Key Findings: Build-Out Analysis ■ Growth concentration without investment is unsustainable. Without roadway or transit investment, the AOS scenario produces a 17% increase in Core Area VMT, a 43% increase in vehicle hours traveled, a 51% increase in AM delay, and travel time doubles on key downtown streets. ■ Targeted roadway investments restore performance. The addition of MTP and CtC projects reduces the Travel Time Index from 2.23 (Scenario 1) to 1.83 (Scenario 2), improving speeds across all time periods and reducing LOS F mileage on collectors and minor arterials. ■ Transit investment provides an additional layer of support. A planning- level transit mode shift in priority corridors further reduces Core-area auto demand and reinforces the AOS growth pattern. ■ Integrated strategies yield the best outcomes. Across all key performance indicators including VMT, VHT, speed, TTI, and LOS F mileage, the strongest results occur when growth concentration, roadway investment, and transit strategy are implemented together. ■ No single strategy is sufficient on its own. The scenario analysis confirms that land use intensification alone leads to unacceptable congestion, roadway investment alone cannot fully offset the impacts of compact growth, and transit alone is not a standalone solution. Coordinated action is required.
6.16.2. Roadway Investments Restore System Performance (Scenario 2) Scenario 2 adds the Master Transportation Plan and CtC priority roadway projects to the AOS growth scenario. The results demonstrate that targeted roadway investment meaningfully offsets the congestion generated by Core- focused growth. New facilities absorb demand that would otherwise overwhelm existing corridors; grade separations at railroad crossings reduce delay on adjacent links; and the CtC priority projects improve access to Panther Island, Downtown, and the Stockyards in ways that distribute traffic more efficiently across the network. System-wide, the addition of roadway projects reduces the Travel Time Index from 2.23 under Scenario 1 to 1.83 under Scenario 2, a substantial improvement that partially reverses the congestion penalty of concentrated growth. The majority of added lane mileage in Scenario 2 occurs on collectors, minor arterials, and principal arterials, consistent with the Plan’s strategy of improving local and sub-regional connectivity rather than expanding freeway capacity. Collector lane mileage increases by approximately 41%, minor arterials by 46%, and principal arterials by 40%, while freeway lane mileage remains essentially unchanged.
6.16.3. 5.9.3 Transit Investment Provides Additional Relief (Scenario 3) Scenario 3 applies a planning-level transit mode shift to the AOS plus roadway scenario. The results confirm that transit plays a meaningful supporting role, primarily by reducing shorter, Core-based home-based work trips from the auto network. The Travel Time Index under Scenario 3 is 1.86, modestly higher than Scenario 2 at 1.83, a result of route-rebalancing dynamics within the traffic assignment process, but both represent substantial improvements over Scenario 1. Scenario 3 should be interpreted as a directional policy test rather than a precise forecast. The transit strategy was applied as a planning-level adjustment to trip tables rather than through a full regional transit assignment. A full regional model run with explicit transit assignment would be needed to fully capture traveler behavioral responses and will be appropriate as specific transit investments advance toward programming.
230
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Multimodal Gap Analysis
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker