8.8. Project Scoring Project scoring provided a consistent, data- driven method for comparing a wide range of roadway and multimodal improvements and determining which projects should advance in the near, medium, and long term. The scoring framework, as shown in Figure 8.12 , reflects Fort Worth’s priorities by emphasizing system performance, safety, cost effectiveness, connectivity, and alignment with adopted plans, while also accounting for each project’s role in supporting future growth and access.
Scoring was based on a weighted set of criteria evaluated using defined thresholds and GIS-based spatial analysis. Several criteria, including system efficiency, safety, connectivity, and economic development, were assessed by analyzing how each project intersected with mapped conditions such as congested corridors, the High Injury Network (HIN), multimodal network gaps, major employers, and designated growth areas. Cost effectiveness and plan alignment were evaluated using comparative measures and adopted policy references. This approach made project scores reflect measurable
conditions and rule-based evaluations rather than subjective comparisons. In addition to the narrative scoring framework, a consolidated scoring summary was prepared for all evaluated projects. As shown in Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 , this summary illustrates how each project performed across the criteria using a symbolized format that highlights relative strengths and tradeoffs. Combined with project readiness insights from the PE Reports, the scoring results informed the assignment of projects to the 2026, 2030, 2034, and long-term implementation horizons. See Appendix D for more information on project scoring.
System Efficiency Projects intersecting congested LOS F corridors within areas of heavy congestion score highest; Partial overlap receives proportionate credit. Safety and Vision Zero Score based on share of project length on the HIN; ≥50% overlap scores highest. Cost Effectiveness Projects ranked relative to cost per mile; Lower-cost projects score higher. Travel Choice Connectivity score derived from gap-density analysis; Higher scores reflect greater network completion. Economic Development Direct connections to major employers or plan-defined growth areas score higher. Plan Alignment Projects included in adopted plans score higher.
Congested Corridors (2036 LOS + Visually Congested Segments)
High Contribution Top-third of non-zero scores for that criterion.
High-Injury Network (HIN)
Cost per Mile Estimates
Moderate Contribution Middle-third
Multimodal Gap Density (Connectivity Hexagons)
Low Contribution Bottom-third
Major Employers and Growth Areas
No Contribution Score of Zero or “-”
Adopted Plans (Mobility 2050, Safety Action Plan)
Figure 8.12: Project Scoring Framework
255
Prioritized Project List & TIP | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker