6.16. Scenario Analysis: What the Modeling Shows To understand the transportation implications of the AOS growth vision and the effectiveness of planned investments, a build-out scenario analysis was conducted using the NCTCOG 2050 Travel Demand Model as the analytical framework. The analysis evaluated four scenarios, each layering in one or more strategic interventions, allowing the effect of growth concentration, roadway investment, and transit mode shift to be isolated and compared.
6.16.1. Growth Concentration Reshapes Travel Demand (Scenario 1) Scenario 1, the Acting Our Size demographic scenario applied to the baseline network, demonstrates the scale of transportation demand that Core-focused growth would generate. Under AOS, total daily trips within the Core Area are expected to nearly double relative to existing conditions, from 0.87 million in the baseline to approximately 1.55 million. The Core becomes the dominant generator and attractor of trips, reinforcing its role as the city’s primary activity center.
The consequences for the Core Area network are acute. Phase 1 modeling found that, without transportation investment, the AOS scenario produces a 17% increase in Core Area daily vehicle miles traveled, a 43% increase in vehicle hours traveled, and a 51% increase in AM peak delay. These are not marginal changes; they represent a fundamental degradation in how the Core functions as a place. The Travel Time Index for the Core Area rises from 1.72 under baseline conditions to 1.90 under AOS, meaning peak-period travel takes nearly twice as long as free-flow travel.
Table 6.8: Comparing Travel Time across Build-out Scenarios Scenario Demo- graphics Road- way Network Transit Strategy
Travel Time Index
Baseline 2050 Scenario 1: Acting Our Size Scenario 2: AOS + Roadway Scenario 3: AOS + Roadway + Transit
NCTCOG 2050 Acting Our Size (AOS) Acting Our Size (AOS) Acting Our Size (AOS)
NCTCOG 2050 NCTCOG 2050 MTP + CtC Projects MTP + CtC Projects
NCTCOG 2050 NCTCOG 2050 NCTCOG 2050 Mode shift, priority corridors
2.16
2.23
1.83
Figure 6.33: Core Area Transportation Performance, Baseline vs. AOS Scenario
1.86
228
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Multimodal Gap Analysis
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker