A - Tech Memo 1 - Outreach and Engagement Summary.pdf | 7 |
1 Introduction | 7 |
2 Survey | 7 |
3 Summary of Open Houses | 8 |
3.1 Open House Objectives | 8 |
3.2 Advertising the Open Houses | 8 |
3.3 Open House events | 9 |
3.3.1 Open House Materials | 9 |
3.3.1.1 Exhibit Boards | 9 |
3.3.1.2 Project Overview Handout | 9 |
3.3.1.3 Safety Action Plan High Injury Networks | 9 |
3.3.1.4 Mapping Activity | 9 |
3.3.1.5 Comment Cards, Traffic Safety Survey and Demographic Survey | 10 |
3.3.1.6 Open House webpage | 10 |
3.3.1.7 Online Survey | 10 |
3.3.2 District 10 Follow Up Open House Materials | 10 |
4 Overview of Open Houses | 11 |
4.1 Citywide Transportation Fair Events | 11 |
4.2 Additional Projects | 12 |
5 Participant Demographics | 12 |
5.1 Zip Codes of Participants | 13 |
5.2 Race/Ethnicity of Participants | 13 |
5.3 Household Income of Participants | 14 |
5.4 Age of Participants | 14 |
6 Engagement Results and Analysis | 15 |
6.1 M1M Goals – overall overview | 15 |
6.2 M1M Goals – per goal overview | 16 |
6.2.1 Goal #1 Safety First | 16 |
6.2.2 Goal #2 Fix It First | 17 |
6.2.3 Goal #3 Human Comfort | 18 |
6.2.4 Goal #4 Economic Competitiveness | 20 |
6.2.5 Goal #5 Technology | 21 |
6.2.6 Goal #6 Equity | 22 |
6.3 Share your Big Ideas | 23 |
6.4 Do you have anything else to say or ask about transportation in Fort Worth? – online survey | 25 |
6.5 Mapping Activities | 26 |
6.5.1 Map Your Trips | 26 |
6.5.2 Hotspot ID | 27 |
6.5.3 Map the Gaps | 28 |
6.6 District 10 Follow Up Open House | 28 |
7 One-to-One Stakeholder Briefings | 31 |
8 Appendix | 33 |
Appendix A – Sign-in Sheets | 33 |
Appendix B - Event Photos | 40 |
Appendix C - Social Media Graphics | 44 |
Appendix D - Open House Materials | 48 |
Graphic | 44 |
Content | 44 |
Post 5 – October 22: | 47 |
Join the M1M team tomorrow a Citywide Transportation Fair to hear the latest details of Moving A Million and other City of Fort Worth planning initiatives. Let your voice be heard NOW! | 47 |
B_Technical Memo 2_State of the System.pdf | 101 |
01 Overview | 101 |
1.1 Planning Context | 102 |
1.2 Planning process | 112 |
1.3 Vision + Goals | 113 |
02 SYStem goals | 116 |
2.1 safety first | 117 |
2.2 FIX IT first | 122 |
2.3 HUMAN COMFORT | 129 |
2.4 economic competitiveness | 139 |
2.5 technology | 144 |
2.6 equity | 146 |
03 Moving forward | 151 |
Figure 01-1: M1M Study Area | 103 |
Figure 01-2: Greater Fort Worth | 104 |
Figure 01-3: Downtown Urban District | 105 |
Figure 01-4: Planned Service Areas (PSAs) | 105 |
Figure 01-5: Major Economic Hubs | 106 |
Figure 01-6: FEMA Flood Hazard Areas | 107 |
Figure 01-8: Sample Right-of-Way Green Infrastructure Strategies | 108 |
Figure 01-7: ATTAINS Water Quality Map | 108 |
Figure 01-9: Existing and Proposed Trail Network | 109 |
Figure 01-10: Distribution of Ozone and PM2.5 Concentrations- 2023 | 110 |
Figure 01-11: Community Advisory Committee Meeting #1 | 113 |
Figure 02-1: Safe System Approach | 117 |
Figure 02-2: Lives Lost on Roads - 2023 | 118 |
Figure 02-3: Total and KSI Crashes by Year | 118 |
Figure 02-4: Distribution of Speeding-Related Crashes | 119 |
Figure 02-5: Distribution of Distracted Driving Crashes | 119 |
Figure 02-6: Percentage of CMV and Large Truck Crashes | 119 |
Figure 02-7: High Injury Network + Social Vulnerability Index | 120 |
Figure 02-8: Pedestrian High Injury Network | 121 |
Figure 02-9: Historical and Projected Population Growth | 122 |
Figure 02-10: Annual Street Lane Miles Maintained | 123 |
Figure 02-11: Annual Street Lane Miles Resurfaced | 123 |
Figure 02-12: Comparison of Lane Miles, Population, and Density Across Peer Cities | 123 |
Figure 02-13: Total Lane Miles Comparison | 124 |
Figure 02-14: Lane Miles by Functional Class | 124 |
Figure 02-15: Local Lane Miles Comparison | 124 |
Figure 02-16: Lifecycle Planning for Cost Efficiency | 125 |
Figure 02-17: Pavement Condition Index | 126 |
Figure 02-18: Lifecycle Phases | 127 |
Figure 02-19: PayGo Funding | 128 |
Figure 02-20: Transportation Impact Fees | 128 |
Figure 02-21: Fund Balance For Street Transportation Projects | 128 |
Figure 02-22: Top 12 Most Congested Areas in Fort Worth | 130 |
Figure 02-23: Average Trip Duration Comparison | 131 |
Figure 02-24: Historical Trip Duration | 132 |
Figure 02-25: Trip Duration Distribution | 132 |
Figure 02-26: Trip Volume by Mode, Typical Weekday | 132 |
Figure 02-27: Mode Share Peer Cities Comparison | 133 |
Figure 02-28: 2023 AM Travel Patterns Within Fort Worth | 135 |
Figure 02-29: 2023 AM Travel Patterns From Fort Worth | 136 |
Figure 02-30: 2023 AM Travel Patterns To Fort Worth | 137 |
Figure 02-32: Fort Worth Neighborhood Street Connectivity Comparison | 138 |
Figure 02-31: Peer City Street Connectivity | 138 |
Figure 02-33: City of Fort Worth Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Annual Budget Changes | 139 |
Figure 02-34: Clearfork Development, Fort Worth | 139 |
Figure 02-35: Fort Worth Daytime Population Change – Census Tract | 140 |
Figure 02-36: Fort Worth Daytime Population Change – Census Tract | 140 |
Figure 02-37: Fort Worth Employment by Sector - Block Group | 141 |
Figure 02-38: Employment and Freight Trips | 142 |
Figure 02-39: Mobility Innovation Zone and EV Charging Stations | 144 |
Figure 02-40: Smart Technologies and Focus Areas | 145 |
Figure 02-41: Percent People of Color, Percent Low Income, Limited English Proficiency, and Percent No Vehicle | 146 |
Figure 02-42: Senior (65+) Population Percentage | 147 |
Figure 02-43: Disability Population Percentage | 147 |
Figure 02-44: Fort Worth Transit Routes | 147 |
Figure 02-45: Trinity Metro Ridership, 2019-2024 | 148 |
Figure 02-46: Transit Ridership Comparison | 148 |
Figure 02-47: Transit Service Frequency | 148 |
Figure 02-48: High-Performing Routes and Population Density | 149 |
Figure 02-49: Protected Bike Lane on 7th Street, Fort Worth | 149 |
C_Technical Memo 3_Performance Measures.pdf | 157 |
Acronyms | 157 |
Introduction | 159 |
Establishing Performance Measures | 159 |
Aligning Goals and Performance Measures | 160 |
Building Upon Adopted Measures | 160 |
Incorporating Public Input | 162 |
Leveraging Peer Agency Experience | 163 |
Focusing on Available Data | 164 |
Target Setting | 164 |
Proposed “Moving a Million” Performance Measures | 165 |
A. Safety First | 165 |
B. Fix it First | 170 |
C. Human Comfort | 173 |
D. Economy | 179 |
E. Technology | 181 |
F. Equity | 183 |
D_Technical Memo 4_Multimodal Gap Analysis and Policy Framework.pdf | 190 |
List of Figures | 190 |
List of Tables | 192 |
Acronyms | 193 |
1 Introduction | 194 |
1.1 Context | 196 |
1.2 Transportation Supportive Index | 196 |
1.3 Multimodal Gap Analysis | 196 |
1.3.1 Roadway | 196 |
1.3.2 Freight | 196 |
1.3.3 Transit | 197 |
1.3.4 Active Transportation | 197 |
1.4 Policy Gap Analysis | 197 |
2 Transportation Supportive Index | 199 |
2.1 Approach Overview | 199 |
2.2 Methodology | 199 |
2.3 Outputs | 201 |
2.4 Recommendations | 202 |
3 Multimodal Gap Analysis and Needs Network | 203 |
3.1 Approach Overview | 203 |
3.2 Roadway Gap Analysis | 203 |
3.2.1 Approach | 203 |
3.2.2 Methodology | 203 |
3.2.3 Unconstrained Roadway Needs Network | 204 |
3.2.4 Spatial Gaps Results | 206 |
3.2.4.1 Priority Gaps | 206 |
3.2.4.2 Secondary Gaps | 211 |
3.2.5 Poor Performing Roads | 215 |
3.2.6 Capacity Gaps Results | 216 |
3.3 2050 Origin-Destination Analysis | 219 |
3.3.1 Commuter Patterns to/from City of Fort Worth | 223 |
3.4 Intersection Gaps | 226 |
3.4.1 Approach Overview | 226 |
3.4.2 Methodology | 227 |
3.4.3 Identified Gaps | 228 |
3.5 Transit Gap Analysis | 230 |
3.5.1 Data Sources and Assumptions | 230 |
3.5.2 Identified Gaps | 230 |
3.5.2.1 Coverage Gaps | 230 |
3.5.2.2 Temporal Gaps | 233 |
3.5.2.3 Connectivity Gaps | 235 |
3.5.2.4 Accessibility to Key Destinations | 237 |
3.5.2.4.1 Building the Network Dataset | 237 |
3.5.2.4.2 Identifying Key Destinations | 238 |
3.5.2.4.3 Identifying Transit-Supportive Areas | 239 |
3.5.2.5 Evaluation of Transit Network Performance | 239 |
3.5.2.5.1 Peer Benchmarking | 239 |
3.5.2.5.2 System Productivity | 239 |
3.5.2.5.3 On-Time Performance by Route Type | 242 |
3.5.2.5.4 On-Time Performance by Mode | 245 |
3.5.3 Transit Gaps Prioritized | 245 |
3.5.3.1 Methodology | 246 |
3.5.3.1.1 Normalization of Variables | 246 |
3.5.3.1.2 Classification of Gap Priority | 246 |
3.5.3.1.3 Mapping | 246 |
3.5.3.2 Priority Coverage Gaps | 246 |
3.5.3.3 Priority Network Connectivity Gaps | 248 |
3.5.3.4 Priority Temporal Gaps | 250 |
3.5.3.5 Priority Frequency Gaps | 251 |
3.5.3.6 Priority Accessibility Gaps | 251 |
3.5.4 Macro-Level Interventions | 254 |
3.5.4.1 Coverage Gap Interventions | 254 |
3.5.4.2 Temporal Gap Interventions | 254 |
3.5.4.3 Performance Gap Interventions | 254 |
3.5.4.4 Connectivity Gaps Interventions | 255 |
3.5.4.5 Accessibility to Key Destinations | 255 |
3.6 Active Transportation Gap Analysis | 255 |
3.6.1 Purpose and Objective | 255 |
3.6.2 Spatial Gaps in the Active Transportation Network | 256 |
3.6.2.1 Network Connectivity | 256 |
3.6.2.1.1 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress | 256 |
3.6.2.1.2 Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress | 259 |
3.6.2.1.3 Sidewalk Presence & Quality | 262 |
3.6.2.2 Accessibility to Key Destinations | 266 |
3.6.2.2.1 Coverage of Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks | 270 |
3.6.2.2.2 High-Stress / Low-Coverage Areas | 274 |
3.6.3 Network Performance (Current and Future Projections) | 276 |
3.6.3.1 Demand Analysis | 276 |
3.6.3.1.1 Overlapping Areas of Needs | 277 |
3.6.3.2 Performance Gaps | 280 |
3.7 Freight Gap Analysis | 282 |
3.7.1 Approach Overview | 282 |
3.7.2 Methodology | 282 |
3.7.3 Identified Gaps | 283 |
4 Policy Gap Analysis | 297 |
4.1 Approach Overview | 297 |
4.2 Methodology | 298 |
5 Project Selection Criteria for Capital Investments | 328 |
E_Technical Memo 5_Finance and Fiscal Forecast.pdf | 339 |
Acronyms | 339 |
1 Introduction | 340 |
2 Methodology | 340 |
2.1 Debt Issuance | 340 |
2.2 Other Transportation Sources | 346 |
2.3 Forecast Summary | 350 |
3 Other Jurisdiction Funding for Transportation | 356 |
3.1 Summary of Findings on Revenue Sources | 356 |
Appendix I: Revenue Sources and Financial Strategies Analysis: A Study from Phoenix, Austin, Columbus, San Antonio, and Charlotte | 359 |
Summary of Findings on Revenue Sources | 360 |
City-by-City Analysis of Potential Funding Sources | 360 |
Phoenix, Arizona | 360 |
Austin, Texas | 363 |
Columbus, Ohio | 364 |
San Antonio, Texas | 366 |
Charlotte, North Carolina | 368 |
F_Technical Memo 6_Medium-Term Modeling Analysis.pdf | 376 |
List of Figures | 376 |
List of Tables | 378 |
1 Executive Summary | 379 |
1.1 Approach | 379 |
1.2 Scenarios Evaluated | 379 |
1.3 Key Findings | 379 |
1.4 Overall Conclusion | 380 |
2 Introduction | 380 |
3 10-Year Systemwide Travel Demand Analysis | 380 |
3.1 Data sources and preparation | 381 |
3.1.1 Matrix Interpolation | 383 |
3.2 Model Calibration | 385 |
3.2.1 Count Data Preparation | 386 |
3.2.2 Pre-calibration Process | 387 |
3.2.3 Initial Calibration Results | 388 |
3.2.4 Calibration Process and Results | 391 |
3.3 Scenario definitions and assumptions | 397 |
3.4 Modeling results | 398 |
3.4.1 Volume | 398 |
3.4.2 Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C Ratio) | 407 |
3.4.3 Difference in Volumes | 413 |
3.5 Travel Time Index, Speed, and Level of Service (LOS) | 415 |
3.6 Key takeaways for system performance and project prioritization | 418 |
4 Intersection Operational Analyses | 418 |
4.1 Old Denton Road & Westport Parkway | 419 |
4.1.1 Existing and Forecast Conditions | 419 |
4.1.2 No-Build Operations | 419 |
4.1.3 Build Alternatives | 419 |
4.1.4 Preferred Alternative and City Decision | 425 |
4.2 Chapin Road & Chapel Creek Blvd | 425 |
4.2.1 Existing Conditions and LOS analysis | 425 |
4.2.2 No-Build Operations | 425 |
4.2.3 Build Alternatives | 426 |
4.2.4 Preferred Alternative and City Decision | 429 |
Appendices | 430 |
Appendix 1: Summary of Projects Coded | 431 |
G_Technical Memo 7_Build-out Scenario.pdf | 444 |
List of Figures | 444 |
List of Tables | 446 |
Acronyms | 447 |
1 Executive Summary | 448 |
1.1 Planning Context and Approach | 448 |
1.2 Scenarios Evaluated | 448 |
1.3 Key Findings and Takeaways | 449 |
1.3.1 Concentrating growth in the Core significantly reshapes travel patterns | 449 |
1.3.2 Land use intensification alone increases congestion and degrades performance | 449 |
1.3.3 Targeted roadway investments materially improve system performance | 449 |
1.3.4 Transit investments support Core growth but are not a standalone solution | 449 |
1.3.5 Integrated strategies yield the most balanced outcomes | 449 |
1.3.6 Implications for Long-Term Decision-Making | 450 |
2 Introduction | 451 |
3 Methodology | 452 |
4 Demographic Scenarios | 453 |
4.1 Analysis Geographies | 454 |
4.2 Downtown Benchmarking | 457 |
4.3 Growth Distribution in Central Area Neighborhoods | 459 |
4.3.1 Planned and proposed developments by neighborhood | 459 |
4.3.2 Major Central Area Planning Initiatives | 460 |
4.3.3 Citywide Future Land Use Map Allocation | 460 |
4.4 Growth Scenarios | 460 |
5 Primary Road Gap Projects | 461 |
5.1 M1M Gap Analysis | 461 |
5.2 CtC Needs Assessment | 464 |
5.2.1 Key Growth Corridors | 464 |
5.2.2 Needs analysis and potential project alternatives | 464 |
5.2.2.1 Panther / Rock Island to Stockyards | 466 |
5.2.2.2 West 7th / Cultural District to Downtown and Panther Island / Stockyards | 467 |
5.2.2.3 Downtown Access | 467 |
5.2.2.4 Butler Place & United Riverside | 467 |
5.2.3 CtC Projects | 467 |
6 Transit Strategy | 469 |
6.1 Transit Mode Share Benchmark | 470 |
6.2 Identification of Priority Areas | 474 |
6.3 Transit Share Estimation | 476 |
7 Future Scenarios | 480 |
7.1 Travel Demand Summary | 481 |
7.2 Roadway Network and Lane Mileage | 481 |
8 Results | 483 |
8.1 Key Performance Indicators | 483 |
8.2 Baseline 2050 Scenario | 483 |
8.3 Future Scenario #1 (AOS) | 489 |
8.4 Future Scenario #2 (AOS + M1M) | 495 |
8.5 Future Scenario #3 (AOS + M1M+ Transit) | 501 |
8.6 Comparative Analysis | 507 |
8.6.1 Key Performance Indicators | 515 |
9 Conclusions | 520 |
Appendices | 521 |
Appendix 1: Summary of Projects Coded | 522 |
H_Preliminary Engineering One-Pagers.pdf | 540 |
23rd Street/Decatur Avenue | 540 |
Altamesa BoulevardAnglin Drive to Dick Price Road | 542 |
Altamesa BoulevardCampus Drive to Wichita Street | 544 |
Altamesa BoulevardForest Hill Drive to Anglin Drive | 546 |
Altamesa BoulevardLana Circle to Forest Hill Drive | 548 |
I_Transportation Engineering Manual Equivalency Table.pdf | 592 |
Design Standards Equivalency Table | 592 |
K_NCTCOG Mobility 2050 Map Packet.pdf | 611 |
Community Shared-Use Paths_FullPg_20250304 | 611 |
Major Roadway Recommendations_FullPg_20250304 | 597 |
Major Transit Corridor Recommendations_FullPg_20250304 | 605 |
On-Street Bikeway Network_FullPg_20250304 | 612 |
Population Density - 2026_FullPg_20250303 | 601 |
Population Density - 2050_FullPg_20250303 | 602 |
Population Density Change and Transit Authority Areas_FullPg_20250303 | 603 |
Population Density Change and Transit Recommendations_FullPg_20250303 | 604 |
Regional Veloweb_FullPg_20250304 | 610 |
Roadway Recommendations_FullPg_20250304 | 598 |
Tolled Facilities with Managed Lane Policy Boundary_FullPg_20250220 | 600 |
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online