Avenue from Gila Street to Quechan Road Medium ● ●
B-075 Bicyclist Lane, Walnut Avenue from 10th Street to Arizona Avenue Medium ● ●
B-076 Bicycle Route, 5th Street from Lawler Lateral to Thacker Lateral Medium ● ●
B-077 Bicycle Route, 5th Street from Magnolia Avenue to Main Street Medium ● ●
B-078 Bicycle Route, 6th Place from Dora Avenue to Magnolia Avenue Medium ● ●
B-079 Bicycle Route, Engler Avenue from 24th Street to Palo Verde Street Medium ● ●
B-080 Bicycle Route, Madison Avenue from Colorado River Levee Loop to 1st Street Medium ● ●
B-081 Bicyclist Lane, 12th Street from Avenue B to Dora Avenue Low ●
B-082 Bicyclist Lane, 24th Street from Avenue 3E to Avenue 6E Low ●
B-083 Bicyclist Lane, 26th Street from Sunset Terrace Boulevard to Araby Road Low ●
B-084 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue 10E to Fortuna Road Low ●
B-085 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue A to Arizona Avenue Low ●
B-086 Bicyclist Lane, 40th Street from Avenue D to Avenue B Low ●
B-087 Bicyclist Lane, 48th Street from Avenue 10E to Fortuna Road Low ●
B-088 Bicyclist Lane, 48th Street from Avenue 5E to Avenue 10E Low ●
B-089 Bicyclist Lane, 4th Avenue from 1st Street to 24th Street Low ●
B-090 Bicyclist Lane, 4th Avenue from 24th Street to Catalina Drive Low ●
B-091 Bicyclist Lane, 4th Avenue from 37th Street to 40th Street Low ●
B-092 Bicyclist Lane, 4th Avenue from Catalina Drive to 4th Avenue ext. Low ●
B-093 Bicyclist Lane, 8th Street from Castle Dome Avenue to Avenue 3E Alignment Low ●
B-094 Bicyclist Lane, Arizona Avenue from 32nd Street to 40th Street Low ●
B-095 Bicyclist Lane, Arizona Avenue from Giss Parkway to 16th Street Low ●
B-096 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 10E from 24th Street to North Frontage Road Low ●
B-097 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 10E from 40th Street to County 14th Street Low ●
B-098 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 10E from South Frontage Road to 40th Street Low ●
B-099 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 2 1/2 E from 24th Street to 32nd Street Low ●
57

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Low Medium High
ID Project Name Priority
Investment Investment Investment
B-100 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 3 1/2 E from 32nd Street to 40th Street Low ●
B-101 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 3 1/2 E from 40th Street to 48th Street Low ●
B-102 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 3 1/2 E from Avenue 3E to 32nd Street Low ●
B-103 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 4E from 32nd Street to County 14th Street Low ●
B-104 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 5E from 32nd Street to County 14th Street Low ●
B-105 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 6E from 32nd Street to 41st Street Low ●
B-106 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 6E from 46th Street to County 14th Street Low ●
B-107 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 7E from 32nd Street to County 14th Street Low ●
B-108 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 7E from Colorado River Levee Loop to Highway 95 Low ●
B-109 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 8 1/2 E from 39th Street to 40th Street Low ●
B-110 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 8E from 48th Street to County 14th Street Low ●
B-111 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 8E from Highway 95 to Gila Valley Canal Low ●
B-112 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 9E from Highway 95 to 24th Street Low ●
B-113 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue 9E from South Frontage Road to County 14th Street Low ●
B-114 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue B from 26th Street to 32nd Street Low ●
B-115 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue B from 32nd Street to 36th Street Low ●
B-116 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue D from 16th Street to East Drain Low ●
B-117 Bicyclist Lane, Avenue D from 28th Street to County 14th Street Low ●
B-118 Bicyclist Lane, Castle Dome Avenue from 8th Street to Yuma Palms Parkway Low ●
B-119 Bicyclist Lane, County 10th Street from Somerton Avenue to Avenue D Low ●
B-120 Bicyclist Lane, County 11th Street from Somerton Avenue to Avenue D Low ●
B-121 Bicyclist Lane, County 14th Street from Avenue D to Avenue 10E Low ●
B-122 Bicyclist Lane, Gila Ridge Road from Pacific Avenue to Araby Road Low ●
B-123 Bicyclist Lane, Highway 95 from Avenue 3E to Avenue 8E Low ●
B-124 Bicyclist Lane, Highway 95 from Pacific Avenue to Avenue 3E Low ●
B-125 Bicyclist Lane, Mesa Avenue from South Frontage Road to 40th Street Low ●
B-126 Bicyclist Lane, Nightfall Drive from View Parkway to Sunset Terrace Blvd Low ●
B-127 Bicyclist Lane, North Frontage Road from 32nd Street to Avenue 9E Low ●
B-128 Bicyclist Lane, Palo Verde Street from Avenue 3 E to Avenue 3 1/2 E Low ●
B-129 Bicyclist Lane, South Frontage Road from Avenue 9E to Avenue 10E Low ●
B-130 Bicyclist Lane, Sunset Terrace Boulevard from Nightfall Drive to 26th Street Low ●
B-131 Bicyclist Lane, View Parkway from Twilight Avenue to Nightfall Drive Low ●
B-132 Bicyclist Lane, Yuma Palms Parkway from Castle Dome Avenue to 16th Street Low ●
B-133 Bicycle Route, 10th Street from Dora Avenue to Magnolia Avenue Low ●
B-134 Bicycle Route, 14th Avenue from 3rd Street to 5th Street Low ●
B-135 Bicycle Route, 14th Street from 8th Avenue to 1st Avenue Low ●
B-136 Bicycle Route, 15th Place from Hettema Street to Gateway Drive Low ●
B-137 Bicycle Route, 17th Street from 1st Avenue to Maple Avenue Low ●
B-138 Bicycle Route, 19th Street from 3rd Avenue to Arizona Avenue Low ●
B-139 Bicycle Route, 1st Avenue from 17th Street to 24th Street Low ●
B-140 Bicycle Route, 1st Avenue from 1st Street to 9th Street Low ●
B-141 Bicycle Route, 20th Street from 16th Street to Pacific Avenue Low ●
B-142 Bicycle Route, 20th Street from Avenue D to 45th Avenue Low ●
B-143 Bicycle Route, 21st Avenue from 6th Place to 8th Street Low ●
B-144 Bicycle Route, 21st Drive from 12th Street to 13th Lane Low ●
B-145 Bicycle Route, 26th Street from Avenue 7E to Otondo Drive Low ●
B-146 Bicycle Route, 28th Street from Madison Avenue to Palo Verde Street Low ●
B-147 Bicycle Route, 36th Street from Avenue A to 8th Avenue Low ●
B-148 Bicycle Route, 5th Avenue from 17th Street to 18th Street Low ●
B-149 Bicycle Route, 7th Street from Avenue A to 5th Avenue Low ●
B-150 Bicycle Route, 8th Avenue from 14th Street to 16th Street Low ●
58

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Low Medium High
ID Project Name Priority
Investment Investment Investment
B-151 Bicycle Route, 8th Avenue from 16th Street to 22nd Street Low ●
B-152 Bicycle Route, 8th Avenue from 32nd Street to 36th Street Low ●
B-153 Bicycle Route, 8th Avenue from 5th Street to 7th Street Low ●
B-154 Bicycle Route, Avenue 7E from 24th Street to 26th Street Low ●
B-155 Bicycle Route, Dora Avenue from 8th Street to 12th Street Alignment Low ●
B-156 Bicycle Route, Gateway Dr from 15th Place to 16th Street Low ●
B-157 Bicycle Route, Hettema Street from 13th Place to 1st Place Low ●
B-158 Bicycle Route, Lawler Lateral from West Main Canal Loop to 8th Street Low ●
B-159 Bicycle Route, Magnolia Avenue from 8th Street to 10th Street Low ●
B-160 Bicycle Route, Main Street from 1st Street to Giss Parkway Low ●
B-161 Bicycle Route, Maple Avenue from 17th Street to 19th Street Low ●
B-162 Bicycle Route, May Avenue from West Main Canal Loop to 8th Street Low ●
B-163 Bicycle Route, Otondo Dr from 24th Street to 26th Street Low ●
B-164 Bicycle Route, Pima Ln from 8th Street to 12th Street Low ●
59

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Table 3. Protected Crossing Investment Scenarios and Project Prioritization
ID Project Name Priority Low Investment Medium Investment High Investment
C-01 Crossing, East Main Canal Linear Park from Crossing at 24th Street High ● ● ●
C-02 Crossing, 16th Street and Thacker Lateral High ● ● ●
C-03 Crossing, 32nd Street and Thacker Lateral High ● ● ●
C-04 Crossing, Avenue C and 20th Street High ● ● ●
C-05 Crossing, 16th Street and 1st Avenue Medium ● ●
C-06 Crossing, 16th Street and 8th Avenue Medium ● ●
C-07 Crossing, 16th Street and Pacific Avenue Medium ● ●
C-08 Crossing, 1st Street and Avenue A Medium ● ●
C-09 Crossing, 24th Street and Avenue B Medium ● ●
C-10 Crossing, 24th Street and B Canal Medium ● ●
C-11 Crossing, Arizona Avenue and 22nd Street Medium ● ●
C-12 Crossing, 1st Street and Avenue B Low ●
C-13 Crossing, 24th Street and Thacker Lateral Low ●
C-14 Crossing, 32nd Street and Avenue 3E Low ●
C-15 Crossing, Avenue 9E and Araby Blaisdell Road Low ●
C-16 Crossing, Avenue A and 28th Street Low ●
C-17 Crossing, Avenue B and 5th Street Low ●
60

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Table 4. Shared-Use Path Investment Scenarios and Project Prioritization
ID Project Name Priority Low Investment Medium Investment High Investment
M-01 Pathway, 12th Street from 14th Avenue to Arizona Avenue High ● ● ●
M-02 Pathway, 16th Street from Avenue B to 4th Avenue High ● ● ●
M-03 Pathway, 16th Street from Avenue C to Avenue B High ● ● ●
M-04 Pathway, 1st Street from 4th Avenue to Avenue B High ● ● ●
M-05 Pathway, 28th Street from East Main Canal to Avenue A High ● ● ●
M-06 Pathway, 32nd Street from Arizona Avenue to Fortuna Avenue High ● ● ●
M-07 Pathway, 32nd Street from Avenue 3E to Avenue 7.5E Alignment High ● ● ●
M-08 Pathway, 32nd Street from Avenue B to East Main Canal High ● ● ●
M-09 Pathway, 32nd Street from East Main Canal to 32nd Street High ● ● ●
M-10 Pathway, 36th Street from Avenue A to 8th Avenue High ● ● ●
M-11 Pathway, B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park from 23rd Street to Pacific Avenue High ● ● ●
M-12 Pathway, Colorado River Levee Linear Park from East Wetlands to Avenue 7E High ● ● ●
M-13 Pathway, East Main Canal Linear Park Connection from 12th Street/14th Avenue High ● ● ●
M-14 Pathway, East Wetland Park to Pacific Avenue High ● ● ●
M-15 Pathway, Pacific Avenue from 16th Street to 32nd Street High ● ● ●
M-16 Pathway, Pacific Avenue from River Levee to 8th Street High ● ● ●
M-17 Pathway, Palo Verde Street from Catalina Drive to Winsor Avenue High ● ● ●
M-18 Pathway, Thacker Lateral Linear Park from West Main Canal Loop to 24th Street High ● ● ●
M-19 Pathway, West Main Canal from Avenue C to Avenue B High ● ● ●
M-20 Pathway, 32nd Street from 33rd Drive to Avenue B Medium ● ●
M-21 Pathway, Avenue 6E from 46th Street to County 14th Street Medium ● ●
M-22 Pathway, Avenue A from 24th Street to 32nd Street Medium ● ●
M-23 Pathway, Avenue D from 28th Street to County 14th Street Medium ● ●
M-24 Pathway, Thacker Lateral Linear Park from 1st Street to West Main Canal Loop Medium ● ●
M-25 Pathway, Thacker Lateral Linear Park from 24th Street to 40th Street Medium ● ●
M-26 Pathway, West Main Canal from Avenue D to Avenue C Medium ● ●
M-27 Pathway, Colorado River Levee Linear Park from Avenue D to Avenue C Medium ● ●
M-28 Pathway, East Main Canal Linear Park from 40th Street to County 14th Street Medium ● ●
M-29 Pathway, Redondo Center Drive from Giss Parkway to 16th Street Low ●
61

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
ID Project Name Priority Low Investment Medium Investment High Investment
M-30 Pathway, Avenue 3E from MCAS Yuma Entrance to E County 14th Street Low ●
M-31 Pathway, Avenue B Alignment from Joe Henry Park Road to 1st Street Low ●
M-32 Pathway, Avenue D from Central Drain to 28th Street Low ●
M-33 Pathway, B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park from 23rd Street to East Palo Verde Street Low ●
M-34 Pathway, B Canal from Pacific Avenue to Avenue 4E Low ●
M-35 Pathway, Central Canal/36th Street Alignment from Avenue D to East Main Canal Loop Low ●
M-36 Pathway, Central Drain from Avenue D to Thacker Lateral Low ●
M-37 Pathway, Central Stub No. 3 Drain from 12th Street to Central Drain Low ●
M-38 Pathway, 12th Street from Avenue B to East Main Canal Linear Park Low ●
M-39 Pathway, 32nd Street from Desert Air Boulevard to Avenue 9E Low ●
M-40 Pathway, Lawler Lateral/45th Avenue Alignment from Central Drain to 28th Street Low ●
M-41 Pathway, 47th Avenue Alignment from Central Drain to 24th Street Low ●
M-42 Pathway, Gila Valley Canal Linear Park from Avenue 3E to Avenue 9E Low ●
62

Appendix B
DRAFT WORKING PAPER 3: SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Table 5. Pedestrian Facilities Scenarios and Project Prioritization
ID Project Name Priority Low Investment Medium Investment High Investment
P-01 Sidewalk, Riley Ave & 17th St Sidewalk High ● ● ●
P-02 Sidewalk, 22nd St from 8th Ave to 6th Ave High ● ● ●
P-03 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from 32nd Street to 4th Avenue High ● ● ●
P-04 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Arizona Avenue to Chevy Block Lane High ● ● ●
P-05 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Pacific Avenue to Avenue 3E High ● ● ●
P-06 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Windsor Avenue to Sunset Sands RV Resort High ● ● ●
P-07 Sidewalk, Arizona Avenue/Walnut Avenue from 15th Street-16th Street Block Alley to 10th Street High ● ● ●
P-08 Sidewalk, Pacific Avenue from 28th Street to 32nd Street High ● ● ●
P-09 Sidewalk, Pacific Avenue from Burr Street to 8th Street High ● ● ●
P-10 Sidewalk, Redondo Center Drive from 7th Street to 16th Street High ● ● ●
P-11 Sidewalk, Redondo Center Drive from Giss Parkway to 7th Street High ● ● ●
P-12 Sidewalk Gaps, 16th Street from 45th Ave to western City limit Medium ● ●
P-13 Sidewalk Gaps, 24th Street from Avenue C to Avenue D Medium ● ●
P-14 Sidewalk, 12th Street from Avenue B to East Main Canal Medium ● ●
P-15 Sidewalk, 40th Street from Avenue 3E to Avenue 6E Medium ● ●
P-16 Sidewalk, 40th Street from Avenue 6E to Avenue 7E Medium ● ●
P-17 Sidewalk, 40th h Street from Avenue 7E to Mississippi Avenue Medium ● ●
P-18 Sidewalk, 40th Street from Mississippi Avenue to Avenue 8E Medium ● ●
P-19 Sidewalk, 40th Street from Cactus Way to Avenue 10E Medium ● ●
P-20 Sidewalk, 4th Avenue from 39th Street to the Yuma Regional Corporate Center Medium ● ●
P-21 Sidewalk, Avenue 3E from 24th Street to 16th Street Medium ● ●
P-22 Sidewalk, Avenue C from 24th Street to 26th Street Medium ● ●
P-23 Sidewalk, Pacific Avenue from 18th Street to 24th Street Medium ● ●
P-24 Sidewalk, 16th Street from Pacific Avenue to Leer Drive Low ●
P-25 Sidewalk, 22nd Street from Arizona Avenue to Factor Avenue Low ●
P-26 Sidewalk, 27th Street from 21st Drive to 18th Avenue Low ●
P-27 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from 550 feet east of US 95 to East Main Canal Low ●
P-28 Sidewalk, 40th Street from Avenue 8E to Avenue 9E Low ●
P-29 Sidewalk, 6th Street from Madison Avenue to Main Street Low ●
65

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
APPENDIX C
SOLUTION PRIORITIZATION RESULTS

Appendix C
Yuma Transportation Master Plan Recommended Projects Near-Term (2026-2030) August 21, 2025
Facility Roadway Safety/ Project is Priority in
Multimodal Community Composite Final Planning-Level Cost
KHID Name Primary Route From/At To Type Quality Operational Vision Zero Previous Plan? Rank Facility Owner Timeframe
Integration Score Health Score Score Score ($2025)
Score Efficiency Score Approach Score (Yes/No)
R-07 Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue 3E and Avenue 4E 40th Street Avenue 3E Avenue 4E Roadway Widening 100.0 68.0 20.0 20.6 30.0 50.7 Yes 100.7 1 City of Yuma $ 9,270,000 Near
R-08 New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes from Avenue 6E to Avenue 6 ¾ E 40th Street Avenue 6E Avenue 6 ¾ E New Roadway 70.0 73.0 20.0 20.4 30.0 44.2 Yes 94.2 2 City of Yuma $ 8,900,000 Near
R-06 Roadway Widening, 16th Street from 4 to 6 Lanes between 3rd Avenue and Maple Avenue 16th Street 3rd Avenue Maple Avenue Roadway Widening 40.0 49.0 44.3 20.1 6.3 35.5 Yes 85.5 3 City of Yuma $ 2,900,000 Near
R-46 Roadway Widening, Avenue 10E from 2 to 4 Lanes between 32nd Street and 40th Street Avenue 10E 32nd Street 40th Street Roadway Widening 70.0 35.0 21.0 0.6 0.0 29.9 Yes 79.9 5 City of Yuma $ 9,020,000 Near
R-15 New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes from Avenue 8 ¾ E to Avenue 10E 40th Street Avenue 8 ¾ E Avenue 10E New Roadway 55.0 66.5 1.2 0.7 0.0 27.5 Yes 77.5 9 City of Yuma $ 21,960,000 Near
R-45 Roadway Widening, Avenue 9E from 2 to 4 Lanes between South Gila Canal and North Frontage Road Avenue 9E South Gila Canal North Frontage Road Roadway Widening 55.0 31.5 6.7 0.6 0.0 21.8 Yes 71.8 16 City of Yuma $ 9,510,000 Near
R-13 New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes from Avenue 8E to Avenue 8 ½ E 40th Street Avenue 8E Avenue 8 ½ E New Roadway 55.0 33.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 20.4 Yes 70.4 17 City of Yuma $ 9,040,000 Near
B-007 Restripe to Add Shoulder, 28th Street Westbound from Avenue B to 21st Drive 28th Street Avenue B 21st Drive Bicyclist Lane 15.0 0.0 29.0 29.4 32.3 20.1 Yes 70.1 18 City of Yuma $ 30,000 Near
M-04 Pathway, 1st Street from Avenue B to 4th Avenue 1st Street 4th Avenue Avenue B Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 29.3 31.6 40.8 17.7 Yes 67.7 26 City of Yuma $ 3,380,000 Near
I-43 Turn Lane, 32nd Street and Arizona Avenue 32nd Street Arizona Avenue Intersection 40.0 24.0 6.7 0.7 0.0 16.6 Yes 66.6 28 City of Yuma $ 860,000 Near
M-05 Pathway, 28th Street from East Main Canal to Avenue A 28th Street East Main Canal Avenue A Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.9 32.1 15.0 Yes 65.0 37 City of Yuma $ 570,000 Near
M-85 Pathway, Redondo Center Drive from Giss Parkway to 7th Street Redondo Center Drive Giss Parkway 7th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.9 34.4 14.9 Yes 64.9 40 City of Yuma $ 2,410,000 Near
P-02 Sidewalk, 22nd Street from 8th Avenue to 6th Avenue 22nd Street 8th Avenue 6th Avenue Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.8 30.0 14.8 Yes 64.8 41 City of Yuma $ 120,000 Near
C-21 Crossing, 21st Drive from Gary A Knox Elementary to Main Library 21st Drive Gary A Knox Elementary Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.7 30.0 14.8 Yes 64.8 42 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
P-37 Sidewalk, 16th Street between 3rd Avenue and Maple Avenue (included in roadway widening) 16th Street 3rd Avenue Maple Avenue Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 29.3 20.9 32.1 14.7 Yes 64.7 44 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-64 Pathway, Avenue 6E from 32nd Street to 36th Street Avenue 6E 32nd Street 36th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.1 32.3 14.5 Yes 64.5 45 City of Yuma $ 1,080,000 Near
P-03 Sidewalk, 4th Avenue/32nd Street at Big Curve 32nd Street 4th Avenue 32nd Street Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.1 36.4 14.3 Yes 64.3 49 City of Yuma $ 300,000 Near
C-43 Crossing, Avenue 6E and 36th Street Avenue 6E 36th Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.1 32.3 14.3 Yes 64.3 50 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
P-08 Sidewalk Gaps, Pacific Avenue from 28th Street to 32nd Street Pacific Avenue 28th Street 32nd Street Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.7 30.0 14.0 Yes 64.0 52 City of Yuma $ 570,000 Near
M-59 Pathway, Avenue 10E between 32nd Street and 40th Street (included in roadway widening) Avenue 10E 32nd Street 40th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 32.3 14.0 Yes 64.0 53 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-54 Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 6 ¾ E and Avenue 8E (included in roadway widening) 40th Street Avenue 6 ¾ E Avenue 8E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.3 30.0 13.9 Yes 63.9 54 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-51 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 8E to Avenue 8 ½ E (included in new roadway) 40th Street Avenue 8E Avenue 8 ½ E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.0 30.0 13.9 Yes 63.9 55 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-52 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 8 ¾ E to Avenue 10E (included in new roadway) 40th Street Avenue 8 ¾ E Avenue 10E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.7 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 57 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-53 Pathway, Avenue 9E between South Gila Canal and North Frontage Road (included in roadway widening) Avenue 9E South Gila Canal North Frontage Road Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 58 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-49 Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 3E and Avenue 4E (included in roadway widening) 40th Street Avenue 3E Avenue 4E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 59 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-50 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 6E to Avenue 6 ¾ E (included in new roadway) 40th Street Avenue 6E Avenue 6 ¾ E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.5 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 61 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-55 Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 8 ½ E and Avenue 8 ¾ E (included in roadway widening) 40th Street Avenue 8 ½ E Avenue 8 ¾ E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.2 30.0 13.7 Yes 63.7 62 City of Yuma $ - Near
T-01 4th Avenue and 24th Street Corridors Bus Stop Shelters/Amenities (10) 4th Avenue and 24th Street DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 11.7 15.7 69.5 13.0 Yes 63.0 65 YCIPTA $ 980,000 Near
R-14 Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue 6 ¾ E and Avenue 8E 40th Street Avenue 6 ¾ E Avenue 8E Roadway Widening 40.0 6.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 11.4 Yes 61.4 75 City of Yuma $ 11,650,000 Near
M-07 Pathway, 32nd Street from Avenue 3E to Avenue 6E 32nd Street Avenue 3E Avenue 6E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 28.0 1.2 30.0 10.2 Yes 60.2 76 City of Yuma $ 6,670,000 Near
R-47 Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue 8 ½ E and Avenue 8 ¾ E 40th Street Avenue 8 ½ E Avenue 8 ¾ E Roadway Widening 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 Yes 60.0 78 City of Yuma $ 2,630,000 Near
T-08 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street WB at Pacific Avenue for Green 4 and Purple 6A 32nd Street Pacific Avenue Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.7 0.0 5.1 Yes 55.1 82 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Near
T-02 Blue 5 and Turquoise 10 transit services – Schedule Coordination Blue 5 and Turquoise 10 Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ - Near
T-03 Green 4A Catalina Loop transit service School Day capacity increase Green 4A Catalina Loop Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ 30,000 Near
T-04 Green 4A Catalina Loop transit service conversion from fixed route to FLEX deviation Green 4A Catalina Loop Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ - Near
R-12 Grade Separation, 40th Street with 4 Lanes at SR 195 40th Street SR 195 New Roadway 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Yes 52.6 90 City of Yuma $ 15,920,000 Near
I-44 Turn Lane, 32nd Street and Avenue 8E 32nd Street Avenue 8E Intersection 30.0 60.5 54.3 20.0 30.0 40.2 No 40.2 91 City of Yuma $ 530,000 Near
I-41 Turn Lane, Avenue 3E and I-8 Eastbound Ramp Avenue 3E I-8 Eastbound Ramp Intersection 40.0 90.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 29.7 No 29.7 93 ADOT $ 530,000 Near
C-19 Crossing, Add Pedestrian Island to 32nd Street and East Main Canal Crossing 32nd Street East Main Canal Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 30.3 22.1 32.1 15.2 No 15.2 104 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
M-73 Pathway, Arizona Avenue from 17th Street to 22nd Street Arizona Avenue 16th Street Palo Verde Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.4 34.4 15.2 No 15.2 105 City of Yuma $ 1,690,000 Near
M-70 Pathway, 16th Street from Avenue B to 7th Avenue 16th Street Avenue B 7th Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 29.3 22.2 32.3 15.0 No 15.0 107 City of Yuma $ 2,840,000 Near
M-84 Pathway, 12th Street from Avenue B to 14th Avenue (excluding bridge over canal) 12th Street Avenue B 14th Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 28.0 23.3 32.3 14.9 No 14.9 108 City of Yuma $ 1,650,000 Near
C-11 Crossing, Arizona Avenue and 22nd Street Arizona Avenue 22nd Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.0 32.1 14.9 No 14.9 109 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
P-38 Sidewalk, Engler Avenue from 24th Place to San Marcos Drive Engler Avenue 24th Place San Marcos Drive Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.0 30.0 14.3 No 14.3 118 City of Yuma $ 260,000 Near
C-28 Crossing, Engler Avenue and 25th Place Engler Avenue 25th Place Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.9 30.0 14.2 No 14.2 119 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
M-76 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 4E to Avenue 6E 40th Street Avenue 4E Avenue 6E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.4 32.3 14.2 No 14.2 120 City of Yuma $ 5,450,000 Near
P-39 Sidewalk, 18th Street from Arizona Avenue to Riley Avenue 18th Street Arizona Avenue Riley Avenue Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.8 32.1 14.0 No 14.0 123 City of Yuma $ 170,000 Near

Appendix C
Yuma Transportation Master Plan Recommended Projects Mid-Term (2031-2035) August 21, 2025
Facility Roadway Safety/ Project is Priority in
Multimodal Community Composite Final Planning-Level Cost
KHID Name Primary Route From/At To Type Quality Operational Vision Zero Previous Plan? Rank Facility Owner Timeframe
Integration Score Health Score Score Score ($2025)
Score Efficiency Score Approach Score (Yes/No)
R-10 Roadway Widening, County 14th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue A and Avenue 3E County 14th Street Avenue A Avenue 3E Roadway Widening 55.0 61.0 12.0 1.7 0.0 29.3 Yes 79.3 6 City of Yuma $ 27,970,000 Mid
R-09 Roadway Widening, Airport Loop/4th Avenue from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue A and County 14th Street Airport Loop/4th Avenue Avenue A County 14th Street Roadway Widening 55.0 53.0 15.5 0.6 2.1 28.5 Yes 78.5 7 City of Yuma $ 9,580,000 Mid
R-11 Roadway Widening, Avenue 2E from 2 to 4 Lanes between County 14th Street and County 15th Street Avenue 2E County 14th Street County 15th Street Roadway Widening 55.0 48.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 23.6 Yes 73.6 14 Yuma County $ 9,290,000 Mid
M-82 Pathway, Giss Parkway/8th Street from Gila Street to Castle Dome Avenue Giss Parkway/8th Street Gila Street Castle Dome Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 35.4 32.1 16.9 Yes 66.9 27 City of Yuma $ 4,140,000 Mid
I-11 Turn Lane, 16th Street and Pacific Avenue 16th Street Pacific Avenue Intersection 30.0 31.5 9.3 0.7 0.0 16.3 Yes 66.3 30 City of Yuma $ 530,000 Mid
M-48 Pathway, 32nd Street from Avenue 6E to Avenue 7 ½ E 32nd Street Avenue 6E Avenue 7 ½ E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 32.5 22.1 32.3 15.8 Yes 65.8 32 City of Yuma $ 3,300,000 Mid
I-18 Intersection Safety, 16th Street and Avenue B 16th Street Avenue B Intersection 30.0 30.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 Yes 65.5 33 City of Yuma $ 1,060,000 Mid
C-02 Crossing, 16th Street and 33rd Drive 16th Street 33rd Drive Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 30.3 22.1 30.0 15.0 Yes 65.0 38 City of Yuma $ 1,100,000 Mid
T-06 Bus Pullout, 4th Avenue NB at 24th Street for Yellow 95 4th Avenue 24th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 2.9 2.1 6.1 Yes 56.1 80 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Mid
T-07 Bus Pullout, 4th Avenue SB at 24th Street for Yellow 95 4th Avenue 24th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 2.1 0.0 5.8 Yes 55.8 81 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Mid
I-40 Turn Lane, 16th Street and I-8 Westbound Ramp 16th Street I-8 Westbound Ramp Intersection 40.0 55.5 7.3 0.7 0.0 23.1 No 23.1 94 ADOT $ 530,000 Mid
C-47 Crossing, Avenue A and 36th Street Avenue A 36th Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 32.7 30.0 34.4 17.6 No 17.6 95 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Mid
M-72 Pathway, Araby Road from 24th Street to 26th Street Araby Road 24th Street 26th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.0 50.0 16.3 No 16.3 97 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Mid
R-19 Median Extension, Avenue 6E between 32nd Street and 40th Street Avenue 6E 32nd Street 40th Street Roadway Widening 30.0 8.0 22.3 0.6 2.3 15.0 No 15.0 106 City of Yuma $ 1,910,000 Mid
M-65 Pathway, Avenue 6E from 36th Street to 41st Street Avenue 6E 36th Street 41st Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 28.0 23.2 30.0 14.6 No 14.6 112 City of Yuma $ 1,390,000 Mid
M-74 Pathway, Pacific Avenue from 8th Street to 12th Street Pacific Avenue 8th Street 12th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.1 32.1 14.5 No 14.5 113 City of Yuma $ 1,110,000 Mid
M-66 Pathway, 8th Street from Castle Dome Avenue to Pacific Avenue 8th Street Castle Dome Avenue Pacific Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 23.1 32.1 14.5 No 14.5 114 City of Yuma $ 980,000 Mid
C-49 Bicyclist/Pedestrian Bridge, East Main Canal/12th Street Alignment 12th Street East Main Canal Bicyclist/Pedestrian Bridge 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.7 32.3 14.0 No 14.0 122 City of Yuma $ 2,070,000 Mid
M-56 Pathway, County 14th Street between Avenue A and Avenue 3E (included in roadway widening) County 14th Street Avenue A Avenue 3E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.7 30.0 14.0 No 14.0 124 City of Yuma $ - Mid
M-58 Pathway, Airport Loop/4th Avenue between Avenue A and County 14th Street (included in roadway widening) Airport Loop/4th Avenue Avenue A County 14th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 No 13.8 126 City of Yuma $ - Mid
M-57 Pathway, Avenue 2E between County 14th Street and County 15th Street (included in roadway widening) Avenue 2E County 14th Street County 15th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 No 13.8 127 City of Yuma $ - Mid

Appendix C
Yuma Transportation Master Plan Recommended Projects Long-Term (2036-2050) August 21, 2025
Facility Roadway Safety/ Project is Priority in
Multimodal Community Composite Final Planning-Level Cost
KHID Name Primary Route From/At To Type Quality Operational Vision Zero Previous Plan? Rank Facility Owner Timeframe
Integration Score Health Score Score Score ($2025)
Score Efficiency Score Approach Score (Yes/No)
R-01 Roadway Widening, I-8 from 4 to 6 Lanes between Avenue 10E and 16th Street I-8 Avenue 10E 16th Street Roadway Widening 40.0 41.5 45.8 10.7 25.0 34.4 Yes 84.4 4 ADOT $ 129,410,000 Long
R-05 Roadway Realignment/Expansion, Gila Ridge Road with 2 Lanes EB at the I-8/Avenue 5E Traffic Interchange Gila Ridge Road I-8 Eastbound Off-Ramp I-8 Eastbound On-Ramp New Roadway 60.0 48.5 13.3 0.6 0.0 28.1 Yes 78.1 8 City of Yuma $ 3,930,000 Long
T-30 Initiate new Red 7 transit service via 16th Street 16th Street DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 38.9 25.6 Yes 75.6 10 YCIPTA $ 570,000 Long
I-42 Turn Lane, 24th Street and 1st Avenue 24th Street 1st Avenue Intersection 55.0 41.5 6.7 0.7 11.0 25.0 Yes 75.0 11 City of Yuma $ 530,000 Long
T-31 Restructure Green 4 transit service (Pacific Avenue/Avenue B) 3rd Street and Avenue B DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 57.6 79.2 24.8 Yes 74.8 12 YCIPTA $ - Long
T-16 Reroute Orange 2 transit service via 32nd Street and 4th Avenue to WYTH 32nd Street WYTH AWC/NAU/UA campus Transit 0.0 0.0 30.4 53.2 58.5 24.1 Yes 74.1 13 YCIPTA $ - Long
T-14 Discontinue Silver 9 transit service SR 195 AWC/NAU/UA campus WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 47.1 75.0 21.9 Yes 71.9 15 YCIPTA $ (190,000) Long
T-17 Reroute Purple 6 transit service via 4th Avenue between 8th Street and 24th Street 4th Avenue 8th Street 24th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 29.1 37.1 52.1 19.9 Yes 69.9 19 YCIPTA $ - Long
T-29 Consolidate Orange 2 and Brown 3 transit services E 32nd Street and AWC/NAU/UA Campus Foothills Branch Library WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 39.0 70.5 19.8 Yes 69.8 20 YCIPTA $ - Long
T-15 Initiate Gold 2X Express transit service I-8, 32nd Street, and AWC/NAU/UA Campus DYTC Ligurta and Wellton Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 43.2 56.6 19.6 Yes 69.6 21 YCIPTA $ 90,000 Long
C-45 Crossing, 4th Avenue and Court Street 4th Avenue Court Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 46.6 20.7 34.4 19.2 Yes 69.2 22 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
C-46 Crossing, Avenue C and Crane Street Avenue C Crane Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 46.6 21.4 30.0 18.9 Yes 68.9 23 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
M-18 Pathway, Thacker Lateral Linear Park from West Main Canal to 24th Street Thacker Lateral Linear Park West Main Canal 24th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 29.3 33.0 43.6 18.3 Yes 68.3 24 City of Yuma $ 5,960,000 Long
RR-01 Grade Separation, Avenue 9E with 4 Lanes at Railroad Crossing Avenue 9E Railroad Crossing Railroad Crossing 70.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 Yes 68.0 25 City of Yuma $ 11,920,000 Long
C-44 Crossing, 4th Avenue and 4th Street-5th Street 4th Avenue 4th Street-5th Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 26.7 32.9 32.1 16.4 Yes 66.4 29 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
M-12 Pathway, Colorado River Levee Linear Park from East Wetlands to Avenue 7E Colorado River Levee Linear Park East Wetlands Avenue 7E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 29.6 32.1 15.8 Yes 65.8 31 City of Yuma $ 12,240,000 Long
P-07 Sidewalk, Arizona Avenue/Walnut Avenue from 16th Street to 10th Street Arizona Avenue/Walnut Avenue 16th Street 10th Street Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 24.7 38.7 15.5 Yes 65.5 34 City of Yuma $ 2,130,000 Long
M-09 Pathway, 32nd Street from East Main Canal to Avenue A 32nd Street East Main Canal Avenue A Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 28.0 26.0 32.3 15.4 Yes 65.4 35 City of Yuma $ 1,010,000 Long
P-20 Sidewalk, 4th Avenue from Yuma Regional Corporate Center to 40th Street 4th Avenue Yuma Regional Corporate Center 40th Street Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.5 43.1 15.1 Yes 65.1 36 City of Yuma $ 1,400,000 Long
M-11 Pathway, B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park from Kennedy Park to Pacific Avenue B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park Kennedy Park Pacific Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.3 32.1 14.9 Yes 64.9 39 City of Yuma $ 1,060,000 Long
P-05 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Pacific Avenue to Avenue 3E 32nd Street Pacific Avenue Avenue 3E Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 25.2 30.0 14.7 Yes 64.7 43 City of Yuma $ 1,330,000 Long
C-29 Crossing, 4th Avenue and 12th Street 4th Avenue 12th Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.9 32.1 14.4 Yes 64.4 46 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
M-86 Pathway, Redondo Center Drive from 7th Street to 16th Street Redondo Center Drive 7th Street 16th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 21.3 34.4 14.4 Yes 64.4 47 City of Yuma $ 1,080,000 Long
T-28 Bus Pullout, 24th Street WB at Avenue A for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 24th Street Avenue A Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.7 52.3 14.4 Yes 64.4 48 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
P-06 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Winsor Avenue to Suni Sands RV Resort 32nd Street Winsor Avenue Suni Sands RV Resort Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.3 30.0 14.1 Yes 64.1 51 City of Yuma $ 340,000 Long
B-166 Bicyclist Lane, Castle Dome Avenue from 8th Street to Yuma Palms Parkway Castle Dome Avenue 8th Street Yuma Palms Parkway Bicyclist Lane 15.0 0.0 26.7 2.1 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 56 City of Yuma $ 140,000 Long
M-61 Pathway, Avenue 5E from 32nd Street to 24th Street (included in new roadway) Avenue 5E 32nd Street 24th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 30.0 13.8 Yes 63.8 60 City of Yuma $ - Long
M-62 Pathway, Avenue 9E Grade Separation at Railroad Crossing (included in grade separation project) Avenue 9E Railroad Crossing Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.1 30.0 13.7 Yes 63.7 63 City of Yuma $ - Long
T-27 Bus Pullout, Giss Parkway WB at Gila Street for Orange 2 and Green 4 Giss Parkway Gila Street Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 25.0 34.4 13.4 Yes 63.4 64 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-25 Bus Pullout, 21st Drive SB at 32nd Street for Purple 6A and Silver 9 21st Drive 32nd Street Transit 0.0 0.0 22.6 20.0 32.3 12.9 Yes 62.9 66 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-24 Bus Pullout, Redondo Center Drive NB at 16th Street for Green 4 Redondo Center Drive 16th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 20.0 34.4 12.8 Yes 62.8 67 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-39 Bus Pullout, 24th Street EB at 18th Avenue for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 24th Street 18th Avenue Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 21.4 32.3 12.5 Yes 62.5 68 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-26 Bus Pullout, 24th Street EB at 21st Drive for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 24th Street 21st Drive Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.7 32.3 12.4 Yes 62.4 69 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
R-04 New Roadway, Avenue 5E with 4 Lanes from 32nd Street to 24th Street Avenue 5E 32nd Street 24th Street New Roadway 30.0 18.0 4.6 0.6 0.0 12.4 Yes 62.4 70 City of Yuma $ 8,900,000 Long
T-35 Bus Pullout, Araby Road SB at 32nd Street for Gold 8 and Silver 9 Araby Road 32nd Street Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 71 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-36 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street EB at Avenue B for Purple 6A and Yellow 95 32nd Street Avenue B Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 71 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-37 Bus Pullout, Avenue B SB at 32nd Street for Purple 6A and Yellow 95 Avenue B 32nd Street Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 71 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-38 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street EB at Avenue 3E for Orange 2 32nd Street Avenue 3E Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 71 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
R-03 Full-Diamond Traffic Interchange, I-8 at Avenue 5E I-8 Avenue 5E Traffic Interchange 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.8 2.1 10.2 Yes 60.2 77 ADOT $ 64,300,000 Long
R-02 Half-Diamond Traffic Interchange, I-8 at Pacific Avenue I-8 Pacific Avenue Traffic Interchange 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.2 6.3 7.5 Yes 57.5 79 ADOT $ 18,240,000 Long
T-10 Bus Pullout, 26th Street WB at 23rd Avenue for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 26th Street 23rd Avenue Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.7 0.0 5.1 Yes 55.1 82 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-09 Bus Pullout, Avenue B NB at 24th Street for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 Avenue B 24th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Yes 55.0 84 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-12 Add bus to Yellow 95 transit service - Saturdays from DYTC to WYTH DYTC to WYTH DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ 500,000 Long
T-13 Add bus to Yellow 95 transit service - Weekdays from DYTC to WYTH DYTC to WYTH DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ 70,000 Long
I-16 Turn Lane, 24th Street and Avenue A 24th Street Avenue A Intersection 55.0 30.0 40.5 1.4 0.0 30.2 No 30.2 92 City of Yuma $ 530,000 Long
M-78 Pathway, 8th Street from Avenue D to Avenue A 8th Street Avenue D Avenue A Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 33.2 26.0 34.4 16.9 No 16.9 96 City of Yuma $ 6,600,000 Long
M-69 Pathway, 16th Street from 4th Avenue to Maple Avenue 16th Street 4th Avenue Maple Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 31.9 22.3 32.1 15.6 No 15.6 98 City of Yuma $ 570,000 Long
M-71 Pathway, 1st Street from Avenue C to Avenue B 1st Street Avenue C Avenue B Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 27.0 34.4 15.5 No 15.5 99 City of Yuma $ 2,160,000 Long
C-48 Crossing, 8th Street and 6th Avenue 8th Street 6th Avenue Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 32.6 20.7 32.1 15.5 No 15.5 100 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
M-83 Pathway, Arizona Avenue from 22nd Street to Palo Verde Street Arizona Avenue 22nd Street Palo Verde Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 26.8 34.4 15.5 No 15.5 101 City of Yuma $ 1,580,000 Long
M-68 Pathway, 16th Street from Maple Avenue to Pacific Avenue 16th Street Maple Avenue Pacific Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 31.2 22.1 32.1 15.4 No 15.4 102 City of Yuma $ 2,750,000 Long
M-79 Pathway, Avenue B from 1st Street to 3rd Street Avenue B 1st Street 3rd Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 26.6 34.4 15.4 No 15.4 103 City of Yuma $ 540,000 Long
M-63 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue A to Arizona Avenue 40th Street Avenue A Arizona Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 24.9 32.1 14.8 No 14.8 110 City of Yuma $ 2,210,000 Long
M-81 Pathway, Avenue B from 8th Street to 16th Street Avenue B 8th Street 16th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 29.3 21.3 32.3 14.8 No 14.8 111 City of Yuma $ 2,200,000 Long
M-80 Pathway, Avenue B from 3rd Street to 8th Street Avenue B 3rd Street 8th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 28.0 21.0 32.3 14.4 No 14.4 115 City of Yuma $ 1,280,000 Long
C-31 Crossing, 24th Street and Engler Avenue 24th Street Engler Avenue Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 29.0 20.7 30.0 14.4 No 14.4 116 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
M-88 Pathway, B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park from Kennedy Park to Palo Verde Street B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park Kennedy Park Palo Verde Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 20.0 26.0 40.8 14.3 No 14.3 117 City of Yuma $ 1,580,000 Long
M-75 Pathway, Palo Verde Street from Pacific Avenue to Avenue 3E Palo Verde Street Pacific Avenue Avenue 3E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.0 30.0 14.1 No 14.1 121 City of Yuma $ 2,240,000 Long
M-87 Pathway, Arizona Avenue from 32nd Street to 40th Street Arizona Avenue 32nd Street 40th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.6 32.1 14.0 No 14.0 125 City of Yuma $ 2,190,000 Long
P-13 Sidewalk, 24th Street from Avenue C to Avenue D 24th Street Avenue C Avenue D Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.5 30.0 13.8 No 13.8 128 City of Yuma $ 2,600,000 Long
P-12 Sidewalk, 16th Street from 45th Avenue to West City Limit 16th Street 45th Avenue West City Limit Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 26.7 20.3 30.0 13.7 No 13.7 129 City of Yuma $ 1,380,000 Long

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
APPENDIX D
UD4H HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Appendix D
City of Yuma, Arizona -- Integrated Multimodal
Transportation Master Plan
Draft Final Report: Health Assessments and
Recommendations
Prepared by Urban Design 4 Health, Inc.
August 4, 2025

Appendix D
About this Project
This project is focused on the development of an Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master
Plan for the City of Yuma, Arizona. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. led the consultant team
which included Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H).
About this Report
Urban Design 4 Health (UD4H) prepared this report for the City of Yuma, Arizona, in fulfillment
of Tasks 5: Scenario Development and Testing and Task 6: Recommended Scenario. A
suggested citation is:
◼ Bachman, W., Chapman, J., Frank, L. Future Growth and Trend (2050) – Scenario Evaluations and Health-
Related Recommendations, City of Yuma, Arizona. Prepared by Urban Design 4 Health for the City of Yuma
under a Professional Services Contract for RFQ-24-100.
About Urban Design 4 Health
UD4H supports clients with innovative and objective information and
tools to achieve health, environmental, economic, and quality of life
goals that are intrinsic in efforts to build new communities and to retrofit
existing ones. Learn more at www.ud4h.com
Authors – Urban Design 4 Health
◼ William Bachman, Senior Analyst
◼ Jim Chapman, Managing Principal
◼ Lawrence D. Frank, Founder & President
i

Appendix D
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
TMP Individual Project Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................... 1
TMP Combined Effect Methodology ....................................................................................................... 2
Transportation and Community Health ................................................................................................... 3
Active Travel and Physical Activity ......................................................................................................... 4
Physical Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Access to Healthy Goods and Services ..................................................................................................... 4
Environmental Exposure ........................................................................................................................... 5
Social Connectivity ................................................................................................................................... 5
TMP Project Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 5
Baseline Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 5
Future Baseline Scenario .......................................................................................................................... 5
National Public Health Assessment Model ........................................................................................................... 6
2050 Changes to N-PHAM Inputs ........................................................................................................................ 7
Major New Roadway Project Scenarios Review ...................................................................................... 9
Scenario 1: Avenue D and County 14th Street Expressway Loop ...................................................................... 11
Scenario 2: Interstate 8 Widening ....................................................................................................................... 12
Scenarios 3A & 3B: Arterial Street Improvements ............................................................................................. 13
Scenarios 4A & 4B: Transportation Improvements Along I-8 ........................................................................... 14
Scenario 5: Selected I-8 and Citywide Improvements ........................................................................................ 15
Scenario 5H: Selected I-8 and Citywide Improvements ..................................................................................... 16
TMP Project Prioritization Framework Review ..................................................................................... 17
TMP Health Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................. 19
Bike Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................... 20
Transit Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Study Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A – National Public Health Assessment Model ..................................................................... 34
Interpreting Results ................................................................................................................................. 34
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................ 36
Estimated Baseline Health Conditions: Body Mass Index >30 .............................................................. 36
Estimated Baseline Health Conditions: Type 2 Diabetes ....................................................................... 37
Estimated Baseline Health Conditions: Coronary Heart Disease ........................................................... 38
Estimated Baseline Health Conditions: High Blood Pressure / Hypertension ........................................ 39
Average Annual Per Capita Cost of Illness ............................................................................................ 40
Walk Trip Participation ........................................................................................................................... 41
ii

Appendix D
Figures
Figure 1: TMP Project Evaluation Steps ...................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: TMP Combined Effect Community Health Evaluation Steps ...................................................... 3
Figure 3: Linkages Between the Built Environment and Community Health .............................................. 3
Figure 4: N-PHAM Model Data Inputs and Outcomes ................................................................................ 7
Figure 5: Web-Based N-PHAM Software Generated for Baseline Condition Assessment ......................... 8
Figure 6: 2050 Baseline Estimated Cost of Illness ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 7: Scenario 1 - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT ............................................ 11
Figure 8: Scenario 2 - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT ............................................ 12
Figure 9: Scenario 3a/3b - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT ..................................... 13
Figure 10: Scenario 4a/4b - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT ................................... 14
Figure 11: Scenario 5 - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT .......................................... 15
Figure 12: Scenario 5 - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT .......................................... 16
Figure 13: 2050 Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan and Growth Areas ........................... 20
Figure 14: 2050 Bike Network Access: Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term ..................................... 22
Figure 15: Growth Area Description ......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 16: Mean Chronic Disease Risk for Two Different Neighborhoods ............................................... 35
Figure 17: Body Mass Index >30 ................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 18: Type 2 Diabetes ......................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 19: Coronary Heart Disease ............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 20: High Blood Pressure/Hypertension ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 21: Cost of Illness ............................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 22: Walking for Transportation ...................................................................................................... 41
iii

Appendix D
Tables
Table 1: 2025-2029 CIP Health Impact Categories ...................................................................................... 6
Table 2: Health and Safety Categories and Criteria in the TMP Prioritization Process ............................ 17
Table 3: TMP Projects by Healthy Community Characteristic ................................................................. 19
Table 4: Change in Bike Network Accessibility for the 2050 City of Yuma Residents ............................ 21
Table 5: Change in Transit Network Accessibility for the 2050 City of Yuma Residents ........................ 23
Table 6: TMP Active Transportation and Vehicle Projects by Growth Area ............................................ 25
Table 7: Growth Area N-PHAM Scenario Definitions (Compared to Baseline 2023 Conditions) ........... 26
Table 8: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of the Population with a Body Mass Index
Greater than 30 ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 9: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of the Population with Type 2 Diabetes ............. 28
Table 10: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of the Population with Coronary Heart Disease29
Table 11: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of the Population with Hypertension ................ 30
Table 12: Scenario Results for the Estimated Cost of Illness (per Capita, Annualized) ............................. 31
Table 13: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of Adults that Walk at Least Once per Week ... 32
iv

Appendix D
Introduction
This report discusses and evaluates the Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan (TMP) from a
community health perspective, providing quantitative estimates of changes to physical activity and prevalence
rates of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease. Estimates of change due to
transportation investments are monetized to show the scale of expected impact due to the plan’s investments in
active transportation. The fraction of the population older than 65 is increasing in the City of Yuma (COY) and
across the state. This demographic shift highlights the need for increased focus on making places safe and inviting
to navigate on foot and calls for health-protective approaches to community design. The TMP provides several
positive steps that result in increased physical activity and multi-modal accessibility that support healthy
lifestyles.
Genetics, age, diet, and physical activity are the primary factors that affect a person’s risk of debilitating chronic
diseases such as diabetes (type 2), high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, and others. On a population level, diet
and physical activity factors are influenced by land use and transportation policies that affect a person’s ability to be
physically active and to have safe, convenient, nearby access to desired destinations (e.g., jobs, school, health care,
transit, and healthy food). A growing body of evidence suggests that health-focused community investments can have
sustained, broad-reaching population-level health benefits for people who live, work, attend school and play in those
communities.1,2,3,4,5,6 Regions that invest in active transportation, land use diversity, and social connection are more
likely to have lower rates of chronic disease and higher workforce productivity.
The TMP represents a comprehensive framework of transportation projects prioritized through five key criteria:
Quality, Operational Efficiency, Safety, Multimodal Integration, and Community Health. Beyond their individual
impacts, these projects collectively shape the health trajectory of entire communities. When thoughtfully planned,
transportation and land use investments become powerful tools for fostering a culture of health, wellbeing, and
community connection.
Health-promoting transportation investments create multiple pathways to improved community wellness. They
encourage physical activity by making walking, cycling, and other forms of active travel more accessible and
appealing. They enhance physical safety through improved design and infrastructure. They connect residents to
essential services, fresh food, and healthcare facilities. They protect communities from harmful environmental
exposures like heat, air pollution, and noise. Perhaps most importantly, they create spaces and opportunities for
social interaction, strengthening the social fabric that underlies healthy communities.
Within this context, the City of Yuma’s TMP transportation investments can be evaluated using individual project
characteristics as well as their combined effect in establishing a critical culture of health.
TMP Individual Project Evaluation Methodology
Throughout the TMP development process, UD4H conducted comprehensive health-focused evaluations of the
proposed multimodal transportation projects. This systematic evaluation process, illustrated in Figure 1,
progressed through five distinct phases:
1. Baseline Assessment: Development of a City of Yuma geospatial model mapping the existing
multimodal transportation system and quantifying current community accessibility levels.
2. Future Baseline Scenario: Evaluation of a 2050 "No Build" scenario that incorporated existing planned
capital improvement projects scheduled for 2025-2029 but no additional improvements beyond that.
3. Major Roadway Project Scenarios Review: Individual review of five significant project scenarios and
their component elements.
4. Draft Framework Review: Analysis of preliminary project lists and the proposed prioritization
framework used for project scoring.
1

Appendix D
5. Final Evaluation: Assessment of the complete set of recommended multimodal transportation projects
and how they affect access to active transit (bike paths, bike lanes, and transit).
Figure 1: TMP Project Evaluation Steps
The evaluations conducted in phases 1, 2, and 5 utilized accessibility metrics to measure how effectively the
projects enhance community access across four critical dimensions: active transportation options (walking,
cycling, and transit), parks and recreational facilities, critical care hospitals, and connections to target
neighborhoods, including historically disadvantaged areas and designated growth zones. These quantitative
analyses form the foundation of the findings presented in this document, while the project reviews from phases 3
and 4 were documented in previous reports.
TMP Combined Effect Methodology
Transportation investments fundamentally shape community health by connecting residents to opportunities for
physical activity, essential services, and meaningful social interaction. To quantify the health impacts of different
transportation scenarios, UD4H developed the National Public Health Assessment Model (N-PHAM, detailed in
Appendix A). This predictive model forecasts community health outcomes by analyzing the relationships between
small-area demographics, multimodal accessibility, and land use diversity.
UD4H applied N-PHAM to the City of Yuma TMP study area, comparing three distinct scenarios: 2023 Baseline
Conditions, 2050 No Build, and 2050 Build (full TMP implementation). The analysis focuses specifically on two
priority areas identified in the 2022 COY General Plan1: high-poverty neighborhoods and designated infill growth
areas. While TMP projects do not include forecasted changes in surrounding land uses or demographics, the
model incorporates assumed densification and land use mix changes for these focus areas.
The comprehensive evaluation process, outlined in Figure 2, follows five sequential steps:
1. Model Calibration: Establish the N-PHAM framework using current City of Yuma demographic,
transportation, and land use data and calibrate with local health survey data
2. Scenario Development: Create three distinct modeling scenarios representing baseline conditions, capital
improvement projects only, and full TMP implementation.
3. Focus Area Analysis: Assess scenario impacts on priority neighborhoods using projected growth values
for population density, employment density, and land use diversity.
4. Health Outcome Projections: Generate small-area forecasts for neighborhood-level health indicators,
including physical activity levels and chronic disease prevalence.
5. Comparative Impact Assessment: Quantify the potential health benefits attributable to TMP
implementation through cross-scenario analysis.
1 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/35306a69fc9548b8b3b25f56bbb42e04, Chapter 11
2

Appendix D
Figure 2: TMP Combined Effect Community Health Evaluation Steps
The N-PHAM model generates comprehensive health projections across multiple dimensions. Physical activity
outcomes include changes in both recreational and utilitarian activity levels, along with shifts in average body
mass index (BMI). The model also forecasts prevalence changes for three major chronic conditions: type II
diabetes, diagnosed hypertension (high blood pressure), and diagnosed coronary heart disease. Economic health
impacts are captured through estimated changes in average per capita treatment costs for these chronic diseases.
Together, these metrics provide a complete picture of TMP's projected health benefits for the City of Yuma
community by 2050.
Transportation and Community Health
The associations between land use, transportation, and community health are complex: individual lifestyles and
daily activities are influenced by local built environments that provide opportunity and accessibility. A growing
body of evidence suggests that health-focused community investments can have sustained broad-reaching
population level health benefits for people who live, work, go to school, and play in those
communities.7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Figure 3 describes the pathways from environment/travel options that affect behaviors,
exposures, biological responses, and chronic health conditions. On average, more isolated and car-dependent
communities typically have higher percentages of adults with chronic disease and a higher average BMI.
Figure 3: Linkages Between the Built Environment and Community Health14
3

Appendix D
Transportation and land use investments that promote a culture of health, wellbeing, and sense of community
include establishing inviting environments that encourage active travel and physical activity through walkable
neighborhoods and cycling infrastructure; ensure physical safety with well-lit streets, traffic calming measures,
and accessible design; provide equitable access to healthy goods and services including fresh food, healthcare,
and recreational facilities; offer protection from environmental hazards such as air pollution and extreme heat;
and foster meaningful social connections through public spaces, community gathering areas, and programming
that brings diverse residents together.
Active Travel and Physical Activity
Active travel and regular physical activity significantly reduce the risk of chronic diseases including heart disease,
stroke, certain cancers, and diabetes—conditions that impose substantial health and economic burdens on
individuals, families, and communities. Beyond physical health benefits, active transportation and exercise
improve mental wellbeing by reducing stress and creating natural opportunities for socialization and relaxation.
Health-supporting physical features include:
➢ Comprehensive walkability with continuous, well-connected sidewalks and universally accessible
pedestrian infrastructure
➢ Strategic proximity of bike/ped infrastructure connecting residential areas to essential destinations
including schools, healthcare facilities, grocery stores, and public transportation
➢ Mixed-use development that reduces trip distances and encourages active transportation while fostering
social interaction
➢ Greenspace access: parks, green spaces, recreational facilities, and nature corridors
➢ Traffic-calmed streets that prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety through design interventions and
appropriate lighting
➢ Connected cycling networks with protected bike lanes and safe
➢ Public transit and alternative mobility options
➢ Streetscapes with attractive design elements that draw people outdoors (benches, lighting, vegetation,
etc.)
➢ Community culture that values and supports shared commitment to active living
Physical Safety
A safe and secure built environment serves as the foundation for active travel, outdoor physical activity, and
meaningful social connections. When residents feel secure, stress and anxiety decrease, leading to improved
health outcomes and greater community engagement. Safety-enhancing design elements include:
➢ Pedestrian safety infrastructure with properly designed, maintained sidewalks and clearly marked
crosswalks that accommodate all abilities
➢ Strategic lighting systems that ensure visibility for pedestrians and cyclists while deterring criminal
activity
Access to Healthy Goods and Services
Equitable access to healthy goods and services removes barriers to healthy lifestyle choices and ensures all
community members can maintain their wellbeing regardless of income, mobility, or location. The thoughtful
design and distribution of community infrastructure directly impacts population health outcomes. Access-
enhancing features include:
➢ Healthcare access with clinics, pharmacies, and specialized services distributed throughout the
community
➢ Healthy food retail options including full-service grocery stores and supermarkets offering fresh,
affordable, culturally appropriate foods
➢ Community food systems: community gardens, farmers' markets, and local food production that provide
fresh, locally grown produce
4

Appendix D
Environmental Exposure
Environmental hazards pose both immediate and long-term health threats while discouraging outdoor physical
activity and active travel. Protecting residents from harmful exposures while creating comfortable outdoor
environments supports community health and encourages active lifestyles. Environmental protection strategies
include:
➢ Sun and heat protection through increased tree canopy cover, covered bus stops, and shade structures
➢ Air quality improvement by reducing idling vehicles, traffic congestion, and overall vehicle hours of
travel.
➢ Noise pollution reduction through strategic landscaping and sound walls that buffers residential areas
from traffic and industrial noise
Social Connectivity
Strong social connections form the backbone of community health, fostering resource sharing, civic engagement,
and collective commitment to wellbeing. When residents feel connected to their neighbors and community,
mental health improves, loneliness decreases, and opportunities for healthy lifestyle choices multiply.
Community-building design elements include:
➢ Public spaces that encourage spontaneous interactions and provide comfortable places for people to
gather, rest, and socialize
➢ Walkable neighborhood connectivity through well-designed pedestrian networks that make it easy and
pleasant for residents to move throughout their community
➢ Integrated mixed-use development that thoughtfully combines residential, commercial, and civic spaces
to create vibrant, active neighborhoods
➢ Housing diversity offers various housing types and price points to attract and retain residents across
different life stages, incomes, and family structures
➢ Community programming that brings residents together around shared interests, civic engagement, and
mutual support
These healthy community characteristics provide a health-focused structure for aiding the TMP project designs,
final selections, and prioritization.
TMP Project Evaluation
Baseline Assessment
UD4H developed a comprehensive geospatial model of the City of Yuma's transportation network to evaluate
walkable and bikeable accessibility throughout the community. The model integrated 2024 TIGER files from the
US Census Bureau with Open Street Map networks to create a detailed walkable network that encompasses roads
suitable for pedestrian and bicycle use as well as dedicated bike and pedestrian paths.
The modeling framework connects transportation infrastructure with community demographics and key
destinations. Population data from 2020 US Census Blocks, enhanced with 2024 5-year American Community
Survey demographics, were assigned to network nodes based on geographic proximity. Essential community
assets—including parks, recreational facilities, and critical healthcare services—were similarly integrated into the
network structure. This comprehensive approach enables accessibility analysis for any transportation
improvement, from individual intersections and roadway segments to dedicated bicycle infrastructure.
Future Baseline Scenario
The future baseline scenario builds upon existing transportation infrastructure and transit services by
incorporating all 57 transportation projects identified in the City of Yuma's Capital Improvement Program for
2025-2029 (CIP). Each CIP project underwent qualitative assessment across five healthy community impact
5

Appendix D
categories, revealing that over 60% of planned improvements (35 of 57 projects) are expected to generate positive
health outcomes in one or more areas.
Table 1: 2025-2029 CIP Health Impact Categories
Health Project Active Physical Access to Environmental Social
Impact Count Travel & Safety Health Exposure Connectivity
Categories Physical Goods &
Activity Services
Multi-
benefit 8 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Projects
Safety &
Activity 5 ✓ ✓
Focus
Safety &
Access 22 ✓ ✓
Focus
Each project was added to the walkable network model to establish accessibility metrics that are used in
evaluation with the 2023 baseline and the final set of TMP projects.
National Public Health Assessment Model
The National Public Health Assessment Model (N-PHAM) was developed by Urban Design 4 Health (and
customized for the City of Yuma study area) to assist in understanding how the built environment currently
affects community health and how future transportation alternatives might affect future conditions.
Error! Reference source not found. shows the basic N-PHAM data flow where neighborhood-level social data
are combined with built environment data and processed through a suite of statistical models to forecast
community health conditions. Baseline health outcomes and health surveys from the 2020 California Health
Interview Survey (CHIS) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (BRFSS) were used to develop and calibrate model estimates.
6

Appendix D
Figure 4: N-PHAM Model Data Inputs and Outcomes
More details regarding N-PHAM methods are provided in Appendix A.
The following pages show estimated outcomes from N-PHAM and other transportation-related health metrics
using baseline data from the City of Yuma and the most recent travel demand forecasting model estimates
developed for this project. N-PHAM was used to estimate chronic health conditions for small areas (2020 US
Census Blocks) for baseline 2023 conditions and the 2050 "No Build" scenario.
2050 Changes to N-PHAM Inputs
The following data estimates were used to generate the N-PHAM forecast:
➢ Social and Cultural Metrics: Age and other demographic factors are the strongest predictors of chronic
disease risk. Demographic factors were based on 2020 US Census Block and Block Group estimates and
these estimates remained unchanged for both the 2023 baseline and the 2050 "No Build" scenarios.
Changes, therefore, observed in the model outcomes are entirely the result of changes in built
environment factors.
➢ Density: Population and employment density metrics were estimated using the travel demand forecasting
model's traffic analysis zone (TAZ) estimates. Walkable road network density estimates are based on the
City of Yuma's streets database which remained the same in 2023 and in 2050 for this analysis.
➢ Accessibility: Accessibility includes the balance of population and employment, retail employment
density, and land use mix. These values were all estimated using the TAZ estimates for 2023 and 2050.
Land use mix was defined by the balance of TAZ employment estimates across employment sectors for
each TAZ.
➢ Greenspace: Greenspace includes assessments of access to park areas, open space, and tree canopy. For
2050, the New East Mesa Park and street trees along Avenue E were added based on the City of Yuma
2025-2029 Capital Improvement Plan.
➢ Transit: Transit access metrics in NPHAM include several transit factors such as bus stop/station
accessibility, schedule frequency, and system types. For 2050, the new Yuma Multimodal Station was
added, but all other routes, stops, and schedules were unchanged from the current conditions.
7

Appendix D
➢ Bike/Ped: Bike/ped metrics include access to bike paths/lanes and safety (crime, crash risk). For 2050, 8
bike paths/lanes were added based on the City of Yuma 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Plan.
N-PHAM was customized for Yuma using these changes and incorporated into a web-based version (see Figure
5).
Figure 5: Web-Based N-PHAM Software Generated for Baseline Condition Assessment
The 2050 baseline analysis using N-PHAM estimated a series of health outcomes that were used to identify the
geographic distribution of chronic disease in neighborhoods around the City of Yuma. These resulting maps can
be found in Appendix B. Of note, was a map of the estimated mean per capita cost of illness (COI - limited to
hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary heart disease). This map (Figure 6) was used to inform the need for
health-focused multi-modal transportation investment: increased active transportation, increased accessibility to
healthy goods and services.
8

Appendix D
Figure 6: 2050 Baseline Estimated Cost of Illness
Major New Roadway Project Scenarios Review
The Kimley-Horn (KH) team developed five major project scenarios using the region's travel demand forecasting
model. These design concepts estimated how each scenario would impact traffic speeds, volumes, and facility
level-of-service throughout the transportation network. UD4H then assessed these scenarios for their potential
health implications, recognizing that capacity expansion and congestion mitigation projects create complex trade-
offs between immediate benefits and long-term community health outcomes. The generalized health
considerations of congestion mitigation strategies:
Access and Mobility Benefits In the short term, improved travel times along major corridors can enhance
access to employment opportunities and essential services while potentially reducing individual exposure to
vehicle emissions through shorter trip durations. However, research demonstrates that these immediate
benefits may be offset by longer-term development patterns. Improved travel times can encourage
residential development in more distant locations, ultimately increasing car dependence and promoting
sedentary lifestyles 15,16.
Community Safety and Walkability Strategic traffic diversion can significantly benefit walkable
neighborhoods by redirecting automobile and heavy truck traffic away from pedestrian-oriented areas. This
approach improves both actual safety conditions and residents' perceptions of safety, creating environments
that encourage walking and cycling17. The safety benefits are particularly pronounced when traffic is
redirected to facilities designed for higher-speed, higher-volume movement.
Air Quality and Environmental Exposure Changes to traffic patterns affect localized air quality in
complex ways that depend on multiple factors including fleet composition, operating speeds, and traffic
9

Appendix D
volumes. Generally, projects that reduce vehicle idling and decrease the proportion of heavy-duty trucks in
sensitive areas lead to measurable reductions in community exposure to harmful exhaust emissions18.
However, the net environmental impact requires careful analysis of how traffic redistribution affects
exposure patterns across different neighborhoods.
While the five KH scenarios produced similar overall health impact profiles, each presents opportunities for
enhancement as part of a comprehensive long-range community health strategy. UD4H evaluated these scenarios
across five critical health-related dimensions to identify potential concerns and improvement opportunities.
➢ Travel Exposure (Vehicle Hours of Travel - VHT) Analysis focused on how each scenario would
change total regional VHT¹ compared to the no-build baseline, as increased time spent in vehicles
correlates with reduced physical activity and higher exposure to air pollutants.
➢ Health Equity Considerations Assessment examined whether scenarios would disproportionately
burden neighborhoods already experiencing elevated rates of chronic disease and healthcare costs,
ensuring that transportation improvements do not exacerbate existing health disparities.
➢ Healthcare Accessibility Evaluation determined whether proposed changes would maintain or improve
access to essential health services, particularly for vulnerable populations who may rely on walking,
cycling, or transit.
➢ Environmental Exposure Analysis identified potential increases in air and noise pollution along existing
bicycle and pedestrian corridors, recognizing that active transportation infrastructure loses effectiveness
when environmental conditions become unhealthy.
➢ Active Transportation Connectivity Review assessed whether scenarios would create new barriers to
existing walking and cycling networks, potentially fragmenting established active transportation patterns.
All five scenarios could incorporate complementary strategies to amplify their health benefits and reduce overall
travel demand. These enhancement strategies fall into two primary categories:
➢ Infrastructure Integration
o Complete streets design that accommodates multiple transportation modes
o Expanded shared-use bicycle and pedestrian facilities
o Transit system improvements, including both fixed-route and micro-transit options
o Intersection safety enhancements prioritizing pedestrian protection and traffic calming
➢ Land Use Coordination
o Zoning modifications that promote mixed-use, transit-oriented development
o Strategic placement of destinations within safe, convenient walking and cycling distance of residential
areas
o Development patterns that reduce trip generation and support multimodal transportation choices
A complete assessment of these scenarios should integrate construction and maintenance costs with broader
community impacts including travel patterns, physical activity levels, health outcomes, and quality of life
measures. This comprehensive approach enables meaningful comparison between traditional vehicle-focused
infrastructure investments and alternative strategies such as neighborhood-scale improvements, active
transportation networks, and land use modifications that may deliver comparable or superior community health
returns at different cost structures.
10

Appendix D
Scenario 1: Avenue D and County 14th Street Expressway Loop
Health Impact Summary: The proposed expressway loop generates modest regional benefits by reducing
overall VHT by 1.3% compared to the no-build scenario. While this reduction in sedentary time provides
some health benefits, the improvement is relatively small. The project shows more significant localized
benefits by diverting through-traffic away from communities currently experiencing elevated chronic disease
rates. Healthcare accessibility remains stable or potentially improves in some areas.
Health vulnerable
Change in VHT
Figure 7: Scenario 1 - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT
Environmental and Safety Considerations: Air and noise exposure would increase along the proposed loop
alignment, though current population density in these areas is low. The four-lane design presents both
opportunities and challenges for active transportation—while it avoids creating barriers to existing bicycle
and pedestrian networks, the high-capacity design may limit safe and efficient active transportation
integration.
Recommended Enhancements:
➢ Incorporate comprehensive bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure to prevent community severance
➢ Implement health-supportive zoning and land use planning for anticipated development south and west of
the corridor
➢ Design intersections and crossings to maintain neighborhood connectivity
11

Appendix D
Scenario 2: Interstate 8 Widening
Health Impact Summary: I-8 widening delivers the second-highest VHT reduction at 3.9%, meaningfully
decreasing regional sedentary time. However, the scenario provides limited benefits to communities with
existing health disparities, as through-traffic patterns in high chronic disease areas remain unchanged.
Healthcare access maintains current levels with potential improvements in select areas.
Health vulnerable
Change in VHT
Figure 8: Scenario 2 - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT
Environmental and Safety Considerations: The increased highway capacity raises significant
environmental concerns, particularly elevated air and noise pollution along the I-8 corridor. Adjacent
properties, including recreational facilities along the river, would experience degraded environmental
conditions. Existing active transportation networks remain unaffected.
Recommended Enhancements:
➢ Install comprehensive noise abatement measures along all widened sections
➢ Conduct detailed air quality exposure modeling to ensure nearby land uses remain within acceptable
health thresholds
➢ Consider the corridor's role in shaping future eastern development patterns and associated health
implications
12

Appendix D
Scenarios 3A & 3B: Arterial Street Improvements
Health Impact Summary The arterial improvement scenarios show neutral VHT impacts, providing no
reduction in regional sedentary time compared to baseline conditions. Benefits concentrate primarily in lower-
density eastern areas, with minimal impact on communities facing health disparities. Healthcare accessibility
maintains current levels with potential eastern improvements.
Health vulnerable
Change in VHT
Figure 9: Scenario 3a/3b - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT
Environmental and Safety Considerations Air and noise exposure increases along affected arterials, though
the distributed nature of improvements limits concentrated environmental impacts. The scenario avoids
creating new barriers to active transportation infrastructure.
Recommended Enhancements
➢ Integrate mixed-use development and multimodal planning to reduce trip generation and VHT
➢ Develop safe, comfortable active transportation facilities throughout affected corridors
➢ Coordinate with land use planning to maximize health co-benefits
13

Appendix D
Scenarios 4A & 4B: Transportation Improvements Along I-8
Health Impact Summary These scenarios achieve the highest VHT reduction at over 5.5%, representing the
most significant decrease in regional sedentary time among all alternatives. The improvements provide dual
benefits by also reducing thorough traffic in communities with elevated chronic disease rates. Healthcare
accessibility is preserved with potential improvements in multiple areas.
Health vulnerable
Change in VHT
Figure 10: Scenario 4a/4b - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT
Environmental and Safety Considerations Similar to Scenario 2, I-8 improvements create substantial
environmental concerns along the highway corridor, particularly affecting adjacent recreational and
residential areas along the river. Active transportation networks remain uncompromised.
Recommended Enhancements
➢ Implement robust noise abatement strategies for all widening segments
➢ Conduct comprehensive air quality impact assessments with ongoing monitoring
➢ Plan proactively for induced development in eastern areas to maximize health benefits
14

Appendix D
Scenario 5: Selected I-8 and Citywide Improvements
Health Impact Summary This scenario reduces VHT by 4.7%, providing substantial sedentary time
reductions while maintaining current patterns in high chronic disease communities. Healthcare access remains
stable with potential improvements across multiple areas.
Health vulnerable
Change in VHT
Figure 11: Scenario 5 - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT
Environmental and Safety Considerations Environmental impacts along I-8 are moderated compared to full
widening scenarios, with northern sections near recreational and entertainment areas experiencing less severe
impacts. The distributed improvement approach helps balance regional mobility with local environmental
protection.
Recommended Enhancements
➢ Focus noise abatement efforts on the most sensitive areas, particularly residential zones
➢ Prioritize air quality monitoring in areas with vulnerable populations
➢ Leverage the balanced approach to integrate complementary active transportation and land use strategies
Cross-Scenario Health Recommendations: All scenarios would benefit from integrating comprehensive health-
supportive strategies including complete streets design, expanded active transportation networks, strategic transit
improvements, and coordinated land use planning that promotes walkable, mixed-use development patterns.
These enhancements can amplify the health benefits of transportation infrastructure investments while addressing
potential negative impacts.
15

Appendix D
Scenario 5H: Selected I-8 and Citywide Improvements
Health Impact Summary The 5H scenario reduces regional VHT by 3.7%, providing significant sedentary
time reductions particularly in developing areas in east Yuma. Healthcare access remains stable with potential
improvements across multiple areas. Arterial lane expansion south of the airport improves overall east-west
access without impacting the active transportation networks in the denser developed areas. Note that the
impact of active transportation investments and overall community health are discussed in subsequent report
sections.
Health vulnerable
Change in VHT
Figure 12: Scenario 5 - Health Vulnerable Communities and Change in VHT
Environmental and Safety Considerations Environmental impacts along I-8 are minimal with additional
lane expansions away from the activity areas along the Colorado River. The distributed improvement
approach helps balance regional mobility with local environmental protection.
Recommended Enhancements
➢ Leverage the balanced approach to integrate complementary active transportation and land use strategies
➢ Increased vehicle accessibility in East Yuma will increase residential and employment growth in these
areas. Consider how mixed land uses and active transportation can enhance health and livability in this
area.
Cross-Scenario Health Recommendations: All scenarios would benefit from integrating comprehensive health-
supportive strategies including complete streets design, expanded active transportation networks, strategic transit
improvements, and coordinated land use planning that promotes walkable, mixed-use development patterns.
These enhancements can amplify the health benefits of transportation infrastructure investments while addressing
potential negative impacts.
16

Appendix D
TMP Project Prioritization Framework Review
The KH Team provided a draft project evaluation and prioritization framework that scored a draft set of TMP
projects using five categories: Facility Quality, Roadway Operational Efficiency, Safety/Vision Zero Approach,
Multimodal Integration, and Community Health. Each category includes goals and multiple evaluation metrics
that are used to develop a final project score. UD4H’s assessment of the scoring framework was supportive,
noting that three categories, including 14 evaluation metrics, were direct or indirect health impacts. Safety and
health considerations are 55% of the overall prioritization score.
Across the US, health factors are inconsistently and infrequently integrated into transportation project
prioritization, though this is slowly changing. Most transportation planning processes still prioritize traditional
metrics like:
➢ Traffic flow and congestion reduction
➢ Economic development impacts
➢ Engineering feasibility
➢ Construction costs
➢ Environmental compliance (air quality, noise)
UD4H generally supports KH’s prioritization framework and the role health and safety play in the prioritization
process. These specific categories and criteria are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Health and Safety Categories and Criteria in the TMP Prioritization Process
Project Prioritization Category Evaluation Criteria
Number of fatal crashes
Number of serious injury crashes
Number of FHWA proven safety countermeasures
Safety/Vision Zero Approach: 25%
Number of VRU-involved (pedestrian and bicyclist) crashes
Improves the safety of an active transportation facility, crossing, or
transit stop (yes or no)
Improves transit coverage or frequency
Number of new multimodal connections that improve access to
community facilities
Number of non-medical activity centers within 1/4 mile of a project
Multimodal Integration: 20% improving multimodal transportation
Mileage of addressed pedestrian and bicyclist network gaps from the
project
Improves existing quality of pedestrian/bicyclist facility (Converts
existing facility into shared use path, widens bicyclist lanes,
reconstruction of sidewalk, etc.)
Number of new connections that improve access to medical facilities
within 1/4 mile of a project
Number of disadvantaged community block groups whose travel is
improved by a multimodal project
Community Health: 10%
Number of block groups with high health expenditure whose travel is
improved by a multimodal project
Project enhances the comfort of an active transportation facility,
crossing, or transit stop (yes or no)
17

Appendix D
A challenge for the project evaluation process is the interpretation of the metrics for each project. For example,
the top scoring near-term project is “Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue 3E and
Avenue 4E” and the second is along the same road (“Roadway Widening, 40th Street from Avenue 6E to Avenue
10E”). These projects increase the road capacity of 40th Street between the Marine Corp Air Station and the
developing Araby growth area. The prioritization metrics related to safety, multimodal integration, and health are
not related to the primary project objective but to secondary design details. On a health-positive side, the projects’
designs include bike/ped improvements and pedestrian safety features. On a potentially negative side, the project
could lead to increased residential development in the rural and agricultural areas of eastern Yuma, further from
established infrastructure, jobs, and healthy goods and services.
18

Appendix D
TMP Health Impact Assessment
The KH team developed a comprehensive prioritization framework that evaluated over 120 TMP projects,
categorizing them for implementation across near-, mid-, and long-term phases through 2050. UD4H analyzed
these projects through the lens of five healthy community characteristics: encouraging active travel and physical
activity, providing physical safety, ensuring access to healthy goods and services, offering protection from
environmental exposure, and fostering social connections. These characteristics work synergistically, with
investments in walkability and accessible mixed-use development naturally strengthening social connections
across communities.
While the TMP projects do not include specific forecasts for residential and employment land use changes,
extensive research demonstrates that multi-modal transportation investments can catalyze community growth
patterns. The 2022 City of Yuma General Plan2 strategically identifies targeted "growth areas" for increased infill
and mixed-use development. This analysis examines how TMP projects will support health-focused community
development within these designated growth areas.
Table 3 summarizes the distribution of TMP projects across healthy community characteristics. The analysis
reveals that the TMP will substantially enhance Yuma's bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure through 58 dedicated
projects focused on shared-use paths, sidewalks, and bike lanes. These improvements strategically address current
network gaps by connecting previously isolated facilities, enhancing connectivity in high-activity areas, and
establishing new infrastructure where none currently exists.
Safety improvements include 14 new pedestrian crossings that will enhance security along high-traffic corridors,
complemented by a new pedestrian bridge spanning the East Main Canal to reconnect divided neighborhoods.
The active transportation network directly benefits community health access, with 46 projects improving
connections to public parks and healthcare facilities. Transit users will benefit from 11 new bus stop shelters that
provide weather protection and enhanced safety. Notably, 61 projects are strategically located within proximity to
the city's six growth areas, supporting the development of denser, more walkable communities. These
comprehensive improvements align with established healthy community principles and create supportive
infrastructure that encourages active, vibrant lifestyles for Yuma residents.
Table 3: TMP Projects by Healthy Community Characteristic
Healthy Community Characteristics TMP Impact
Active Travel and Physical Activity 58 projects including shared-use paths, sidewalks, and bike lanes
($90 million investment)
Physical Safety 14 bicycle/pedestrian crossings ($9 million investment)
Access to Healthy Goods and Services 14 active transportation projects near hospitals; 32 projects near
parks
Environmental Exposure 11 bus stop shelters providing weather protection
Social Connections 61 projects distributed across five City of Yuma Growth Areas
2 https://www.yumaaz.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5172/637939261174930000
19

Appendix D
Figure 13 illustrates the geographic distribution of TMP projects throughout Yuma and their relationship to the
six designated growth areas. Roadway improvements (indicated by red lines) concentrate on I-8 corridor
enhancements, arterial developments in the expanding East Yuma area, and arterial improvements that facilitate
traffic flow around the airport's southern perimeter.
The shared-use paths and bike lanes demonstrate thoughtful regional distribution, supporting both utilitarian
commuting and recreational activities. A particularly notable addition is the extensive new shared-use path along
the Colorado River east of I-8. This recreational corridor strategically connects to the Pacific Avenue & 8th Street
growth area and the Pacific Avenue Athletic Complex, creating opportunities for both community recreation and
economic development.
.
Figure 13: 2050 Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan and Growth Areas
Bike Accessibility
The City of Yuma's existing bicycle infrastructure network, comprising shared-use paths and bike lanes, currently
serves over 40% of the projected 2050 population within a 500-meter accessible range. When combined with
current CIP bicycle projects and proposed TMP initiatives, this coverage expands to 48% of the population (see
Table 4).
The proposed bicycle projects demonstrate disproportionately positive impacts within two critical demographic
segments. Low-income neighborhoods, where multimodal accessibility plays an essential role in meeting daily
transportation needs, will experience enhanced connectivity and mobility options. Additionally, high cost-of-
illness (COI) neighborhoods—identified through baseline N-PHAM modeling for the City of Yuma—will benefit
from improved access to health-promoting transportation infrastructure.
20

Appendix D
Many proposed improvements focus on critical network connections and infrastructure gaps that currently limit
bicycle network utility. These strategic enhancements will significantly improve network connectivity to essential
destinations including public parks and designated growth areas, creating a more cohesive and functional
transportation system.
The emphasis on network connectivity and destination access represents a qualitative improvement that extends
beyond simple population coverage metrics. By addressing existing gaps and establishing new connections, these
projects will enhance the practical viability of bicycle transportation for both utilitarian and recreational purposes
throughout Yuma's evolving urban landscape.
Table 4: Change in Bike Network Accessibility for the 2050 City of Yuma Residents
2050 2050 2050 2050 2050
Baseline No Build Build Build Build
(Near- (Mid- (Long-
Term) Term) Term)
Population (%) 41.4% 44.9% 46.0% 46.0% 48.0%
Population (count) 114,708 +9,720 +2,884 +865 +4,869
Low Income Population (count) 39,549 +2,098 +555 +443 +2,703
High Cost of Illness (COI) Population 39,236 +7,207 +1,913 +369 +3,766
(count)
Many of the TMP projects improve the existing bike network by making network connections across currently
disconnected facilities. These changes establish more connectivity and create greater accessibility for
neighborhoods. Figure 14 shows the proposed bike facility accessibility for near-, mid-, and long-term TMP bike
network projects. Near-term projects are shown in dark red, mid-term are in darker pink, and long-term are in
light pink. Purple areas are existing bike network accessible areas where improvements are not planned.
21

Appendix D
Figure 14: 2050 Bike Network Access: Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term
Transit Accessibility
The City of Yuma's public transit system operates under the Yuma County Intergovernmental Public
Transportation Authority (YCIPTA) through the Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) network3. The current
system provides comprehensive coverage with nine active routes serving over 500 bus stops throughout the
region. The TMP proposes strategic modifications to the YCAT network by 2050, designed to enhance
operational efficiency and service coverage:
• Route Restructuring: Green #4 route optimization for improved service delivery
• Route Consolidation: Integration of Orange #2 and Brown #3 routes to eliminate redundancies
• Route Optimization: Strategic rerouting of Purple #6 and Orange #2 lines for enhanced connectivity
• Express Service Addition: New Gold 2X Express route providing rapid transit connections
Beyond route modifications, the plan incorporates infrastructure improvements including new bus stop shelters
and dedicated bus pullouts. These enhancements prioritize passenger safety and provide environmental protection
from weather conditions.
Table 5 presents the projected changes in population coverage within 500-meter walking and cycling distance of
redesigned bus stops. While the quantitative changes in transit accessibility appear modest within the city limits,
these modifications deliver significant qualitative improvements in transit access and operational efficiency that
translate to enhanced overall service quality.
The new Gold 2X Express route represents a particularly significant expansion, establishing direct connections
between residents in the Ligurta and Wellton areas and downtown Yuma. This express service increases transit
3 https://www.ycipta.org/
22

Appendix D
access for these communities, though this impact extends beyond the City of Yuma study area and is not captured
in Table 5's quantitative analysis.
Table 5: Change in Transit Network Accessibility for the 2050 City of Yuma Residents
2050 (No Build) 2050 (Long Term)
Population (%) 54.3% 55.7%
Population (count) 150,405 +3,906
Low Income Population (count) 64,441 +1,447
High Cost of Illness (COI) Population (count) 64,245 +1,243
23

Appendix D
Growth Area Framework and Transportation Investment Analysis
The 2022 City of Yuma General Plan, Chapter 11, designates specific areas for concentrated development
featuring diverse land uses and increased residential density (see Figure 15 for details). These growth areas
embody Smart Growth4 and Transit-Oriented Development5 principles, creating frameworks for sustainable urban
development patterns.
Growth Area Goal, Objectives, and Policies
Goal 1.0: Promote Smart Growth Principles for growth areas to support a variety of land use types, application
of infill incentives, provide transportation options, conserve open space, and be consistent with the City’s
ability to provide public services and facilities.
Objective 1.1: Encourage development within identified growth areas.
Policy 1.1.1: The City shall promote the use of Smart Growth Overlays and specific plans for
development proposals in growth areas.
Policy 1.1.2: The City shall establish incentives that encourage infill and high density mixed-use
development in growth areas.
Objective 1.2: The City shall promote a development design that provides for alternative modes of
transportation while still accommodating motorized vehicles within growth areas.
Policy 1.2.1: The City shall balance the mobility, safety, and other needs of pedestrians, bicyclists,
and motorized vehicles.
Policy 1.2.2: The City shall promote transit-related improvements (bus stops, passenger shelters,
etc.) that are coordinated with pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Objective 1.3: Treat open space as an integral component of the development within growth areas
to meet residents’ recreational needs and to strengthen neighborhood identity and image.
Policy 1.3.1: The City shall encourage parks, plazas, paths, and other open spaces in both public
improvements and private development.
Policy 1.3.2: The City shall coordinate the location of open space, linear parks, and bike paths in
growth areas with similar areas and facilities outside the growth area.
Objective 1.4: Promote economical and logical expansion of public facilities.
Policy 1.4.1: The City shall provide priority funding for public facility projects within growth areas.
Policy 1.4.2: The City shall coordinate infrastructure financing and improvements with existing and
projected development activity.
Policy 1.4.3: The City shall promote public and private construction of timely and financially sound
infrastructure expansion.
Figure 15: Growth Area Description
While the TMP projects do not include specific forecasts for land use and density changes, multimodal
transportation investments historically catalyze development viability, particularly within designated growth areas
where supportive development policies and zoning regulations enable denser, mixed-use opportunities. UD4H
analyzed TMP projects located within proximity to City of Yuma growth areas to assess potential development
influences and subsequent community health impacts. Table 6 presents the distribution of TMP projects,
categorized by transportation focus (active transportation versus vehicle-oriented improvements).
4 See https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/
5 See https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD
24

Appendix D
The analysis reveals a strong emphasis on active transportation infrastructure within growth areas, reflecting
alignment with Smart Growth principles. The North End, Arizona Avenue & 8th Street, and Avenue B & 32nd
Street growth areas receive greater investments than the remaining three designated growth areas. The emphasis
on active transportation infrastructure within these areas creates supportive conditions for the higher-density,
mixed-use development patterns outlined in the City's growth area policies.
Table 6: TMP Active Transportation and Vehicle Projects by Growth Area
Growth Area Total Active Transportation Total Vehicle
Projects Projects
North End 14 0
Pacific Ave & 8th St 5 0
Arizona Ave and 16th St 14 1
Avenue B & 32nd St 17 1
Laurel 3 1
Araby 8 4
UD4H employed the baseline N-PHAM model to conduct a comprehensive health impact evaluation of
designated growth areas. The assessment utilized five distinct scenarios to capture the full spectrum of potential
outcomes:
1. 2023 Baseline - Current community health metrics
2. 2050 No Build - Impact on planned Capital Improvement Program projects
3. 2050 Build (TMP Implementation) - Transportation master plan effects without additional changes
4. 2050 Build with Low Intensity Growth Areas Densification Scenario - Conservative residential
density and land use mix in the growth areas due to the TMP active transportation network investments
and their potential impacts on densification and land use mix
5. 2050 Build with High Intensity Growth Areas Densification Scenario - Aggressive residential density
and land use mix in the growth areas due to the TMP active transportation network investments and their
potential impacts on densification and land use mix
This multi-scenario approach enables comprehensive analysis of multimodal transportation investment impacts by
incorporating secondary and catalytic community growth effects that typically accompany major infrastructure
improvements.
Growth Scenario Parameters
The growth scenarios incorporate comprehensive transportation network changes from the TMP while modeling
anticipated community development patterns through six key variables:
Transportation and Accessibility Metrics
Transit Service Frequency: Projected increases in transit service frequency during PM peak periods,
reflecting enhanced system capacity and service delivery improvements beyond current operational levels.
25

Appendix D
Population Density: Anticipated residential density increases measured in residents per acre, driven by City of
Yuma infill development policies and supportive zoning modifications within growth areas.
Employment Density: Expected employment concentration increases measured in employees per acre,
resulting from strategic infill and mixed-use development initiatives supported by proactive municipal policies.
Economic and Land Use Indicators
Retail Employment: Projected expansion in retail job creation, reflecting increased commercial activity
associated with infill development and mixed-use community design strategies.
Land Use Diversity: Quantified through the land use entropy index (scale 0-1), measuring the balance among
office, retail, service, industrial, and other land uses. Higher values indicate greater mixed-use integration and
walkable community design.
Environmental Enhancement
Tree Planting Coverage: Percentage of area with existing or planned tree coverage, reflecting urban forestry
initiatives and green infrastructure integration within growth areas.
Table 7 presents the specific parameter modifications for each growth area under low and high growth scenarios.
These values represent either explicit targets or incremental additions to baseline 2023 conditions, providing a
realistic range of potential development outcomes. The low and high growth scenarios establish bounds for
impact assessment, acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in long-term community development projections
while providing decision-makers with a comprehensive understanding of potential health outcomes across
different development intensities. This scenario-based approach recognizes that transportation infrastructure
investments create cascading effects throughout community systems. By modeling these interconnected
impacts—from transit frequency improvements to land use diversification—the analysis provides a more
complete picture of how multimodal transportation investments contribute to community health outcomes beyond
direct transportation benefits. Low and high growth scenarios were defined to show a range of possible impacts.
Note that values are either defined explicitly or added to existing metric conditions established in the 2023
baseline assessment.
Table 7: Growth Area N-PHAM Scenario Definitions (Compared to Baseline 2023 Conditions)
2050 Build with Low Intensity Growth 2050 Build with High Intensity Growth
Areas Densification Scenario Areas Densification Scenario
North End Pacific Ave & 8th North End Pacific Ave & 8th
Arizona Ave &16th Laurel Arizona Ave &16th Laurel
Avenue B & 32nd Araby Avenue B & 32nd Araby
Transit Service +40% +20% +80% +40%
Frequency
Population Density +40% +20% +80% +40%
Employment +40% +20% +80% +40%
Density
Retail Jobs +40% +20% +80% +40%
Land Use Diversity = 0.2 = 0.1 = 0.3 = 0.2
Tree Planting = 0.2 = 0.1 = 0.3 = 0.2
Coverage
26

Appendix D
N-PHAM results for the growth areas using the above scenarios are provided in Table 8 through Table 13. These
same outcomes are available for the 2023 Baseline and 2050 No Build conditions in previous project reports.
Note that estimated health outcomes in 2050 are affected by other factors than just the transportation investments,
including demographics and land use.
BODY MASS INDEX (BMI)>30
Table 8: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of the Population with a Body Mass Index Greater than 30
Growth 2023 Baseline 2050 No 2050 Build 2050 Build with Low 2050 Build with
Area Build Intensity Growth High Intensity
Areas Densification Growth Areas
Scenario Densification
Scenario
Araby 37% 36% 36% 31% 30%
Arizona 40% 40% 39% 32% 31%
& 16th
Avenue B 42% 39% 39% 34% 32%
& 32nd
Laurel 38% 36% 36% 32% 30%
North 41% 41% 41% 35% 33%
End
Pacific & 42% 39% 38% 34% 32%
8th
All
Growth
Areas 40% 39% 38% 33% 31%
Full
Region 40% 39% 39% 39% 39%
27

Appendix D
TYPE 2 DIABETES
Table 9: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of the Population with Type 2 Diabetes
Growth Area 2023 Baseline 2050 No Build 2050 Build 2050 Build 2050 Build
with Low with High
Intensity Intensity
Growth Areas Growth Areas
Densification Densification
Scenario Scenario
Araby 11% 9% 9% 8% 7%
Arizona & 16th 15% 14% 14% 11% 10%
Avenue B & 13% 12% 12% 10% 9%
32nd
Laurel 9% 9% 9% 7% 7%
North End 11% 12% 12% 9% 9%
Pacific & 8th 12% 11% 11% 9% 9%
All Growth
Areas 12% 11% 11% 9% 9%
Full Region 15% 14% 14% 14% 14%
28

Appendix D
CORONARY HEART DISEASE
Table 10: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of the Population with Coronary Heart Disease
Growth Area 2023 Baseline 2050 No Build 2050 Build 2050 Build 2050 Build
with Low with High
Intensity Intensity
Growth Areas Growth Areas
Densification Densification
Scenario Scenario
Araby 5.3% 5.0% 5.0% 4.8% 4.8%
Arizona & 16th 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.4% 3.3%
Avenue B & 3.1% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4% 4.3%
32nd
Laurel 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.0% 7.9%
North End 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0%
Pacific & 8th 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 6.9% 6.8%
All Growth
Areas 4.9% 5.1% 5.1% 4.9% 4.9%
Full Region 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3%
29

Appendix D
HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE / HYPERTENSION
Table 11: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of the Population with Hypertension
Growth Area 2023 Baseline 2050 No Build 2050 Build 2050 Build 2050 Build
with Low with High
Intensity Intensity
Growth Areas Growth Areas
Densification Densification
Scenario Scenario
Araby 29% 27% 27% 27% 27%
Arizona & 16th 28% 28% 28% 27% 27%
Avenue B &
32nd 26% 26% 26% 25% 25%
Laurel 27% 27% 27% 27% 27%
North End 27% 27% 26% 26% 26%
Pacific & 8th 29% 29% 29% 28% 28%
All Growth
Areas 27% 27% 27% 27% 27%
Full Region 29.8% 29.7% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6%
30

Appendix D
COST OF ILLNESS
Table 12: Scenario Results for the Estimated Cost of Illness (per Capita, Annualized)
Growth Area 2023 Baseline 2050 No Build 2050 Build 2050 Build 2050 Build
with Low with High
Intensity Intensity
Growth Areas Growth Areas
Densification Densification
Scenario Scenario
Araby $2,075 $1,859 $1,853 $1,720 $1,678
Arizona & 16th $1,983 $1,962 $1,954 $1,696 $1,646
Avenue B & $1,912 $1,971 $1,968 $1,759 $1,715
32nd
Laurel $2,405 $2,389 $2,384 $2,222 $2,177
North End $1,484 $1,515 $1,514 $1,321 $1,282
Pacific & 8th $2,422 $2,386 $2,361 $2,200 $2,153
All Growth
Areas $2,014 $2,014 $2,006 $1,820 $1,775
Full Region $2,812 $2,812 $2,810 $2,798 $2,795
Total Annual
COI for the
Region6 $599 Million $799 Million $798 Million $795 Million $794 Million
6 The total annual COI for the region assumes a 2023 population of 213,000 and a 2050 population of 284,000.
31

Appendix D
WALKING
Table 13: Scenario Results for the Estimated Percentage of Adults that Walk at Least Once per Week
Growth Area 2023 Baseline 2050 No Build 2050 Build 2050 Build 2050 Build
with Low with High
Intensity Intensity
Growth Areas Growth Areas
Densification Densification
Scenario Scenario
Araby 18% 20% 21% 23% 25%
Arizona & 16th 29% 29% 30% 35% 37%
Avenue B & 20% 20% 20% 24% 25%
32nd
Laurel 22% 24% 24% 28% 29%
North End 32% 33% 33% 38% 39%
Pacific & 8th 14% 17% 19% 21% 22%
All Growth
Areas 22% 24% 25% 28% 30%
Full Region 21% 22% 23% 22% 22%
The N-PHAM model analysis reveals modest but consistently positive health impacts from direct transportation
infrastructure improvements implemented through the CIP and TMP programs. The scenario analysis
demonstrates substantially greater health benefits when transportation investments catalyze broader community
development patterns. These secondary impacts—encompassing increased population density, enhanced land use
diversity, improved transit service frequency, and expanded employment opportunities—produce significant
positive health outcomes that exceed the estimated direct benefits of infrastructure improvements alone.
This finding underscores the critical importance of integrating transportation planning with comprehensive
community development strategies. The multiplier effect of coordinated investment approaches generates health
benefits that are orders of magnitude greater than those achieved through isolated infrastructure projects.
The analysis focuses specifically on designated growth areas, yet transportation investments will influence
community development patterns throughout Yuma. Areas beyond the formal growth zones that experience
increased residential density and enhanced community amenities due to improved multimodal connectivity will
likely demonstrate similar community health improvements.
Communities that gain residents with access to healthy built environment characteristics—including active
transportation networks, recreational facilities, and walkable mixed-use development—can expect, on average,
measurable reductions in chronic disease prevalence. This health improvement occurs through multiple pathways:
increased physical activity from active transportation options, enhanced social connections through walkable
community design, and improved access to health-supporting services and amenities.
32

Appendix D
Strategic Planning Implications
These findings demonstrate that transportation investments achieve maximum health benefits when they function
as catalysts for comprehensive community development rather than standalone infrastructure improvements. The
substantial difference between direct infrastructure impacts and comprehensive development scenario outcomes
indicates that coordinated planning approaches should be prioritized over isolated transportation projects.
For optimal health outcomes, transportation investments should be strategically aligned with land use planning,
economic development initiatives, and community health goals to maximize the catalytic effects that generate the
most significant population health improvements.
Study Limitations
It is important to consider the limitations of the estimated results presented above, including:
• Health conditions are impacted by many factors, not all of which are represented in the N-PHAM statistical
models.
• Demographic forecasts are significant factors for future health models. Age, income, race, family type, sex,
employment, and car ownership affect health outcomes at a population level. Long range forecasts of small
area (neighborhood) level demographics can have large margins of error. In this analysis, demographic
forecasts for 2050 were not available. There is evidence, however, that Yuma will be like other US cities
and have an increasingly larger fraction of people over 65 over the next 25 years.
• Economic impact estimates do not capture all indirect effects of chronic disease prevalence in communities.
The regional economic impacts of workforce productivity and transportation/land use investments are not
considered.
• This analysis did not consider the effects of the TMP projects on local air quality and its known effects on
community health.
• Scenario planning models apply the same methodology to evaluate different scenarios. Comparing, across
scenarios, the direction of change for outcomes of interest and relative differences is useful to planning,
even if there may be some uncertainty about the exact numeric value.
33

Appendix D
Appendix A – National Public Health Assessment Model
The National Public Health Assessment Model (N-PHAM) was developed by Urban Design 4 Health over the last
several years with partial support from the US Environmental Protection Agency. Additional funding from the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation supported the development of the built, natural, and social environment data
layers used by N-PHAM.
The tool is peer-reviewed and methodologically grounded in an ecological framework that links environments
with health impacts.7 It can be applied nationwide and operates on an extensive set of geospatial model inputs and
outcomes. A customized version of N-PHAM was developed for the City of Yuma and used to estimate the health
conditions for small areas These predicted estimates use demographic data and 22 built and natural environment
variables from sources such as the USEPA's Smart Location Database (SLD) and UD4H's National
Environmental Database (NED)8 and several other sources. The core statistical models were created from analysis
of health data from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) and National Household Travel Survey
(NHTS) datasets linked with built and natural environment data.
The models estimate the following chronic disease at the 2020 census block geographic level for adults (ages 18
to 84 years):
◼ Body Mass Index > 30: Estimated percent with a BMI > 30 (considered very high)
◼ Type 2 Diabetes: Estimated percent ever diagnosed with type 2 diabetes
◼ High Blood Pressure: Estimated percent ever diagnosed with hypertension
◼ Coronary Heart Disease: Estimated percent ever diagnosed with CHD
Population-level health costs based on average annual disease-related expenditures are also estimated. Baseline
health models were control-total calibrated using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2021
PLACES estimated data at the county-level.
Interpreting Results
The built and natural environment significantly affects health by providing (or excluding) opportunities for
physical activity, economic vitality, social inclusion, pollution exposure, and access to healthy food and health
care. For example, Figure 16 shows two different neighborhoods: one that is more walkable with diverse land use
and one that is auto dependent with lower land use variability and fewer active travel mode options. Individuals
living in these communities likely have different genetics and lifestyle choices and respond to changes in
environmental stimuli differently. However, communities that promote healthier options have better average
health when controlling demographics.
7 Spence JC, Lee RE. Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2003;4(1):7-
24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00014-6.
8 The National Environmental Database (NED) was developed by Urban Design 4 Health with support from the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation. For more information see http://urbandesign4health.com/projects/ned
34

Appendix D
Figure 16: Mean Chronic Disease Risk for Two Different Neighborhoods
Results from N-PHAM are either prevalence rates or population-weighted averages (BMI and health costs). When
used to estimate future conditions, the differences in scenario prevalence rates from baseline to scenario may be
positive or negative depending on the impacts of the changes represented by the scenarios. The health care costs
are the average annual direct and indirect costs for the fraction of the adult population estimated to have type 2
diabetes, coronary heart disease, and high blood pressure. N-PHAM estimates baseline and scenario per adult
annual costs (scenario cost divided by scenario adult population).
35

Appendix D
Appendix B
Estimated Baseline Health Conditions: Body Mass Index >30
Over 40% of US adults (2023) are obese, based on a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30.15 Being obese is a
serious risk factor for all causes of death, other chronic diseases, and a low quality of life.16 Having a healthy
weight is impacted by diet, physical activity, and many other factors. In 2023, 40.4% of the City of Yuma adult
population is estimated to have a body mass index greater than 30. Without the proposed TMP, this percentage is
expected to change to 39.4% due to expected changes in population, employment, and active transportation
investments from the CIP. With the TMP, the fraction of the population with a body mass index greater than 30 is
expected to further drop slightly to 39.2%. It should be noted that specific neighborhoods where active
transportation and accessibility are improved will see greater positive impacts than other neighborhoods in the
region that are not directly impacted by the TMP. COY Growth Areas, where TMP improvements are coupled
with increased density and land use mix are estimated to have significant reductions in the fraction of the
population with BMI>30, down to 31%.
Figure 17 shows the expected variation in obesity in 2050 based on the forecasted changes to the population,
employment, bike/ped access, transit access, park access, and land use mix.
Figure 17: Body Mass Index >30
36

Appendix D
Estimated Baseline Health Conditions: Type 2 Diabetes
Over 30 million people (~10%) in the US are estimated to have Type 2 diabetes which is the eighth leading cause
of death in the United.9 According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people with diabetes
don't "make enough insulin or can't use it as well as it should. When there isn't enough insulin or cells stop
responding to insulin, too much blood sugar stays in your bloodstream. Over time, that can cause serious health
problems, such as heart disease, vision loss, and kidney disease." Lifestyle choices and other conditions can
impact whether and when type 2 diabetes occurs. These include being overweight or not, eating healthily, and
being regularly physically active. How communities are designed can make it harder or easier for people to live
healthier lives. In 2023, 14.8% of the City of Yuma adult population is estimated to have type 2 diabetes. Without
the proposed TMP, this percentage is expected to change to 14.3% due to expected changes in population,
employment, and active transportation investments from the CIP. With the TMP, the fraction of the population
with Type 2 diabetes is expected to further drop slightly to 14.1%. It should be noted that specific neighborhoods
where active transportation and accessibility are improved will see greater positive impacts than other
neighborhoods in the region that are not directly impacted by the TMP. COY Growth Areas, where TMP
improvements are coupled with increased density and land use mix are estimated to have significant reductions in
the fraction of the population with type 2 diabetes, down to 9%.
Figure 18 shows the expected variation in Type 2 diabetes in 2050 based on the forecasted changes to the
population, employment, bike/ped access, transit access, park access, and land use mix.
Figure 18: Type 2 Diabetes
9 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/quick-facts.html (11/09/20)
37

Appendix D
Estimated Baseline Health Conditions: Coronary Heart Disease
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the US.10 About 5% of adults have it. According to
the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the "term "heart disease" refers to several types of heart
conditions. The most common type of heart disease in the United States is coronary artery disease, which affects
the blood flow to the heart. Decreased blood flow can cause a heart attack." The key risk factors are high blood
pressure, cholesterol, and smoking. The lifestyle choices that increase the risk of CHD and that can be more
directly impacted by how communities are designed include levels of physical inactivity, healthy food
availability, and being overweight or obese. In 2023, 8.4% of the City of Yuma adult population is estimated to
be diagnosed with coronary heart disease. Without the proposed TMP, this percentage is expected to remain
unchanged. With the TMP, the fraction of the population with coronary heart disease is expected to decrease
slightly to 8.3%. It should be noted that specific neighborhoods where active transportation and accessibility are
improved will see greater positive impacts than other neighborhoods in the region that are not directly impacted
by the TMP. COY Growth Areas, where TMP improvements are coupled with increased density and land use mix
are estimated to have significant reductions in the fraction of the population with coronary heart disease, down to
4.9%.
Figure 19 shows the expected variation in coronary heart disease in 2050 based on the forecasted changes to the
population, employment, bike/ped access, transit access, park access, and land use mix.
Figure 19: Coronary Heart Disease
10 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm
38

Appendix D
Estimated Baseline Health Conditions: High Blood Pressure / Hypertension
About 50% of US adults (nearly 116 million) have high blood pressure (HBP).11 According to the US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, "high blood pressure is a leading cause of heart disease and stroke because it
damages the lining of the arteries, making them more susceptible to the buildup of plaque, which narrows the
arteries leading to the heart and brain." Like with other chronic diseases, lifestyle choices, and other conditions
can impact the risk of someone having HBP. These include being overweight or not, eating healthily, and being
regularly physically active. How communities are designed can make it harder or easier for people to live
healthier lives. In 2023, 29.8% of the City of Yuma adult population is estimated to have hypertension. Without
the proposed TMP, this percentage is expected to change to 29.7% due to expected changes in population,
employment, and active transportation investments from the CIP. With the TMP, the fraction of the population
with hypertension is expected to drop slightly to 29.6%. It should be noted that specific neighborhoods where
active transportation and accessibility are improved will see greater positive impacts than other neighborhoods in
the region that are not directly impacted by the TMP. COY Growth Areas, where TMP improvements are coupled
with increased density and land use mix are estimated to have significant reductions in the fraction of the
population with hypertension, down to 27%.
Figure 20 shows the expected variation in hypertension in 2050 based on the forecasted changes to the population,
employment, bike/ped access, transit access, park access, and land use mix.
Figure 20: High Blood Pressure/Hypertension
11 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/heart-disease-stroke.htm#high
39

Appendix D
Average Annual Per Capita Cost of Illness
Direct medical expenditures, paid by individuals/families and insurance, were estimated using the most current,
publicly available data from analyses of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). MEPS is an annual,
nationally representative survey administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality within the US
Department of Health and Human Services. Figure 21 shows locations with higher rates of Type 2 diabetes,
coronary heart disease, and hypertension that result in an average cost of illness by neighborhood. In 2023, the
average annual per capita cost of illness in the City of Yuma is estimated to be $2,812. Without the proposed
TMP, this per capita cost is expected to remain the same, $2,812. With the TMP, this per capita cost is expected
to drop slightly to $2,810. It should be noted that specific neighborhoods where active transportation and
accessibility are improved will see greater positive impacts than other neighborhoods in the region that are not
directly impacted by the TMP. COY Growth Areas, where TMP improvements are coupled with increased density
and land use mix, are estimated to have significant reductions in annual per capita costs of illness, down to
$1,775.
The estimated total annual cost to treat chronic disease in 2050 for the TMP study area without TMP
improvements is approximately $799 million. The TMP improvements, once in place, are estimated to save $1
million in health care costs annually for the region (total cost of $798 million). If the COY Growth Areas develop
as anticipated, where TMP improvements are coupled with increased density and land use mix, an additional $4
million in health care costs are anticipated to be saved annually (total cost of $794 million).
Figure 21: Cost of Illness
40

Appendix D
Walk Trip Participation
According to the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, 17% of US adults reported walking at least once per
week. Figure 22 shows locations with estimated higher rates of walking due to a variety of demographic and built
environment factors such as active transportation opportunity. In 2023, the estimated fraction of adults walking at
least once per week in the City of Yuma was 20.5%. Without the proposed TMP, this walking fraction is
expected to change to 21.8% due to expected changes in population, employment, and active transportation
investments from the CIP. With the TMP, this fraction is expected to increase slightly to 22.5%. It should be
noted that specific neighborhoods where active transportation and accessibility are improved will see greater
positive impacts (increase to 30%) than other neighborhoods in the region that are not directly impacted by the
TMP.
Figure 22: Walking for Transportation
41

Appendix D
Bibliography
1 Frank LD, Greenwald MJ, Winkelman S, Chapman J, Kavage S. Carbonless footprints: promoting health and climate
stabilization through active transportation. Prev Med. 2010;50 Suppl 1:S99-105.
2 Frumkin H, Hess J, Luber G, Malilay J, McGeehin M. Climate change: the public health response. Am J Public Health.
2008;98(3):435-445.
3 Zhou J, Wang Y, Schweitzer L. Jobs/housing balance and employer-based travel demand management program returns to
scale: Evidence from Los Angeles. Transport Policy. 2012;20:22-35.
4 Hu L. Job Accessibility of the Poor in Los Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2015;81(1):30-45.
5 de Nazelle A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Anto JM, et al. Improving health through policies that promote active travel: a review of
evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environ Int. 2011;37(4):766-777.
6 Frank L, Kerr J, Miles R, Sallis J. A Hierarchy of Sociodemographic and Environmental Correlates of Walking & Obesity.
Prev Med. 2008;47(2):172-178.
7 Frank LD, Andresen M, Schmid TL. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2004;27(2):87-96
8 Chandrabose, M, Rachele J, Gunn L, et al. A9528 Urban design and hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Hypertension. October 2018;36:e313-e314doi:10.1097/01.hjh.0000549280.84084.9b
9 Frank LD, Fox EH, Ulmer JM, Chapman JE, Braun LM. Quantifying the health benefits of transit-oriented development:
Creation and application of the San Diego Public Health Assessment Model (SD-PHAM). Transport Policy. 2022;115:14-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.10.005.
10 Malambo, P., Kengne, A. P., De Villiers, A., Lambert, E. V., & Puoane, T. (2016). Built environment, selected risk factors
and major cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review. PloS one, 11(11), e0166846. Malambo, P., Kengne, A. P.,
De Villiers, A., Lambert, E. V., & Puoane, T. (2016). Built environment, selected risk factors and major cardiovascular
disease outcomes: a systematic review. PloS one, 11(11), e0166846
11 Frank LD, Greenwald MJ, Winkelman S, Chapman J, Kavage S. Carbonless footprints: promoting health and climate
stabilization through active transportation. Prev Med. 2010;50 Suppl 1:S99-105.
12 de Nazelle A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Anto JM, et al. Improving health through policies that promote active travel: a review
of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environ Int. 2011;37(4):766-777.
13 Harrison RM, Allan J, Carruthers D, Heal MR, Lewis AC, Marner B, Murrells T, Williams A. Non-exhaust vehicle
emissions of particulate matter and VOC from road traffic: A review. Atmos Environ. 2021;262:118592.
14 Frank et al., Pathways from built environment to health: A conceptual framework linking behavior and exposure-based
impacts, Journal of Transport & Health (2019).
15 Chakrabarti, S. (2017). Automobile dependence and physical inactivity: Insights from the California Household Travel
Survey. Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 5, Pages 262-271.
16 Ewing, R. &. (2009). The Built Environment and Traffic Safety: A Review of Empirical Evidence. Journal of Planning
Literature, 23(4), 347-367.
17 Handy, S. (2005). Smart Growth and the Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us?
International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146-167.
18 Zhang, K. &. (2013). Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic." Science of the Total Environment. Elsevier:
Science of the Total Environment, 450, 307-316.
42

City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan – Final Report
APPENDIX E
PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation Master Plan
Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
The 193 comments below pertain to the study area for the Yuma Integrated Multimodal Transportation
Master Plan. There were 246 comments in total for the entire Yuma region, which includes all of Yuma
County. The interactive map and the comments provided can be found here.
1

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
2

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
3

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
4

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
5

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
6

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
7

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
8

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
9

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
10

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
11

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
12

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
13

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
14

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
15

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
16

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
17

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
18

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
19

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
20

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
21

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
22

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
23

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
24

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
25

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
26

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
27

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
28

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
29

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
30

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
31

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
32

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
33

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
34

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
35

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
36

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
37

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
38

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
39

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
40

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
41

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
42

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
43

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
44

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
45

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
46

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
47

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
48

Appendix E
Yuma Integrated Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 1: Interactive Map Comments
49

Appendix E
City of Yuma Integrated Multimodal
Transportation Master Plan
Public Outreach Round 1
Survey Results

Appendix E
416
Total Responses for Yuma Region
336
Responses Pertaining to City of Yuma
2

Appendix E
In which area of the Yuma region do you primarily
travel? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 336 Skipped: 0
120.00%
100.00%
100.00% Other Responses:
80.00% • Foothills
60.00% • ADOT Facilities
40.00% 24.40% 24.40% 23.51% • Arizona Western College
20.00% 7.44% 6.85% 6.25% 5.36% • Mohawk Valley
0.00% • Calexico
• Gadsen
• Tacna
3

Appendix E
What modes of transportation do you use regularly?
(Check all that apply)
Answered: 336 Skipped: 0
100.00% 93.15%
90.00%
80.00% Other Responses:
70.00% • Skateboard/Rollerblades
60.00% • Work Truck
50.00%
40.00% • Golf Cart
30.00% 22.92% 21.13% • Commercial Dump Trucks
20.00% 10.42% 10.12% • GSA Vehicle
10.00% 3.57% 1.79% • UTV
0.00%
• Flying
• 50cc Moped
4

Appendix E
Why do you choose to use the transportation modes
you checked above? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 335 Skipped: 1
80.00% 74.33%
70.00% 66.87% Other Responses:
60.00% 53.13% • Recreation
50.00% 38.21% 37.91% • Exercise
40.00%
30.00% • No public transit
20.00% 14.33% 12.54% • Car-dependent infrastructure
10.00% • Traffic
0.00%
5

Appendix E
What are the main reasons you travel? (Check all that
apply)
Answered: 335 Skipped: 1
90.00%
80.60% Other Responses:
80.00% • School
70.00% 67.76% • Daycare
60.00% 54.63% 54.33% • Recreation
50.00% 48.06% • Church
40.00% • City Council Meetings
30.00% • Cemetery
20.00% • Canadian Snowbird
10.75%
10.00%
0.00%
Shopping Work To visit family Entertainment Medical Other (please
and/or errands and/or friends purposes specify)
6

Appendix E
What is your biggest transportation challenge or
concern?
Answered: 327 Skipped: 9
35.00% 32.42% Other Responses:
30.00% • Poor placement of roads/signals
25.00% 23.24% • Bus stops having no shade
20.00% • Roads in disrepair
14.68% • Need more bike lanes
15.00%
11.01% 10.09% • High gas prices
10.00%
5.20% • Heat
5.00% 3.36%
• Lack of cleanliness
0.00% • Expensive flight prices
• Poor signal timing
• Lack of ADA Access
• Railroad blocking access to Welton
7

Appendix E
How would you rate roadway surface conditions on
corridors you typically travel on?
Answered: 333 Skipped: 3
2.50
2.27
2.00
1.50
Weighted Average
1.00
0.50
0.00
star
8

Appendix E
How would you rate the condition of sidewalks, bike
lanes, and/or shared use paths you typically travel on?
Answered: 333 Skipped: 3
2.50 2.21
2.00
1.50
1.00 Weighted Average
0.50
0.00 star
9

Appendix E
How would you rate the condition of the buses you
typically travel on?
Answered: 331 Skipped: 5
3
2.5 2.45
2
1.5 Weighted Average
1
0.5
0
star
10

Appendix E
Please check all the statements that are true for
you regarding bicycling.
Answered: 333 Skipped: 3
50.00% 45.95%
45.05%
45.00%
40.00% 38.14%
34.83%
35.00% Other Responses:
30.93%
30.00% • Little shade to make it comfortable
25.00% 21.02% • Need more bike lanes
20.00%
• Medical disability
15.00%
9.01% • Other drivers
10.00% 7.21% 6.91%
5.00% • Poor scenery
0.00%
I do not feel I do not ride a My I would ride a There are I do not own I do not feel Other (please I feel safe and
safe riding a bicycle destinations bicycle more missing/no a bicycle. safe riding a specify) confident
bicycle on because are too far if I felt safer. bicycle bicycle on riding a
existing driving is away to facilities on separated bicycle.
roads. easier or bicycle to and the way to bicycle
more from. and from my facilities.
convenient. destinations.
11

Appendix E
Please check all the statements that are true for you
regarding walking.
Answered: 332 Skipped: 4
60.00% 52.71%
49.40%
50.00% 41.27% Other Responses:
40.00%
30.00% 27.11% 25.00% • Weather
20.00% 17.77% 17.77% • Medical Disability
10.00% 9.94% 6.93% • Missing crosswalks and ramps (ADA)
0.00% • Sidewalk in poor condition
far from. there driving and to on felt specify) on the
too if to to choose able. walking road. I if walking from
are and more shade. more missing/no way destinations. I'm a to more
to more because or convenient. the walking and safe next safer. (please safe back road.
destinations walk walk walk easier are on my enjoy when feel walk Other feel set
to would was is There sidewalks from I destinations so do not sidewalks would not sidewalks
My away I don’t do I do
I I I
12

Appendix E
Please check all the statements that are true for you
regarding using the bus/transit.
Answered: 324 Skipped: 12
80.00% 73.15%
70.00%
60.00% Other Responses:
50.00% • Bus does not run frequently enough
40.00%
30.00% 27.16% • Transit stops not clearly marked
20.00% 16.98% 12.65% 11.11% 8.95% 8.95% 6.48% • Routes are complicated
10.00%
0.00% • No shade at bus stops
because more home far transit. bus specify) I if able riding
or transit my too by or safe at more more I'm safe
transit easier convenient. no near destination. are served feel waiting stops. (please transit or comfortable. when to. feel transit.
use is are destinations not Other use safer transit not
don’t driving There stations/stops or not or do I comfortable would felt do I
take
I My away I I
13

Appendix E
Rank in order of importance what you think is the greatest transportation
need where you travel regularly in the region today. (highest importance at
the top, lowest importance at the bottom)
Answered: 323 Skipped: 13
4.00 3.67
3.37
3.50 3.21
3.00
2.47
2.50 2.27
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Improve surface Reduce Improve safety for Provide more Make public
conditions congestion on all users. bicycling and transit more
(pavement, roadways. walking facilities. frequent and
sidewalks, accessible.
intersections, etc.)
14

Appendix E
Rank in order of importance what you think would be most effective at
improving safety. (highest importance at the top, lowest importance at the
bottom)
Answered: 315 Skipped: 21
4.50
4.00 3.84
3.44
3.50
2.97
3.00 2.74
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Wider roadways Increased More signalized Education Narrower
or intersections. enforcement of roadway crossings regarding the risks roadways or
traffic laws. for pedestrians of unsafe travel intersections.
and bicyclists. behaviors.
15

Appendix E
Which two modes of transportation do you think should be
focused on when planning for improvements? (Check only your
top two)
Answered: 334 Skipped: 2
80.00%
70.00% 66.77% Other Responses:
60.00% • Motorcycles
50.00% 44.01% 41.92% • Rail
40.00% 34.43% • Agriculture Machinery
30.00%
20.00% 14.67% • Wheelchairs and mobility
10.00% 5.09% 3.29% scooters
0.00%
16

Appendix E
Where do you live?
Answered: 313 Skipped: 3
70.00%
61.02%
60.00% Other Responses:
50.00% • Foothills
40.00% • Tempte
30.00% • Gasden
20.00% 13.42% 12.78% • Tacna
10.00% 5.11% 3.51% 3.51%
0.64% 0.00%
0.00%
17

Appendix E
How long is the typical commute to work?
Answered: 318 Skipped: 18
40.00%
36.48%
35.00%
29.25%
30.00%
25.00%
19.50%
20.00%
15.00%
10.38%
10.00%
4.40%
5.00%
0.00%
Less than 15 15 to 30 minutes N/A 30 to 45 minutes Longer than 45
minutes minutes
18

Appendix E
What gender do you identify as?
Answered: 314 Skipped: 22
60.00%
49.68%
50.00%
44.59%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
5.41%
0.32%
0.00%
Female Male Other Prefer not to answer
19

Appendix E
What is your current age range?
Answered: 317 Skipped: 19
35.00% 33.12%
30.00% 28.08%
25.00%
20.19%
20.00% 17.67%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.95%
0.00%
0.00%
Under 18 18-34 35-49 50-64 65 or Older Over 60
20

Appendix E
What is your ethnicity/race?
Answered: 314 Skipped: 22
50.00%
45.00% 43.31%
40.76%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00% 10.83%
10.00%
5.00% 1.91% 1.91% 0.96%
0.32% 0.00%
0.00%
White or Hispanic or Prefer not American Other Asian or Black or Native
Caucasian Latino to answer Indian or (please Asian African Hawaiian
Alaska specify) American American or other
Native Pacific
Islander
21

Appendix E
Which of the following applies to you? (Check all that
apply)
Answered: 313 Skipped: 23
90.00%
80.00% 77.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
18.21%
20.00%
8.63% 7.35%
10.00% 3.83% 3.19% 2.24%
0.96%
0.00%
Home Renter Student Business Military Other Winter Tourist
Owner Owner (please Visitor
specify)
22

Appendix E
Yuma Transportation Master Plan / YMPO Long-Range Transportation Plan
December 7, 2024 – Yuma Downtown Christmas
Event Summary Notes
Staffing
• Kimley-Horn was in attendance at the Yuma Downtown Winter Fest, and shared a table with
the City of Yuma and Core Engineering
o 2 Kimley-Horn staff (Michael Grandy, Joseph Cuffari)
o 2 City of Yuma staff (Steve Wilson, Dave Wostenberg)
o Core Engineering was on-site and focused on discussing the Yuma ADA project
• Staff were available on-site from 3PM-7PM
• It is estimated that there were 60 meaningful conversations with event attendees.
Booth, Table, Project Materials
• The event booth consisted of flyers, postcards and project information
• Event boards focused on priority rankings, project descriptions, and a call to action. The
priority rankings and votes for each is shown in the table below:
Rank Regional Priority Topic Number of Votes
1 Improve pavement surface of roads 50
2 Add shared-use paths/sidewalks/bike lanes 35
3 Widen existing roads 28
4 Widen I-8 to six lanes 21
5 Install more roundabouts 20
6 Provide new traffic interchanges on I-8 16
7 – tie Add more traffic signals 15
7 – tie Improve transit service 15
8 Provide new local roads 14
9 Other ideas 12
• The event table featured 5 different boxes where participants could “pay” or vote for what
should be prioritized when looking at transportation infrastructure enhancements. The box
topics and count of votes for each is shown in the table below:
Rank Investment Priority Topic Number of Votes
1 Expand Biking/Walking/Transit Infrastructure 28
2 Improve Safety 19
3 Promote Healthy Lifestyle Choices 18
4 Maintain Existing Transportation Infrastructure 16
5 Expand Roadway Network 15
Feedback from Attendees
• Widen 24th Street between Avenue B and Avenue C. Make it 2 through lanes in each
direction.
• 16th Street at the police garage, widen to 3 lanes each direction

Appendix E
• Widen roads in business areas. Too much abrupt stopping of people not knowing where
they are going.
• Pacific Avenue potential connection to the freeway:
o Be careful to not adversely impact the 16th Street traffic interchange
o Make off ramps right turn only when going south on Pacific Avenue
• Reduce medians to widen lanes, use jersey barriers
• Spend money where needed
• Remove all roundabouts, they don’t work
• Araby Road gets backed up with trucks driving through there
• Amtrak needs a safer platform, needs lights, not a safe feeling
• Need for a freeway loop around town
• Safety education needed:
o Yellow light running
o How to interact with a roundabout
o Pedestrian/bike habits and behaviors
Photos
A few photos from the event are included below.

Appendix E

Appendix E
Yuma Transportation Master Plan Public Outreach Round 3 July 15, 2025
Submission time Location First name Last name Email Your Thoughts, Ideas, Concerns:
Dear Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization and City of Yuma,
As a community member and healthcare professional, I respectfully ask that you consider expanding public transportation routes to improve access to medical care across Yuma County.
Many patients and families in our area face significant transportation barriers when trying to reach local clinics, hospitals, and urgent care facilities. In particular, Sunset Health's newest clinic site in Somerton would benefit from a nearby bus stop to support residents in accessing essential healthcare services.
Additionally, patients at the Wellton clinic currently must travel into Yuma for pharmacy services, which is a challenge for those without reliable transportation. A bus route linking Wellton to Yuma could help ensure timely access to medications and follow-up care.
Separately, I encourage transit planners to consider direct routes to local hospitals and urgent care to better support individuals with more complex or emergency medical needs. Routes with Sunset Health in mind would be awesome.
Sunset's Community Health Workers also assist patients with AHCCCS enrollment, helping many avoid the need to visit the DES office in Yuma. Improved transportation would support these efforts and bring greater healthcare access to underserved neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time and for considering the needs of Yuma County residents.
Sincerely,
2025-07-11T01:20:41.366Z YMPO and Transit Marina Garcia mgarcia@mysunsethealth.org
Marina Garcia
Healthcare Advocate & Community Member
Sunset Health Clinic Locations
Yuma Clinic
Services: Pediatric Medicine, Adult Medicine, Family Medicine, Women’s Health, Behavioral Health, Psychiatry, Dental, Pharmacy
2060 W. 24th Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
North Yuma Clinic – Building A
Services: Pediatric Medicine, Adult Medicine, Family Medicine, Behavioral Health
675 S. Avenue B
Yuma, AZ 85364
2025-07-10T17:56:37.537Z Yuma JR Aguiklar jraguilar@ympo.org I would like to propose a multi use pathway from East 26th Pl. at the B 3.7 lateral to 16th Street and use the support of the Bureau of Reclamation to allow us to use there right of way for the entire length. The Transportation Alternative program would be a great ay to fund this project for the following years.
2025-07-08T17:33:42.334Z YMPO and Transit Elizabeth Jones elizabethrjones95@gmail.com I think it'd be great if YCAT was offered actual pull over areas instead of backing up traffic and more designated bus stop areas. Offering shaded bus stop areas with benches is especially vital during the summer time.
After review of the mapping area it looks like the plan is to have 40th St run from Foothills Blvd all the way to Araby which I think is great especially with all the new houses that are being built.
2025-07-08T16:05:04.266Z County, Yuma and ADOT Jennifer Cofske jharper4782@gmail.com
On 32nd St and 8 E going west there needs to be a right hand turn lane for all getting onto the freeway. There are right hand turn lanes on all 3 other parts of that intersection except when traveling West. This would free up the flow of traffic for those getting onto the freeway or traveling to the northbound frontage road to get to all the
schools.
2025-07-07T18:03:26.957Z Yuma Janine Lane janinelane@gmail.com Please add a crosswalk across 26th St at the Southwest corner of the Walmart building so when people get off of the bus they can cross the road to walk down 23rd Ave. I personally walk that route once in a while and frequently see pedestrians frequently walk that route too.
1st thing for sure all yuma residents will like to able take the bus on Sunday.
2nd bus should have reload card and have NFC payment with phone. Like in Phoenix.
2025-07-03T18:24:15.436Z Transit francisco villa Franciscojvilla57@yahoo.com
I live in San luis, az
We need pick up in ave F.
I know driver need day off in holiday and spend time with family. But there are alot of residents from San luis, Somerton have work in yuma or somethibg to do yuma Like hospital vist.
The wall that is blocking through traffic on Palo Verde by the dog park should be taken down so that the traffic may flow more smoothly towards Pacific... meaning, the people who live in Palo Verde Estates subdivision shouldn't have to wind through the neighborhood, burning more fuel and time than necessary, when they could
simply travel the length of Palo Verde straight from Arizona to Pacific. It makes no sense to block off Palo Verde from through traffic, causing everyone to have to detour around through the neighborhood to reach Pacific. Take down that brick wall, which doesn't look like it should be there, and open the road up for traffic. I have to
2025-06-26T19:39:22.742Z Yuma Lisa Geraurd Lrgeraurd@gmail.com
assert that the original intent of the City was to have traffic flow through from Arizona to Pacific on Palo Verde, and on through to Avenue 3E. As I'm sure you are aware, it is dangerous to leave the Palo Verde Estates neighborhood on Windsor and attempt to cross 32nd Street to turn left onto 32nd, especially when the snowbirds are
in town. So that isn't the answer. This should really be addressed, and I would like an answer as to why they wall is up and blocking Palo Verde.
2025-06-26T00:52:44.410Z Transit Galilea Arreola Ortiz arrgalilea@gmail.com I'm not sure if bus transits are included, but more busse and constant bus routes should be made. As of now bus routes and times are not constant and canceled or change on different days. Its not accessible to transit around yuma in the bus.
2025-06-25T18:20:59.992Z Yuma and County Darren Simmons Darren.Simmons@yumacountyaz.gov More attention needs to be paid to arteries going to and from the Foothills. Traffic congestion is already a huge problem along the Frontage Roads and I-8. 40th Street between 8 1/2E and 10E should be a priority. County 14th as well to Fortuna and Foothills Blvd.
Connect 40th Street from 6E to 8E
My destinations are too shopping and/or errands, and currently my only route is north on 6E to 32nd Street. Will reduce current congestion issues. Will improve roadway conditions (i.e., safety, pavement conditions, and congestion). Reduce wear & tear on 6E. Investment would support a future Regionally Significant Route; a
2025-06-21T01:00:29.903Z Yuma Cynthia Peck cynthia.peck.az@gmail.com
route that needs to be considered for 2026-2027.
Very unfortunate to see that the work for 40th, 8E, 10E in foothills is not a bigger priority given the significant increaze in housing in this area, increased traffic congestion and accidents. How is it okay to add 300 new homes on 10 E with the no final plan to widen the road or install a light at 10E or open up 40th? Hopefully this
2025-06-19T21:18:42.988Z Yuma and County Alyssa Pepple alyssa012889@gmail.com
becomes a bigger priority and can be funded sooner.
The highway offramp to 16th street towards the mall is consistently congested. There is traffic backed up and causes cars to pull over off the emergency shoulder of the road to get in line just to exit. This is extremely dangerous and I hope part of the recommendations is to turn the offramp into wider road, longer offramp that starts
2025-06-19T17:17:11.846Z Yuma and ADOT John Durazo john@yivwm.com
sooner.
2025-06-19T01:46:47.837Z Yuma Banook Rodarte banookcool@yahoo.com We need speed bumps on May ave here in Yuma Arizona.people are driving to fast and they are hitting cats ,dogs and chickens .there are speed bumps on 5 th street.please add speed bumps on May ave .there are kids that live on May ave and 5 th street.i am worried about them getting hurt or killed by speeders
2025-06-18T16:15:16.725Z Transit Tanya Gesse tanyag@sprintmail.com Thank you of thinking of improving public transport in Yuma! My wishlist: 1. Bus from the Foothills to the airport. 2. Bus from Yuma to Phoenix.
I strongly urge this planning development to consider a designated bike path along Ave 15E and the south frontage road down to foothills blvd. This is a VERY busy biking road during snowbird season and its only a matter of time before a bicycle is hit by traffic traveling well over the 45mph speed limit. If youre not aware of how
2025-06-18T13:01:05.031Z County Kevin Pierce kpfoxrider@gmail.com
much bicycle traffic the community uses this narrow road for during winter i highly suggest the city look into this and create a safer bicycle path along the side of the road. This is most likely one of the busiest bicycle routes used in Yuma county. Thank you.
Maps of congestion and future 2050 congestion are ludicrous. 16th street is constantly experiencing backups specifically in the 4th Avenue to Arizona Avenue corridor. 3 lanes in this stretch of road is a must and it is crazy that it’s taken this long and that you guys don’t think it will be a problem in 25 years. The stop light on 1st
Avenue and 16th Street is by far the biggest reason for this congestion. Removing that light would make traffic flows marginally better and the very little existing traffic on first Avenue can simply navigate to 4th Avenue or Arizona Avenue.
On another note, connectivity to San Luis from Yuma is poor. Highway 95 works great for border crossing but for accessibility to San Luis Arizona, it doesn’t work great as you have to go through Somerton and it leaves you in the West most side of town. Avenue B is also a joke. The congestion on that road is horrible and could simply
2025-06-17T21:06:19.351Z Yuma and County Wyatt Brack wyattbrack@icloud.com
be prevented by expanding the roadway. I see the plans to extend Avenue D all the way and this excites me. However, my fear is that it will end up just like Avenue B being heavily congested. I believe adding another lane to Avenue B along with extending Avenue D and Avenue G will provide plenty of route options to get exactly
where you need to be and future proof the region.
Finally, 12th Street needs to be extended across the Main Lateral Canal. Unfortunately, 20th and 28th are both lost causes due to the city’s poor planning, but 12th street seems as though it was actually thought out so that makes me hopeful.
2025-06-17T01:26:15.458Z Yuma Robert Johnson bobjohnsoninyuma@yahoo.com We need to modify the entrance and exit to Desert View School at 16th st and Ave C. No left turns into the school due to the traffic back up on 16th st almost 1/2 mile. A center median on 16th from Ave C and a signal at 16th st and 33 drive.
The area between Ave 3E and Ave 5E, south of 32nd Street has a heavy concentration of industrial users, (semi truck).
2025-06-16T17:13:34.682Z Yuma Robert Woodman Lmngwr@aol.com The intersections of Ave 3 1/2 E and Ave 4E both on 32nd Street do not have right turn radius's that accomodate semi trucks. The same problem exists fon Ave 4E and 40th Street. Semis trucks cannot make right hand turns without crossing over the turn lanes of the perpendicular street. This will get worse with the addition of the
Amazon DC and other projects beibg planned.

Appendix E
Yuma Transportation Master Plan Draft Recommended Projects: Near-Term (2026-2030) June 11, 2025
Facility Roadway Safety/ Project is Priority in
Multimodal Community Composite Final Planning-Level Cost
KHID Name Primary Route From/At To Type Quality Operational Vision Zero Previous Plan? Rank Facility Owner Timeframe
Integration Score Health Score Score Score ($2025)
Score Efficiency Score Approach Score (Yes/No)
R-07 Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue 3E and Avenue 4E 40th Street Avenue 3E Avenue 4E Roadway Widening 100.0 68.0 20.0 20.6 30.0 50.7 Yes 100.7 1 City of Yuma $ 9,270,000 Near
R-08 New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes from Avenue 6E to Avenue 6 ¾ E 40th Street Avenue 6E Avenue 6 ¾ E New Roadway 70.0 73.0 20.0 20.4 30.0 44.2 Yes 94.2 2 City of Yuma $ 8,900,000 Near
R-06 Roadway Widening, 16th Street from 4 to 6 Lanes between 3rd Avenue and Maple Avenue 16th Street 3rd Avenue Maple Avenue Roadway Widening 40.0 49.0 57.6 20.1 6.3 38.9 Yes 88.9 3 City of Yuma $ 2,900,000 Near
R-46 Roadway Widening, Avenue 10E from 2 to 4 Lanes between 32nd Street and 40th Street Avenue 10E 32nd Street 40th Street Roadway Widening 70.0 35.0 34.3 0.6 0.0 33.2 Yes 83.2 5 City of Yuma $ 9,020,000 Near
R-15 New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes from Avenue 8 ¾ E to Avenue 10E 40th Street Avenue 8 ¾ E Avenue 10E New Roadway 55.0 66.5 1.2 0.7 0.0 27.5 Yes 77.5 10 City of Yuma $ 21,960,000 Near
R-45 Roadway Widening, Avenue 9E from 2 to 4 Lanes between South Gila Canal and North Frontage Road Avenue 9E South Gila Canal North Frontage Road Roadway Widening 55.0 31.5 20.0 0.6 0.0 25.2 Yes 75.2 12 City of Yuma $ 9,510,000 Near
B-007 Restripe to Add Shoulder, 28th Street Westbound from Avenue B to 21st Drive 28th Street Avenue B 21st Drive Bicyclist Lane 15.0 0.0 42.3 29.4 32.3 23.4 Yes 73.4 16 City of Yuma $ 30,000 Near
M-04 Pathway, 1st Street from Avenue B to 4th Avenue 1st Street 4th Avenue Avenue B Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 42.6 31.6 40.8 21.1 Yes 71.1 21 City of Yuma $ 3,380,000 Near
R-13 New Roadway, 40th Street with 4 Lanes from Avenue 8E to Avenue 8 ½ E 40th Street Avenue 8E Avenue 8 ½ E New Roadway 55.0 33.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 20.4 Yes 70.4 22 City of Yuma $ 9,040,000 Near
I-43 Turn Lane, 32nd Street and Arizona Avenue 32nd Street Arizona Avenue Intersection 40.0 24.0 20.0 0.7 0.0 19.9 Yes 69.9 24 City of Yuma $ 860,000 Near
M-05 Pathway, 28th Street from East Main Canal to Avenue A 28th Street East Main Canal Avenue A Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 25.9 32.1 18.4 Yes 68.4 36 City of Yuma $ 570,000 Near
P-02 Sidewalk, 22nd Street from 8th Avenue to 6th Avenue 22nd Street 8th Avenue 6th Avenue Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 25.8 30.0 18.2 Yes 68.2 40 City of Yuma $ 120,000 Near
C-21 Crossing, 21st Drive from Gary A Knox Elementary to Main Library 21st Drive Gary A Knox Elementary Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 40.0 25.7 30.0 18.1 Yes 68.1 41 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
P-37 Sidewalk, 16th Street between 3rd Avenue and Maple Avenue (included in roadway widening) 16th Street 3rd Avenue Maple Avenue Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 42.6 20.9 32.1 18.0 Yes 68.0 43 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-64 Pathway, Avenue 6E from 32nd Street to 36th Street Avenue 6E 32nd Street 36th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 23.1 32.3 17.9 Yes 67.9 45 City of Yuma $ 1,080,000 Near
P-03 Sidewalk, 4th Avenue/32nd Street at Big Curve 32nd Street 4th Avenue 32nd Street Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.1 36.4 17.7 Yes 67.7 48 City of Yuma $ 300,000 Near
C-43 Crossing, Avenue 6E and 36th Street Avenue 6E 36th Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 40.0 22.1 32.3 17.7 Yes 67.7 49 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
P-08 Sidewalk Gaps, Pacific Avenue from 28th Street to 32nd Street Pacific Avenue 28th Street 32nd Street Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 21.7 30.0 17.3 Yes 67.3 51 City of Yuma $ 570,000 Near
M-59 Pathway, Avenue 10E between 32nd Street and 40th Street (included in roadway widening) Avenue 10E 32nd Street 40th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.6 32.3 17.3 Yes 67.3 52 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-54 Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 6 ¾ E and Avenue 8E (included in roadway widening) 40th Street Avenue 6 ¾ E Avenue 8E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 21.3 30.0 17.3 Yes 67.3 53 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-51 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 8E to Avenue 8 ½ E (included in new roadway) 40th Street Avenue 8E Avenue 8 ½ E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 21.0 30.0 17.2 Yes 67.2 54 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-52 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 8 ¾ E to Avenue 10E (included in new roadway) 40th Street Avenue 8 ¾ E Avenue 10E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.7 30.0 17.1 Yes 67.1 56 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-53 Pathway, Avenue 9E between South Gila Canal and North Frontage Road (included in roadway widening) Avenue 9E South Gila Canal North Frontage Road Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.6 30.0 17.1 Yes 67.1 57 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-49 Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 3E and Avenue 4E (included in roadway widening) 40th Street Avenue 3E Avenue 4E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.6 30.0 17.1 Yes 67.1 58 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-50 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 6E to Avenue 6 ¾ E (included in new roadway) 40th Street Avenue 6E Avenue 6 ¾ E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.5 30.0 17.1 Yes 67.1 60 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-55 Pathway, 40th Street between Avenue 8 ½ E and Avenue 8 ¾ E (included in roadway widening) 40th Street Avenue 8 ½ E Avenue 8 ¾ E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.2 30.0 17.0 Yes 67.0 61 City of Yuma $ - Near
M-07 Pathway, 32nd Street from Avenue 3E to Avenue 5E 32nd Street Avenue 3E Avenue 5E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 41.3 1.2 30.0 13.6 Yes 63.6 64 City of Yuma $ 4,480,000 Near
T-01 4th Avenue and 24th Street Corridors Bus Stop Shelters/Amenities (10) 4th Avenue and 24th Street DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 11.7 15.7 69.5 13.0 Yes 63.0 66 YCIPTA $ 980,000 Near
R-14 Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue 6 ¾ E and Avenue 8E 40th Street Avenue 6 ¾ E Avenue 8E Roadway Widening 40.0 6.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 11.4 Yes 61.4 76 City of Yuma $ 11,650,000 Near
R-47 Roadway Widening, 40th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue 8 ½ E and Avenue 8 ¾ E 40th Street Avenue 8 ½ E Avenue 8 ¾ E Roadway Widening 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 Yes 60.0 78 City of Yuma $ 2,630,000 Near
T-08 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street WB at Pacific Avenue for Green 4 and Purple 6A 32nd Street Pacific Avenue Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.7 0.0 5.1 Yes 55.1 82 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Near
T-02 Blue 5 and Turquoise 10 transit services – Schedule Coordination Blue 5 and Turquoise 10 Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ - Near
T-03 Green 4A Catalina Loop transit service School Day capacity increase Green 4A Catalina Loop Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ 30,000 Near
T-04 Green 4A Catalina Loop transit service conversion from fixed route to FLEX deviation Green 4A Catalina Loop Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ - Near
R-12 Grade Separation, 40th Street with 4 Lanes at SR 195 40th Street SR 195 New Roadway 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Yes 52.6 90 City of Yuma $ 15,920,000 Near
I-41 Turn Lane, Avenue 3E and I-8 Eastbound Ramp Avenue 3E I-8 Eastbound Ramp Intersection 40.0 90.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 No 33.0 92 ADOT $ 530,000 Near
C-19 Crossing, Add Pedestrian Island to 32nd Street and East Main Canal Crossing 32nd Street East Main Canal Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 43.6 22.1 32.1 18.5 No 18.5 104 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
M-73 Pathway, Arizona Avenue from 17th Street to 22nd Street Arizona Avenue 16th Street Palo Verde Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 25.4 34.4 18.5 No 18.5 105 City of Yuma $ 1,690,000 Near
C-11 Crossing, Arizona Avenue and 22nd Street Arizona Avenue 22nd Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 40.0 25.0 32.1 18.2 No 18.2 109 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
P-38 Sidewalk, Engler Avenue from 24th Place to San Marcos Drive Engler Avenue 24th Place San Marcos Drive Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 23.0 30.0 17.6 No 17.6 117 City of Yuma $ 260,000 Near
C-28 Crossing, Engler Avenue and 25th Place Engler Avenue 25th Place Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 40.0 22.9 30.0 17.6 No 17.6 118 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Near
M-76 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue 4E to Avenue 6E 40th Street Avenue 4E Avenue 6E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 21.4 32.3 17.5 No 17.5 119 City of Yuma $ 5,450,000 Near
P-39 Sidewalk, 18th Street from Arizona Avenue to Riley Avenue 18th Street Arizona Avenue Riley Avenue Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.8 32.1 17.4 No 17.4 122 City of Yuma $ 170,000 Near

Appendix E
Yuma Transportation Master Plan Draft Recommended Projects: Mid-Term (2031-2035) June 11, 2025
Facility Roadway Safety/ Project is Priority in
Multimodal Community Composite Final Planning-Level Cost
KHID Name Primary Route From/At To Type Quality Operational Vision Zero Previous Plan? Rank Facility Owner Timeframe
Integration Score Health Score Score Score ($2025)
Score Efficiency Score Approach Score (Yes/No)
R-10 Roadway Widening, County 14th Street from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue A and Avenue 3E County 14th Street Avenue A Avenue 3E Roadway Widening 55.0 61.0 12.0 1.7 0.0 29.3 Yes 79.3 6 City of Yuma $ 27,970,000 Mid
R-09 Roadway Widening, Airport Loop/4th Avenue from 2 to 4 Lanes between Avenue A and County 14th Street Airport Loop/4th Avenue Avenue A County 14th Street Roadway Widening 55.0 53.0 15.5 0.6 2.1 28.5 Yes 78.5 7 City of Yuma $ 9,580,000 Mid
R-11 Roadway Widening, Avenue 2E from 2 to 4 Lanes between County 14th Street and County 15th Street Avenue 2E County 14th Street County 15th Street Roadway Widening 55.0 48.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 23.6 Yes 73.6 15 Yuma County $ 9,290,000 Mid
M-82 Pathway, Giss Parkway/8th Street from Gila Street to Castle Dome Avenue Giss Parkway/8th Street Gila Street Castle Dome Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 35.4 32.1 20.3 Yes 70.3 23 City of Yuma $ 4,140,000 Mid
I-11 Turn Lane, 16th Street and Pacific Avenue 16th Street Pacific Avenue Intersection 30.0 31.5 22.6 0.7 0.0 19.6 Yes 69.6 29 City of Yuma $ 530,000 Mid
M-48 Pathway, 32nd Street from Avenue 5E to Avenue 7 ½ E 32nd Street Avenue 5E Avenue 7 ½ E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 45.9 22.1 32.3 19.1 Yes 69.1 31 City of Yuma $ 5,500,000 Mid
I-18 Intersection Safety, 16th Street and Avenue B 16th Street Avenue B Intersection 30.0 30.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 18.8 Yes 68.8 32 City of Yuma $ 1,060,000 Mid
C-02 Crossing, 16th Street and Thacker Lateral/33rd Drive 16th Street Thacker Lateral Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 43.6 22.1 30.0 18.3 Yes 68.3 37 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Mid
B-166 Bicyclist Lane, Castle Dome Avenue from 8th Street to Yuma Palms Parkway Castle Dome Avenue 8th Street Yuma Palms Parkway Bicyclist Lane 15.0 0.0 40.0 2.1 30.0 17.2 Yes 67.2 55 City of Yuma $ 140,000 Mid
T-06 Bus Pullout, 4th Avenue NB at 24th Street for Yellow 95 4th Avenue 24th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 2.9 2.1 6.1 Yes 56.1 80 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Mid
T-07 Bus Pullout, 4th Avenue SB at 24th Street for Yellow 95 4th Avenue 24th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 2.1 0.0 5.8 Yes 55.8 81 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Mid
I-40 Turn Lane, 16th Street and I-8 Westbound Ramp 16th Street I-8 Westbound Ramp Intersection 40.0 55.5 20.7 0.7 0.0 26.4 No 26.4 93 ADOT $ 530,000 Mid
C-47 Crossing, Avenue A and 36th Street Avenue A 36th Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 46.0 30.0 34.4 20.9 No 20.9 94 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Mid
M-72 Pathway, Araby Road from 24th Street to 26th Street Araby Road 24th Street 26th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 23.0 50.0 19.6 No 19.6 97 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Mid
R-19 Median Extension, Avenue 6E between 32nd Street and 40th Street Avenue 6E 32nd Street 40th Street Roadway Widening 30.0 8.0 35.6 0.6 2.3 18.3 No 18.3 106 City of Yuma $ 1,910,000 Mid
M-84 Pathway, 12th Street from Avenue B to 14th Avenue (excluding bridge over canal) 12th Street Avenue B 14th Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 41.3 23.3 32.3 18.2 No 18.2 108 City of Yuma $ 1,650,000 Mid
M-65 Pathway, Avenue 6E from 36th Street to 41st Street Avenue 6E 36th Street 41st Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 41.3 23.2 30.0 18.0 No 18.0 112 City of Yuma $ 1,390,000 Mid
M-74 Pathway, Pacific Avenue from 8th Street to 12th Street Pacific Avenue 8th Street 12th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 23.1 32.1 17.8 No 17.8 113 City of Yuma $ 1,110,000 Mid
M-66 Pathway, 8th Street from Castle Dome Avenue to Pacific Avenue 8th Street Castle Dome Avenue Pacific Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 23.1 32.1 17.8 No 17.8 114 City of Yuma $ 980,000 Mid
C-49 Bicyclist/Pedestrian Bridge, East Main Canal/12th Street Alignment 12th Street East Main Canal Bicyclist/Pedestrian Bridge 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.7 32.3 17.4 No 17.4 121 City of Yuma $ 2,070,000 Mid
M-56 Pathway, County 14th Street between Avenue A and Avenue 3E (included in roadway widening) County 14th Street Avenue A Avenue 3E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 21.7 30.0 17.3 No 17.3 123 City of Yuma $ - Mid
M-58 Pathway, Airport Loop/4th Avenue between Avenue A and County 14th Street (included in roadway widening) Airport Loop/4th Avenue Avenue A County 14th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.6 30.0 17.1 No 17.1 124 City of Yuma $ - Mid
M-57 Pathway, Avenue 2E between County 14th Street and County 15th Street (included in roadway widening) Avenue 2E County 14th Street County 15th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.6 30.0 17.1 No 17.1 125 City of Yuma $ - Mid

Appendix E
Yuma Transportation Master Plan Draft Recommended Projects: Long-Term (2036-2050) June 11, 2025
Facility Roadway Safety/ Project is Priority in
Multimodal Community Composite Final Planning-Level Cost
KHID Name Primary Route From/At To Type Quality Operational Vision Zero Previous Plan? Rank Facility Owner Timeframe
Integration Score Health Score Score Score ($2025)
Score Efficiency Score Approach Score (Yes/No)
R-01 Roadway Widening, I-8 from 4 to 6 Lanes between Avenue 10E and 16th Street I-8 Avenue 10E 16th Street Roadway Widening 40.0 41.5 45.8 10.7 25.0 34.4 Yes 84.4 4 ADOT $ 129,410,000 Long
I-42 Turn Lane, 24th Street and 1st Avenue 24th Street 1st Avenue Intersection 55.0 41.5 20.0 0.7 11.0 28.3 Yes 78.3 8 City of Yuma $ 530,000 Long
R-05 Roadway Realignment/Expansion, Gila Ridge Road with 2 Lanes EB at the I-8/Avenue 5E Traffic Interchange Gila Ridge Road I-8 Eastbound Off-Ramp I-8 Eastbound On-Ramp New Roadway 60.0 48.5 13.3 0.6 0.0 28.1 Yes 78.1 9 City of Yuma $ 3,930,000 Long
T-30 Initiate new Red 7 transit service via 16th Street 16th Street DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 38.9 25.6 Yes 75.6 11 YCIPTA $ 570,000 Long
T-31 Restructure Green 4 transit service (Pacific Avenue/Avenue B) 3rd Street and Avenue B DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 57.6 79.2 24.8 Yes 74.8 13 YCIPTA $ - Long
T-16 Reroute Orange 2 transit service via 32nd Street and 4th Avenue to WYTH 32nd Street WYTH AWC/NAU/UA campus Transit 0.0 0.0 30.4 53.2 58.5 24.1 Yes 74.1 14 YCIPTA $ - Long
C-45 Crossing, 4th Avenue and Court Street 4th Avenue Court Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 60.0 20.7 34.4 22.6 Yes 72.6 17 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
C-46 Crossing, Avenue C and Crane Street Avenue C Crane Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 60.0 21.4 30.0 22.3 Yes 72.3 18 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
T-14 Discontinue Silver 9 transit service SR 195 AWC/NAU/UA campus WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 47.1 75.0 21.9 Yes 71.9 19 YCIPTA $ (190,000) Long
M-18 Pathway, Thacker Lateral Linear Park from West Main Canal to 24th Street Thacker Lateral Linear Park West Main Canal 24th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 42.6 33.0 43.6 21.6 Yes 71.6 20 City of Yuma $ 5,960,000 Long
T-17 Reroute Purple 6 transit service via 4th Avenue between 8th Street and 24th Street 4th Avenue 8th Street 24th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 29.1 37.1 52.1 19.9 Yes 69.9 25 YCIPTA $ - Long
T-29 Consolidate Orange 2 and Brown 3 transit services E 32nd Street and AWC/NAU/UA Campus Foothills Branch Library WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 39.0 70.5 19.8 Yes 69.8 26 YCIPTA $ - Long
C-44 Crossing, 4th Avenue and 4th Street-5th Street 4th Avenue 4th Street-5th Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 40.0 32.9 32.1 19.8 Yes 69.8 27 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
T-15 Initiate Gold 2X Express transit service I-8, 32nd Street, and AWC/NAU/UA Campus DYTC Ligurta and Wellton Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 43.2 56.6 19.6 Yes 69.6 28 YCIPTA $ 90,000 Long
M-12 Pathway, Colorado River Levee Linear Park from East Wetlands to Avenue 7E Colorado River Levee Linear Park East Wetlands Avenue 7E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 29.6 32.1 19.1 Yes 69.1 30 City of Yuma $ 12,240,000 Long
P-07 Sidewalk, Arizona Avenue/Walnut Avenue from 16th Street to 10th Street Arizona Avenue/Walnut Avenue 16th Street 10th Street Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 24.7 38.7 18.8 Yes 68.8 33 City of Yuma $ 2,130,000 Long
M-09 Pathway, 32nd Street from East Main Canal to Avenue A 32nd Street East Main Canal Avenue A Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 41.3 26.0 32.3 18.7 Yes 68.7 34 City of Yuma $ 1,010,000 Long
P-20 Sidewalk, 4th Avenue from Yuma Regional Corporate Center to 40th Street 4th Avenue Yuma Regional Corporate Center 40th Street Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.5 43.1 18.4 Yes 68.4 35 City of Yuma $ 1,400,000 Long
M-11 Pathway, B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park from 23rd Street to Pacific Avenue B 3.7 Lateral Linear Park 23rd Street Pacific Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 25.3 32.1 18.3 Yes 68.3 38 City of Yuma $ 1,060,000 Long
M-85 Pathway, Redondo Center Drive from 7th Street to 16th Street Redondo Center Drive 7th Street 16th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 23.9 34.4 18.2 Yes 68.2 39 City of Yuma $ 2,410,000 Long
P-05 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Pacific Avenue to Avenue 3E 32nd Street Pacific Avenue Avenue 3E Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 25.2 30.0 18.0 Yes 68.0 42 City of Yuma $ 1,330,000 Long
RR-01 Grade Separation, Avenue 9E with 4 Lanes at Railroad Crossing Avenue 9E Railroad Crossing Railroad Crossing 70.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 Yes 68.0 44 City of Yuma $ 11,920,000 Long
C-29 Crossing, 4th Avenue and 12th Street 4th Avenue 12th Street Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 40.0 22.9 32.1 17.8 Yes 67.8 46 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
M-86 Pathway, Redondo Center Drive from Giss Parkway to 7th Street Redondo Center Drive Giss Parkway 7th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 21.3 34.4 17.7 Yes 67.7 47 City of Yuma $ 1,080,000 Long
P-06 Sidewalk, 32nd Street from Winsor Avenue to Suni Sands RV Resort 32nd Street Winsor Avenue Suni Sands RV Resort Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 22.3 30.0 17.5 Yes 67.5 50 City of Yuma $ 340,000 Long
M-61 Pathway, Avenue 5E from 32nd Street to 24th Street (included in new roadway) Avenue 5E 32nd Street 24th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.6 30.0 17.1 Yes 67.1 59 City of Yuma $ - Long
M-62 Pathway, Avenue 9E Grade Separation at Railroad Crossing (included in grade separation project) Avenue 9E Railroad Crossing Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.1 30.0 17.0 Yes 67.0 62 City of Yuma $ - Long
T-28 Bus Pullout, 24th Street WB at Avenue A for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 24th Street Avenue A Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.7 52.3 14.4 Yes 64.4 63 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-27 Bus Pullout, Giss Parkway WB at Gila Street for Orange 2 and Green 4 Giss Parkway Gila Street Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 25.0 34.4 13.4 Yes 63.4 65 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-25 Bus Pullout, 21st Drive SB at 32nd Street for Purple 6A and Silver 9 21st Drive 32nd Street Transit 0.0 0.0 22.6 20.0 32.3 12.9 Yes 62.9 67 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-24 Bus Pullout, Redondo Center Drive NB at 16th Street for Green 4 Redondo Center Drive 16th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 21.3 20.0 34.4 12.8 Yes 62.8 68 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-39 Bus Pullout, 24th Street EB at 18th Avenue for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 24th Street 18th Avenue Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 21.4 32.3 12.5 Yes 62.5 69 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-26 Bus Pullout, 24th Street EB at 21st Drive for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 24th Street 21st Drive Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.7 32.3 12.4 Yes 62.4 70 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
R-04 New Roadway, Avenue 5E with 4 Lanes from 32nd Street to 24th Street Avenue 5E 32nd Street 24th Street New Roadway 30.0 18.0 4.6 0.6 0.0 12.4 Yes 62.4 71 City of Yuma $ 8,900,000 Long
T-35 Bus Pullout, Araby Road SB at 32nd Street for Gold 8 and Silver 9 Araby Road 32nd Street Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 72 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-36 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street EB at Avenue B for Purple 6A and Yellow 95 32nd Street Avenue B Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 72 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-37 Bus Pullout, Avenue B SB at 32nd Street for Purple 6A and Yellow 95 Avenue B 32nd Street Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 72 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-38 Bus Pullout, 32nd Street EB at Avenue 3E for Orange 2 32nd Street Avenue 3E Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 32.3 12.2 Yes 62.2 72 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
R-03 Full-Diamond Traffic Interchange, I-8 at Avenue 5E I-8 Avenue 5E Traffic Interchange 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.8 2.1 10.2 Yes 60.2 77 ADOT $ 64,300,000 Long
R-02 Half-Diamond Traffic Interchange, I-8 at Pacific Avenue I-8 Pacific Avenue Traffic Interchange 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.2 6.3 7.5 Yes 57.5 79 ADOT $ 18,240,000 Long
T-10 Bus Pullout, 26th Street WB at 23rd Avenue for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 26th Street 23rd Avenue Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.7 0.0 5.1 Yes 55.1 82 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-09 Bus Pullout, Avenue B NB at 24th Street for Green 4, Purple 6A, and Yellow 95 Avenue B 24th Street Transit 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Yes 55.0 84 City of Yuma $ 160,000 Long
T-12 Add bus to Yellow 95 transit service - Saturdays from DYTC to WYTH DYTC to WYTH DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ 500,000 Long
T-13 Add bus to Yellow 95 transit service - Weekdays from DYTC to WYTH DYTC to WYTH DYTC WYTH Transit 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 Yes 54.0 85 YCIPTA $ 70,000 Long
I-16 Turn Lane, 24th Street and Avenue A 24th Street Avenue A Intersection 55.0 30.0 53.8 1.4 0.0 33.5 No 33.5 91 City of Yuma $ 530,000 Long
B-168 Bicyclist Lane, Arizona Avenue from 32nd Street to 40th Street Arizona Avenue 32nd Street 40th Street Bicyclist Lane 15.0 0.0 40.0 20.6 30.0 20.9 No 20.9 95 City of Yuma $ 130,000 Long
M-78 Pathway, 8th Street from Avenue D to Avenue A 8th Street Avenue D Avenue A Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 46.5 26.0 34.4 20.3 No 20.3 96 City of Yuma $ 6,600,000 Long
M-69 Pathway, 16th Street from 4th Avenue to Maple Avenue 16th Street 4th Avenue Maple Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 45.2 22.3 32.1 19.0 No 19.0 98 City of Yuma $ 570,000 Long
M-71 Pathway, 1st Street from Avenue C to Avenue B 1st Street Avenue C Avenue B Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 27.0 34.4 18.8 No 18.8 99 City of Yuma $ 2,160,000 Long
C-48 Crossing, 8th Street and 6th Avenue 8th Street 6th Avenue Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 45.9 20.7 32.1 18.8 No 18.8 100 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
M-83 Pathway, Arizona Avenue from 22nd Street to Palo Verde Street Arizona Avenue 22nd Street Palo Verde Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 26.8 34.4 18.8 No 18.8 101 City of Yuma $ 1,580,000 Long
M-68 Pathway, 16th Street from Maple Avenue to Pacific Avenue 16th Street Maple Avenue Pacific Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 44.6 22.1 32.1 18.8 No 18.8 102 City of Yuma $ 2,750,000 Long
M-79 Pathway, Avenue B from 1st Street to 3rd Street Avenue B 1st Street 3rd Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 26.6 34.4 18.7 No 18.7 103 City of Yuma $ 540,000 Long
M-70 Pathway, 16th Street from Avenue B to 7th Avenue 16th Street Avenue B 7th Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 42.6 22.2 32.3 18.3 No 18.3 107 City of Yuma $ 2,840,000 Long
M-63 Pathway, 40th Street from Avenue A to Arizona Avenue 40th Street Avenue A Arizona Avenue Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 24.9 32.1 18.2 No 18.2 110 City of Yuma $ 2,210,000 Long
M-81 Pathway, Avenue B from 8th Street to 16th Street Avenue B 8th Street 16th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 42.6 21.3 32.3 18.1 No 18.1 111 City of Yuma $ 2,200,000 Long
M-80 Pathway, Avenue B from 3rd Street to 8th Street Avenue B 3rd Street 8th Street Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 41.3 21.0 32.3 17.8 No 17.8 115 City of Yuma $ 1,280,000 Long
C-31 Crossing, 24th Street and Engler Avenue 24th Street Engler Avenue Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing 0.0 0.0 42.3 20.7 30.0 17.7 No 17.7 116 City of Yuma $ 550,000 Long
M-75 Pathway, Palo Verde Street from Pacific Avenue to Avenue 3E Palo Verde Street Pacific Avenue Avenue 3E Shared-Use Path 0.0 0.0 40.0 22.0 30.0 17.4 No 17.4 120 City of Yuma $ 2,240,000 Long
P-13 Sidewalk, 24th Street from Avenue C to Avenue D 24th Street Avenue C Avenue D Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.5 30.0 17.1 No 17.1 126 City of Yuma $ 2,600,000 Long
P-12 Sidewalk, 16th Street from 45th Avenue to West City Limit 16th Street 45th Avenue West City Limit Sidewalk 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.3 30.0 17.1 No 17.1 127 City of Yuma $ 1,380,000 Long

DRAFT Appendix E
City of Yuma
California Imperial
1st St Giss 3rd St Pkwy Transportation Master Plan
8th St 7E
16th St Ave Avenue
24th St Pacific Araby Rd 24th St 9E Avenue Recommended Near-Term Projects
A Arizona Ave 1/2E 3 4E 32nd St 8E 1/2E Rd
40th St Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue 8 Avenue Fortuna 40th St
Mexicali Baja G Ave D C B 4th Ave 3E County 13th St 5E Avenue 6E Avenue Blvd
California Avenue Somerton Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Foothills Study Area
County 14th St
County 15th St State Boundary
F E County 16th St
Avenue Avenue State Highway System
County 18th St Major Street
County 19th St
Railroad
County 22nd St Ave City Park
10th
6th Ave 8th Ave Cesar Chavez Blvd Municipality
1st St Urtuzuastegui St County 24th St E
San Colorado Sonora Luis Río Avenue Yuma
3rd St
San Luis
Giss Pkwy Somerton
8th St Recommended Near-Term Projects
7E
New Roadway
Roadway Widening
Avenue
Intersection Improvement
16th St New Overpass/Underpass
Ave Transit Stop Improvement
Rd 9E
New Sidewalk
Pacific New Bicyclist Lane
Araby
24th St 24th St Avenue New Shared-Use Path
New/Improved Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing
Ave
1/2E
Data Sources
32nd St
City Park: City of Yuma
3 4E 8E City Park Path/Trail: City of Yuma
A Arizona 1/2E Active Transportation: City of Yuma
Avenue Avenue Avenue 8
Avenue
40th St ²
Avenue
5E 6E
Ave
0 4 8 16
C B 4th 3E Avenue Avenue Miles
D County 13th St
Additional transit improvements: 0 4 8 16
1) Blue 5 and Turquoise 10 – Schedule Kilometers
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Coordination;
Scale: 1:73,610
2) Green 4A Catalina Loop School Day Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane West (Intl Feet)
Capacity Increase; and
County 14th St
3) Green 4A Catalina Loop Conversion
from Fixed Route to FLEX Deviation
County 15th St

DRAFT Appendix E
City of Yuma
California Imperial
1st St Giss 3rd St Pkwy Transportation Master Plan
8th St 7E
16th St Ave Avenue
24th St Pacific Araby Rd 24th St 9E Avenue Recommended Mid-Term Projects
A Arizona Ave 1/2E 3 4E 32nd St 8E 1/2E Rd
40th St Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue 8 Avenue Fortuna 40th St
Mexicali Baja G Ave D C B 4th Ave 3E County 13th St 5E Avenue 6E Avenue Blvd
California Avenue Somerton Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Foothills Study Area
County 14th St
County 15th St State Boundary
F E County 16th St
Avenue Avenue State Highway System
County 18th St Major Street
County 19th St
Railroad
County 22nd St Ave City Park
10th
6th Ave 8th Ave Cesar Chavez Blvd Municipality
1st St Urtuzuastegui St County 24th St E
San Colorado Sonora Luis Río Avenue Yuma
3rd St
San Luis
Giss Pkwy Somerton
8th St Recommended Mid-Term Projects
7E
New Roadway
Roadway Widening
Avenue
Intersection Improvement
16th St Transit Stop Improvement
Ave New Bicyclist Lane
Rd 9E
New Shared-Use Path
Pacific New/Improved Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing
Araby
24th St 24th St Avenue
Ave
1/2E
Data Sources
32nd St
City Park: City of Yuma
3 4E 8E City Park Path/Trail: City of Yuma
A Arizona 1/2E Active Transportation: City of Yuma
Avenue Avenue Avenue 8
Avenue
40th St ²
Avenue
5E 6E
Ave
0 4 8 16
C B 4th 3E Avenue Avenue Miles
D County 13th St
0 4 8 16
Kilometers
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue
Scale: 1:73,610
Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane West (Intl Feet)
County 14th St
County 15th St

DRAFT Appendix E
City of Yuma
California Imperial
1st St Giss 3rd St Pkwy Transportation Master Plan
8th St 7E
16th St Ave Avenue
24th St Pacific Araby Rd 24th St 9E Avenue Recommended Long-Term Projects
A Arizona Ave 1/2E 3 4E 32nd St 8E 1/2E Rd
40th St Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue 8 Avenue Fortuna 40th St
Mexicali Baja G Ave D C B 4th Ave 3E County 13th St 5E Avenue 6E Avenue Blvd
California Avenue Somerton Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Foothills Study Area
County 14th St
County 15th St State Boundary
F E County 16th St State Highway System
Avenue Avenue
County 18th St Major Street
County 19th St
Railroad
City Park
County 22nd St 10th Ave
6th Ave 8th Ave Cesar Chavez Blvd Rivers
1st St Urtuzuastegui St County 24th St Avenue E Municipality
San Colorado Luis Río
Sonora
3rd St Yuma
Giss San Luis
Pkwy
Somerton
8th St
7E Recommended Long-Term Projects
New Roadway
Avenue Roadway Widening
Intersection Improvement
16th St
New Overpass/Underpass
Ave
Rd Transit Stop Improvement
9E
New Sidewalk
Pacific Araby New Shared-Use Path
24th St 24th St Avenue
New/Improved Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing
New Bus Route
Discontinued Bus Route
Ave
1/2E
Data Sources
32nd St
City Park: City of Yuma
3 4E 8E City Park Path/Trail: City of Yuma
A Arizona 1/2E Active Transportation: City of Yuma
Avenue Avenue Avenue 8
Avenue
40th St ²
Avenue
5E 6E
Ave
0 4 8 16
C B 4th 3E Avenue Avenue Miles
D County 13th St
0 4 8 16
Kilometers
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue
Scale: 1:73,610
Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane West (Intl Feet)
County 14th St
County 15th St

DRAFT Appendix E
City of Yuma
California Imperial
1st St Giss 3rd St Pkwy Transportation Master Plan
8th St 7E
16th St Ave Avenue
24th St Pacific Araby Rd 24th St 9E Avenue Recommended Roadway Projects
A Arizona Ave 1/2E 3 4E 32nd St 8E 1/2E Rd
40th St Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue 8 Avenue Fortuna 40th St
Mexicali Baja G Ave D C B 4th Ave 3E County 13th St 5E Avenue 6E Avenue Blvd
California Avenue Somerton Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Foothills Study Area
County 14th St
County 15th St State Boundary
F E County 16th St State Highway System
Avenue Avenue
County 18th St Major Street
County 19th St Railroad
City Park
County 22nd St 10th Ave Municipality
6th Ave 8th Ave Cesar Chavez Blvd
1st St Urtuzuastegui St County 24th St E Yuma
San Colorado Luis Río Avenue
Sonora San Luis
3rd St
Somerton
Giss Pkwy New Roadway and Roadway Improvement
8th St Near-Term New Roadway
7E
Long-Term New Roadway
Near-Term Roadway Improvement
Avenue Mid-Term Roadway Improvement
Long-Term Roadway Improvement
16th St Intersection Improvement
Ave Near-Term Intersection Improvement
Rd 9E
Mid-Term Intersection Improvement
Pacific Long-Term Intersection Improvement
Araby
24th St 24th St Avenue Long-Term Bridge Improvement
Near-Term Bridge Improvement
Long-Term Bridge Improvement
Ave
1/2E
32nd St
3 4E 8E
A Arizona 1/2E
Avenue Avenue Avenue 8
Avenue
40th St ²
Avenue
5E 6E
Ave
0 4 8 16
C B 4th 3E Avenue Avenue Miles
D County 13th St
0 4 8 16
Kilometers
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue
Scale: 1:73,610
Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane West (Intl Feet)
County 14th St
County 15th St

DRAFT Appendix E
City of Yuma
California Imperial
1st St Giss 3rd St Pkwy Transportation Master Plan
8th St 7E
16th St Ave Avenue
24th St Pacific Araby Rd 24th St 9E Avenue Recommended Bicyclist Projects
A Arizona Ave 1/2E 3 4E 32nd St 8E 1/2E Rd
40th St Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue 8 Avenue Fortuna 40th St
Mexicali Baja G Ave D C B 4th Ave 3E County 13th St 5E Avenue 6E Avenue Blvd
California Avenue Somerton Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Foothills Study Area
County 14th St
County 15th St State Boundary
F E County 16th St
Avenue Avenue State Highway System
County 18th St Major Street
County 19th St
Railroad
City Park
County 22nd St 10th Ave
6th Ave 8th Ave Cesar Chavez Blvd Municipality
1st St Urtuzuastegui St County 24th St E
San Colorado Luis Río Avenue Yuma
Sonora
3rd St San Luis
Giss Pkwy Somerton
8th St New Bicyclist Lane
7E Near-Term Bicyclist Lane
Mid-Term Bicyclist Lane
Avenue Long-Term Bicyclist Lane
New Shared-Use Path
16th St
Near-Term Shared-Use Path
Ave Mid-Term Shared-Use Path
Rd 9E
Long-Term Shared-Use Path
Pacific New/Improved Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing
Araby
24th St 24th St Avenue Near-Term Crossing
Mid-Term Crossing
Long-Term Crossing
Ave
1/2E
Data Sources
32nd St
City Park: City of Yuma
3 4E 8E City Park Path/Trail: City of Yuma
A Arizona 1/2E Active Transportation: City of Yuma
Avenue Avenue Avenue 8
Avenue
40th St ²
Avenue
5E 6E
Ave
0 4 8 16
C B 4th 3E Avenue Avenue Miles
D County 13th St
0 4 8 16
Kilometers
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue
Scale: 1:73,610
Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane West (Intl Feet)
County 14th St
County 15th St

DRAFT Appendix E
City of Yuma
California Imperial
1st St Giss 3rd St Pkwy Transportation Master Plan
8th St 7E
16th St Ave Avenue
24th St Pacific Araby Rd 24th St 9E Avenue Recommended Pedestrian Projects
A Arizona Ave 1/2E 3 4E 32nd St 8E 1/2E Rd
40th St Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue 8 Avenue Fortuna 40th St
Mexicali Baja G Ave D C B 4th Ave 3E County 13th St 5E Avenue 6E Avenue Blvd
California Avenue Somerton Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Foothills Study Area
County 14th St
County 15th St State Boundary
F E County 16th St
Avenue Avenue State Highway System
County 18th St Major Street
County 19th St
Railroad
County 22nd St 10th Ave City Park
6th Ave 8th Ave Cesar Chavez Blvd Municipality
1st St Urtuzuastegui St County 24th St E
San Colorado Luis Río Avenue
Sonora Yuma
3rd St
San Luis
Giss Pkwy
Somerton
8th St New Sidewalk
7E
Near-Term New Sidewalk
Long-Term New Sidewalk
Avenue
New Shared-Use Path
16th St Near-Term New Shared-Use Path
Ave Mid-Term New Shared-Use Path
Rd 9E Long-Term New Shared-Use Path
Pacific New/Improved Bicyclist/Pedestrian Crossing
Araby
24th St 24th St Avenue Near-Term Crossing
Mid-Term Crossing
Long-Term Crossing
Ave
1/2E
Data Sources
32nd St
City Park: City of Yuma
3 4E 8E City Park Path/Trail: City of Yuma
A Arizona 1/2E Active Transportation: City of Yuma
Avenue Avenue Avenue 8
Avenue
40th St ²
Avenue
5E 6E
Ave
0 4 8 16
C B 4th 3E Avenue Avenue Miles
D County 13th St
0 4 8 16
Kilometers
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue
Scale: 1:73,610
Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane West (Intl Feet)
County 14th St
County 15th St

DRAFT Appendix E
City of Yuma
California Imperial
1st St Giss 3rd St Pkwy Transportation Master Plan
8th St 7E
16th St Ave Avenue
24th St Pacific Araby Rd 24th St 9E Avenue Recommended Transit Projects
A Arizona Ave 1/2E 3 4E 32nd St 8E 1/2E Rd
40th St Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue 8 Avenue Fortuna 40th St
Mexicali Baja G Ave D C B 4th Ave 3E County 13th St 5E Avenue 6E Avenue Blvd
California Avenue Somerton Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Foothills Study Area
County 14th St
County 15th St State Boundary
F E County 16th St State Highway System
Avenue Avenue
Major Street
County 18th St
County 19th St Railroad
City Park
County 22nd St 10th Ave Municipality
6th Ave 8th Ave Cesar Chavez Blvd Yuma
1st St Urtuzuastegui St County 24th St E
San Colorado Luis Río Avenue San Luis
Sonora
3rd St Somerton
Transit Stop Improvement
Giss Pkwy
Near-Term Transit Stop
8th St
7E Mid-Term Transit Stop
Long-Term Transit Stop
Planned Bus Route
Avenue
Orange Route 2 Planned
16th St Green Route 4 Planned
Purple Route 6A Planned
Ave
Rd Gold Route 2X Planned
9E
Red Route 7 Planned
Pacific Planned Discontinued Bus Route
Araby
24th St 24th St Avenue Green Route 4 (Discontinued)
Orange Route 2 (Discontinued)
Purple Route 6A (Discontinued)
Silver Route 9 (Discontinued)
Ave
1/2E
Data Sources
32nd St
City Park: City of Yuma
3 4E 8E City Park Path/Trail: City of Yuma
A Arizona 1/2E Active Transportation: City of Yuma
Avenue Avenue Avenue 8
Avenue
40th St ²
Avenue
5E 6E
Ave
0 4 8 16
C B 4th 3E Avenue Avenue Miles
D County 13th St
0 4 8 16
Kilometers
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue
Scale: 1:73,610
Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane West (Intl Feet)
County 14th St
County 15th St

DRAFT Appendix E
City of Yuma
California Imperial
Transportation Master Plan
Proposed Speed Limits
California Mexicali Baja
Study Area
State Boundary
Railroad
Municipality
Yuma
San Luis
1st St San Colorado Luis Río
Sonora Somerton
3rd St
Speed Limits
Giss Pkwy
25 mph or less
8th St
7E 30 mph
35 mph
Avenue 40 mph
16th St 45 mph
£ ¤ 95
Ave 50 mph
Rd 9E 55 mph
5.2626 in
Pacific 65 mph
§¨¦ Araby
24th St 8 24th St Avenue Proposed Speed Limit Change (with
white border)
Data Sources
Ave Speed Limits: City of Yuma
1/2E
32nd St
3 4E 8E
A Arizona 1/2E
Avenue Avenue Avenue 8
Avenue
40th St ²
Avenue
5E 6E
Ave 0 4 8 16
D C B 4th 3E Avenue Avenue Miles
County 13th St 0 4 8 16
Kilometers
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue
rx 195 Scale: 1:73,610
Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane West (Intl Feet)
County 14th St
Barry M. Goldwater
Range
County 15th St