Moving a Million Master Transportation Plan
City of Fort Worth Transportation and Public Works Department
Executive Summary Adopted June 9, 2026
This document was developed using a performance-based approach to transportation decision-making to support the national goals of the Federal-Aid Highway Program as required by 23 USC 150(b).
ES.1. Plan Overview ES.1.1. Preparing for Growth
Today, the City of Fort Worth maintains an extensive and multifaceted transportation network, including over 100 miles of active transportation infrastructure, with 24 miles of natural surface trails, 60 miles of paved trails, and 69.3 miles of on-street bike facilities, alongside a robust freight network spanning 524.5 miles, and a transit system with 40 miles of rail and 644.85 miles of bus routes. Additionally, the City maintains approximately 8,609 lane miles of pavement, which includes both city-owned roads and certain TxDOT- owned roadways maintained through formal maintenance agreements. As shown in Figure ES.2 , Fort Worth’s transportation infrastructure must support both its internal population and the additional 1.9 million residents in the surrounding area as neighboring counties continue to grow and rely on the City for employment, services, and entertainment. Figure ES.1 illustrates the City of Fort’s rapid growth, projecting a 38% increase in population over the next 25 years. The Greater Fort Worth region is projected to reach 4.4 million people by 2050, compounding the demands placed on a transportation network that must serve both local and regional trips.
2.9 Million PEOPLE
287
51
35
Denton
377
288
380
380
Jacksboro
WI SE
287
YOUNG
35E
Graham
114
114
2499
SRT
287
170
114
121
51
199
635
PARKER
161
820
183
Mineral Wells
360
183
180
121
Weatherford
30
PALO PINTO
280
PGBT
20
30
20
377
20
35W
360
CTP
287
51
171
1 Million PEOPLE
377
HOOD
67
JOHNSON
144
35W
Cleburne
1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000
Stephenville
SOMERVELL
1,351,120 PEOPLE
35E
HI LL
COMANCHE
~38% INCREASE
BOSQUE
0
5
10
20
Miles
978,468 PEOPLE
Great Fort Worth includes the MSA Division, Fort Worth TxDOT District, and portions of the SW Denton County and other areas that show strong travel, economic, and cultural ties to Fort Worth.
0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2022 2023 2030 2045 2050 YEAR
Figure ES.1: Fort Worth’s Population Growth
Figure ES.2: Greater Fort Worth Population
ii
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
ES.1.2. Defining the Master Transportation Plan The MTP is Fort Worth’s first unified, city-wide transportation policy and planning framework designed to guide the City’s mobility future through 2050, focusing on safely and efficiently connecting people to Fort Worth and beyond through the identification and prioritization of roadway network and transit systems, public realm, and street infrastructure projects. The MTP links land use and other infrastructure decisions with transportation investment, helping to: ■ A clear, data-driven capital program that translates policy direction into prioritized projects ■ More strategic funding decisions that support timely and efficient project delivery ■ Greater safety, reliability, and economic competitiveness across the transportation system ES.1.3. MTP Elements Grounded in the community’s vision and built on established policies and initiatives, MTP brings together four key City of Fort Worth mobility initiatives: Transportation Investment Program (TIP), Master Roadway Network, Active Transportation and Micromobility Network (ATMN), and Vision Zero Safety Action Plan (SAP). The following defines the purpose of each Plan Element:
MRN
The Transportation Investment Program (4- year and 10-year program) is Fort Worth’s roadmap for funding and delivering transportation capital projects. It identifies and prioritizes roadway, freight, and active transportation improvements, aligning them with bond programs, grants, and developer contributions. The TIP also sequences projects for near, mid, and long- term delivery to move priorities from planning to construction.
The Master Roadway Network (MRN) is the long- range Plan for major transportation facilities in the City of Fort Worth. The Master Roadway Network is not targeted to a specific point in the future, but is intended to accommodate the ultimate development of the City’s thoroughfare network.
The Active Transportation and Micromobility Network (ATMN) is a citywide network plan for alternative modes of transportation, including walking, cycling and using transit, as well as the needs of wheelchair users and other types of non- motorized mobility devices. Active transportation is an important element of Fort Worth’s mobility network, since it not only increases transportation choices but also supports healthy, active living.
This Vision Zero Safety Action Plan (SAP) is Fort Worth’s roadmap to reducing roadway deaths and severe injuries. It is grounded in the Safe System Approach, which aims to eliminate deaths and severe injuries by anticipating human mistakes and minimizing impacts on the human body when crashes do occur.
iii
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
ES.1.4. MTP Focus Areas As shown in Figure ES.3 , the current transportation network in Fort Worth comprises four core modes – Roadway, Freight, Active Transportation, and Transit – that together provide a comprehensive multimodal network. Collectively, these modes form an integrated multimodal system that supports Fort Worth’s growth by improving connectivity, reducing congestion, and enhancing access to jobs, education, and services. Each mode serves a distinct purpose, contributing to Fort Worth’s transportation, accessibility, and economic vitality:
Roadway: Streets, arterials, and highways provide the backbone for personal and regional travel, focusing on connectivity and reducing congestion to meet growing demand. Freight: Truck and intermodal routes keep goods moving efficiently, with priority on safe last-mile access and continuous corridors linking industrial hubs and regional markets. Active Transportation: Walking, biking, and rolling options supported by sidewalks and bikeways create safe, connected, and low-stress travel choices that enhance livability and complement transit. Transit: Bus and rail services offer accessibility mobility, connecting people to jobs, schools, and essential services through reliable coverage and frequency. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FREIGHT TRANSIT TRANSIT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
ROADWAY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
FREIGHT
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
TRANSIT
Figure ES.3: Existing Transportation Network
iv
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
ES.1.5. Realizing the Plan The MTP is designed to deliver fundable and implementable projects through a data-driven approach that prioritizes safety, connectivity, and fiscal responsibility. By aligning technical analysis with financial planning and community priorities, the MTP prioritizes investments that are practical and impactful. The following outlines the foundation of this approach, our priority projects, our implementation timeline, and our financial framework, that together guide how Fort Worth will advance its mobility goals: What - Our Priority Projects The MTP identifies a comprehensive Network of multimodal transportation segments that together shape the Fort Worth transportation backbone. This network addresses safety, access, congestion relief, and system connectivity across roadway, transit, freight, and active- transportation systems. The network reflects the outcomes of technical analysis, community priorities, and coordination among City departments and regional partners. When - Our Implementation Timeline Projects are organized into fiscally constrained short-, medium-, and long-term investment tiers that align with City investment cycles, funding availability, and project readiness. The short-term tier includes projects that can advance within the next bond program; mid-term investments extend through the following decade; and long-term projects represent transformative infrastructure solutions identified for future planning horizons. This timeline aligns with other transportation agencies such as North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). How Much - Our Financial Framework The Transportation Investment Program (TIP) integrates fiscal capacity with project selection criteria and policy alignment, prioritizing investments that are both impactful and financially feasible. Estimated project costs, available funding sources, and local match requirements inform each tier’s delivery schedule. Together, these elements define a data-driven framework that the City can update as priorities, funding, and conditions evolve.
Deficiencies or gaps in the network connectivity, accessibility, and safety impact people’s travel experience, development patterns, and the City’s economic competitiveness. The MTP prioritizes projects that support local and regional needs focused on:
Expanding transportation options to meet diverse community needs.
Tackling regional challenges to improve economic competitiveness and reduce traffic.
Closing network gaps caused by railroads, rivers, construction related factors and other barriers.
Rebuilding aging infrastructure to support long-term resilience.
v
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
ES.2. Plan Process ES.2.1. A Community & Data- Driven Plan The MTP planning initiative began in the spring of 2024. Figure ES.4 illustrates the robust outreach effort and technical analysis that helped to explore and identify: Where We are Today, What’s Needed, Community Priorities, and Fundable and Implementable Projects and Policies. Identified projects and network recommendations were informed by technical analysis exploring: ■ Existing performance of the City’s roadway network ■ Identification of a city-wide gap and needs assessment ■ Review of proposed projects’ impact on system performance Paired with the community’s priorities, the analysis results established a program of implementation projects and policy recommendations. In total, the planning effort helped identify: +20 Gaps in Policy Areas to be Addressed
State of the System Multimodal Needs Assessment Transportation Supportive Index (TSI) Transit Propensity Index (TPI)
District Open Houses Surveys Stakeholder Meetings Bond/Comprehensive Plan Meetings
Vision Statement Themes (Priorities) Goals
Network Needs/Gaps Propensity Areas Scoring Methodology
PRIORITIZED PROJECTS LIST
Figure ES.4: Gap Analysis Process and Outcomes
20 Top Prioritized Projects per Active Transportation Modes
+75 Scored & Potential Medium- & Long-Term Improvement Projects
vi
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
Vision Statement “In 2050, Fort Worth envisions a safe, reliable, and resilient transportation system that empowers all to choose from a range of options, supports economic vitality, connects communities locally and globally, and enhances quality of life. Through sustainable funding, active community engagement, and congestion management strategies, this world-class system will reflect the needs of those it serves.”
ES.2.2. Community Engagement
The process was guided by two stakeholder groups comprised of local leadership and neighborhood representatives, the MTP Community Advisory Committee (CAC), MTP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Interdepartmental Advisory Committee. Feedback collected from the public and the Committees was used to define and refine the MTP goals, objectives, big ideas, and recommendations. City-wide engagement opportunities included: ■ 3 Advisory Groups Community feedback gathered through in- person and digital engagement shaped the identification of key priorities, emphasizing safety, preservation of existing infrastructure, expanded transportation options, and improved access. This input laid the foundation for the MTP Vision and Goals, which are organized around six guiding principles that define Fort Worth’s transportation vision and inform decisions on infrastructure investments, policy development, and performance metrics. ■ 30+ District Open Houses ■ 3 Community-wide Surveys ■ 20+ Community Events
Plan Goals
Safety First Implement measures to reduce crashes and eliminate fatalities and serious injuries across all modes. Fix It First Prioritize cost-effective maintenance and lifecycle planning to preserve existing assets. Human Comfort Create a convenient, connected, and environmentally considerate network that empowers choice.
Economic Competitiveness Support businesses, enhance regional and global connectivity, and promote prosperity. Technology Embrace flexible, resilient technologies to adapt to evolving transportation needs. Opportunity Build an accessible, affordable, and reliable system for all ages and abilities.
vii
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
ES.3. Analysis Framework
Table ES.1: MTP Analysis Framework Analysis Type Objective
Example Projects / Actions
Key Outputs
A geospatial tool that identifies areas most suitable for investment based on land use, density, and network readiness A comprehensive review of physical and operational gaps across roadway, transit, freight, and active transportation networks Benchmarking Fort Worth’s policies against best practices to address deficiencies in safety, accessibility, and multimodal integration
ES.3.1. Analysis Objective The Multimodal Gap Analysis and Need Assessment serve as a foundational component of the MTP by identifying areas with the greatest need for strategic transportation investment, aligned with long- term development and projected regional growth. It informed targeted interventions that improve connectivity, support future growth, increase access to opportunities, and guide infrastructure prioritization. The analysis focuses on identifying multimodal transportation gaps (i.e., physical, operational, and policy-related) that affect system performance today and will influence future travel demand. The gap analysis is structured around three components, which are detailed in Table ES.1. The outputs of these analyses, as illustrated in Figure ES.5 informed the geographic focus for investment, define physical and operational needs across modes, and allowed for institutional readiness and regulatory support. Together, they produce a prioritized, multimodal project list and policy roadmap for implementation.
Composite scores for districts based on land use, density, and network readiness Identification of physical and operational gaps across roadways, freight, transit, and active transportation Benchmarking policies vs. best practices; identification of gaps in Transit-oriented Development (TOD), curbside management, climate resilience
TOD strategies, infill development, transit expansion in high-scoring areas Roadway lane additions, freight truck routes, sidewalk infill, bikeway extensions
Transportation Supportive Index (TSI)
Multimodal Gap Analysis
TOD overlay zones, dynamic curbside management, climate resilience standards
Policy Gap Analysis
Transportation Supportive Index (TSI)
Priority Investment Areas
Universe of Projects
Multimodal Gap Analysis
Unconstrained Needs Network
Near-Term Projects Medium-Term Projects Long-Term Projects
Regulatory and Programmatic Recommendations
Policy Gap Analysis
Figure ES.5: Analysis Objective Flowchart
viii
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
ES.3.2. Analysis Outcomes Analysis outcomes identified areas most ready for transportation investment, allocating resources where they will have the greatest impact. This location are illustrated in Figure ES.6 and include the following: ■ Urban Core within I-820 and I-20 Belts: High population and employment density, strong multimodal connectivity, and existing transit ridership make this zone highly supportive of investment. ■ East Fort Worth near DFW Airport: Strategic location with regional connectivity, proximity to major employment centers, and potential for TOD. ■ Designated Growth Centers and Urban Villages: Areas planned for higher-density, mixed-use development that align with City land use goals and support efficient transit and active transportation networks. ■ Corridors with High Intersection Density and Street Connectivity: These areas facilitate shorter trips and active transportation, reducing reliance on single- occupancy vehicles (SOV).
Figure ES.6: TSI Composite Map
ix
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
ROADWAY
FREIGHT
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
TRANSIT
ES.3.3. Multimodal Gap Analysis The performance gap analysis identifies deficiencies across roadway, freight, active transportation, and transit networks in Fort Worth. The following was assessed for each of the modes:
2019 - 2023
52% 2036
daily freight trips 234,457
14.11%
394 1,564
of population impacted by infrequent service
increase in average travel times by
bike related crashes
pedestrian related injuries
freight trips are on local roadways (arterial and below) 40.58%
2019 - 2023
Poor Level of Service 540 919
24.13%
freight crashes crash injuries 8,423 2,228 vehicle trips to grow by at 10 busiest at-grade rail crossings by 2036 145% of total crashes involved a freight vehicle 8.45%
15.9%
of riders impacted by below average service (on-time) performance
Roadway: Identified gaps in network connectivity to key destinations and capacity needs for future demand. Freight: Identified issues impacting freight movement, safety, efficiency, and connectivity within and between regions. Active Transportation: Identified gaps with less connectivity and inadequate infrastructure coverage for multimodal users. Transit: Identified where populations and destinations are not adequately served by the existing Trinity Metro Network. FREIGHT TRANSIT TRANSIT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
population in existing bikeway network catchment area (.5 mile)
miles total length in 2026
miles total length in 2036
30
% City Area / Population 67% 6.77%
% City Area
ROADWAY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
busiest intersections, impact safety and travel times for
47.6% 24.55%
fall outside of existing transit service area
poor first- last mile infrastructure near transit
<35% access to sidewalks
<40% access to low-stress bicycle coverage
vehicles daily 30,000
FREIGHT
Figure ES.7: System-Wide Gaps
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
ROADWAY
FREIGHT
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
TRANSIT
New truck routes, more direct and safer (25 miles local, and 70 miles regional)
Increase lane capacity by
First-Last Mile connectivity improvements
Continuous sidewalks
69.04 Miles
The analysis identified areas where connectivity, capacity, and accessibility fall short of current and projected demand. Outcomes include spatial mapping of gaps, prioritization of high-need corridors, and development of an Unconstrained Roadway Needs Network and prioritized project list. Recommendations focus on targeted infrastructure upgrades, operational improvements, and policy interventions to support multimodal mobility and accessibility. Figures ES.7 and ES.8 provide a high- level overview of system-wide gaps and recommendations: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT
new roadway 53 Miles
Service improvements (off-peak, scheduling, frequency, transfer times, routes)
first-last mile corridors 23 Miles Being better neighbors:
New or enhanced pedestrian crossings
Operational improvements at strategic intersections
High Priority Grade Separations 18
Trail or on-street bikeway extensions
Core Capacity: Focus on core throughput and citywide mobility
Transfer hub design improvements
Figure ES.8: System-Wide Recommendations
x
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
ES.3.4. Policy Gap Analysis Outcomes The Policy Gap Analysis establishes a structured approach to evaluate Fort Worth’s transportation-related policies against best practices and regional benchmarks. It focuses on how existing policies support multimodal integration, safety, accessibility, and future- ready infrastructure. The framework used a comparative methodology, reviewing peer city policies across the following areas: ■ Safe Streets ■ Curbside Management ■ Transit Oriented Development (TOD) ■ Transportation Demand Management ■ Vision Zero ■ System Maintenance ■ Project Readiness Active transportation priority areas and transit connectivity opportunities will inform ongoing planning by the City and Trinity Metro. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT
Key policy priorities include strengthening safety and accessibility and adopting performance metrics to track outcomes like crash reduction, mode share, and accessibility. Future readiness requires flexible policies that anticipate emerging technologies and climate risks. Recommended actions include codifying TOD overlays, implementing transit priority measures, deploying dynamic curbside management tools, and enforcing connectivity standards to prevent fragmented development. Implementation will require targeted amendments to zoning, subdivision, and traffic ordinances, supported by regional coordination and public-private partnerships. By embedding accountability and adaptability into its policy framework, Fort Worth can position itself for sustainable growth and resilient mobility in the decades ahead.
ROADWAY & FREIGHT
Potential roadway and freight infrastructure investments to be included in the Master Roadway Network and bond program
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT
e
Active transportation priority areas and transit connectivity opportunities will inform ongoing planning by the City and Trinity Metro.
Figure ES.8: System-Wide Recommendations (cont’d)
xi
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
ES.4. Project Selection & Delivery ES.4.1. Project Selection Criteria Moving from identified needs to funded investments requires a clear and transparent process. The project selection process, outlined in Figure ES.9 , identified implementable and fundable roadway, freight, active transportation infrastructure projects by broadly assessing community input and developing a data- driven unconstrained needs network. Identified projects were evaluated against six weighted criteria that balance efficiency, safety, plan alignment, and other priorities, as illustrated in Figure ES.10. The six criteria and weights were informed by MTP goals so that prioritized projects reflect and incorporate community priorities defined through this process. Through scoring and comparison, projects were translated, ranked, and prioritized into short-, medium-, and long-term programs. Past corridor studies by Transportation and Public Works were often tied to bond cycles or regional priorities, such as the East Lancaster study. The MTP introduces a broader framework, combining extensive city-wide outreach with performance-based planning. Corridors requiring reconstruction to modern standards — such as East Berry Street and McCart Avenue — are now prioritized based on data, readiness, community needs, and performance metrics.
IDENTIFY NEEDS
APPLY CRITERIA
SCORE AND COMPARE
PRIORITIZE INVESTMENTS
Unconstrained Network + Community Input
Evaluate Projects to Determine Benefits and Trade-offs
Translate Evaluation into Clear Results to Rank Projects
Group Projects into Short-Medium, and Long-Term Programs
Figure ES.9: Project Selection Process
Economic Development (10%): Supports freight reliability and access to employers and growth areas.
Travel Choice (10%) : Expands mobility options and access for all users.
System Efficiency (30%): Improves travel times, reduces congestion, and increases throughput.
Criteria Definitions & Weights
Cost Effectiveness (10%) : Identifies near-term, high-value projects feasible for implementation.
Plan Alignment (20%) : Helps projects fit within regional/local plans and community priorities.
Safety and Vision Zero (20%) : Reduces crashes and protects vulnerable users through proactive design.
Figure ES.10: Criteria Definitions and Weights
xii
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
ES.4.2. Transportation Investment Program
Table ES.2: MTP vs. TIP Overview Aspect
Transportation Investment Program (TIP) Master Transportation Plan (MTP)
Focuses on near- and medium-term delivery (1–10 years) Targeted, fundable projects aligned with MTP priorities 4-year- and 10-year (investment cycles and other funding windows) Fiscally constrained; integrates bond program and other funding streams Specific projects with phasing (design, ROW, construction) Drives implementation and prioritization for investment cycles TIP maximizes bond dollars and external funds advance MTP goals
Provides long-range buildout for mobility and growth (25+ years) Systemwide framework for future corridors, modes, and policies Long-term (strategic planning horizon) Conceptual; does not assign funding sources
The TIP marks a major shift in Fort Worth’s approach to transportation planning and delivery. Historically, the City’s bond program acted as the default transportation plan, with project selection driven by available funds at a single point in time. The TIP introduces a fiscally constrained, data-driven framework that prioritizes projects across multiple funding sources rather than relying solely on bonds. The TIP maximizes the impact of every dollar by combining strategic prioritization, phased implementation, and multi-source funding alignment. Key features of the TIP include: ■ Phased Project Delivery: Recognizes that large, complex projects (e.g., grade separations) cannot be completed in one investment cycle. Instead, projects are broken into phases, including design, ROW acquisition, environmental clearance, and construction, which are spread across multiple cycles. ■ Integrated Funding Strategy: Bonds are now one of several tools, alongside regional, state, federal, and private- sector funding, to accelerate delivery and maximize return on investment.
Purpose
Scope
Time Horizon
Funding Role
High-level corridors and modal strategies
Project Detail
Guides overall transportation policy and growth patterns
Decision-Making
TIP translates MTP’s vision into actionable investments
Relationship
The TIP changes this dynamic by embedding bond-funded projects into a multi-cycle, phased delivery strategy aligned with long-range goals. Table ES.2 compares the differences between the MTP and TIP, underscoring that while the MTP provides the long-term framework for mobility and growth, the TIP focuses on near- and medium-term delivery, so that investments address both immediate needs and future priorities. Together, MTP and the TIP create a buildout and project delivery framework that balances vision with practicality, helping Fort Worth build for both today and tomorrow.
■ Realistic Expectations: Sets achievable goals for each cycle, aligning short- and medium-term improvements with long- range objectives. ■ Performance-Based Framework : Aligns the TIP with federal (23 USC 150(b)) and TxDOT (House Bill 20, 2015) performance- based planning requirements, which use measurable data to guide transportation investment decisions. This approach supports coordinated short-, mid-, and long-range planning while strengthening Fort Worth’s competitiveness for federal and state funding partnerships—critical for delivering major projects such as railroad grade separations.
xiii
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
ES.4.3. Project Delivery The MTP establishes this pathway by linking travel demand network modeling with near- term investment decisions. Through the MTP process, projects move from high-level assessments of future capacity and demand into prioritized project lists, which then inform bond programs and construction schedules. This structure, as displayed in Figure ES.11 , provides a transparent framework for how concepts identified in long-range planning advance into deliverable capital projects.
In the MTP process, the TDM & Network Capacity Needs and Constrained Project Program are inputs, while Transportation Improvement Program and CIP/Bond are outputs.
Travel Demand Modeling &
(<25 yrs) Constrained Project Program
Transportation Investment Program
(<4 yrs) CIP/Bond
(Ultimate) Network Capacity Needs
(<10 yrs)
• Design and Construction •One funding mechanism, not a standalone plan •Meant to maximize and leverage diverse funding profiles •Focused on delivery and public investment impact •Funding received (check cashed)
•Capital project development and readiness •External funding secured •Ties neatly back to Bond funding cycles •Aligns with •Establish project phasing and cash flows •Schematics and NEPA NCTCOG and TxDOT project cycles
•25-year prioritized project list •TDM (horizon year) •Tied to reasonably expected funding sources •Reflects growth
•TDM (build-out) •Required capacity at full entitlement buildout •Based on zoning, adopted plans, and future development •Ultimate carrying capacity needs (max) •Focus on ROW preservation
patterns and system gaps
Figure ES.11: MTP Development to Deliver Funnel
xiv
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
Table ES.3: Streets and Mobility Categories - Debt Issuance by Investment Cycle Category Share (%) 2030 ($M) 2034 ($M) Major Roadways 38.9% ~$118 ~$134 Neighborhood Streets 26.2% ~$80 ~$90 Mobility (Signals,
Upon establishing the revenue baseline and incorporating financial modeling assumptions, future bond investment cycles are forecasted from that baseline to align identified project needs with reasonably expected available funds, supporting clear, actionable decision-making. Grouping investments by the City’s established investment cycles provides a practical framework for financial planning, project prioritization, and phased implementation. Table ES.3 summarizes forecasted Streets and Mobility debt issuance by category for the 2030 and 2034 investment cycles, illustrating how resources are anticipated to be allocated across major roadways, neighborhood streets, mobility, safety, bridge, and railroad priorities.
Intersections, Streetlights)
17.7%
~$54
~$61
Bridges
8.0% 8.0% 1.2% 100%
~$24 ~$24
~$27 ~$27
Vision Zero
Railroad
~$4
~$4
Total Streets & Mobility
~$304
~$343
xv
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
ES.5. Master Roadway Network ES.5.1. Purpose & Role The Master Roadway Network establishes Fort Worth’s long-range framework for planning, preserving, and managing the future roadway system. It replaces the previous Master Thoroughfare Plan and defines how roadways are intended to function, the ROW needed to support ultimate cross-sections, and how corridors are expected to accommodate travel as Fort Worth continues to grow. Figure ES.12 details the inputs used to establish the new Master Roadway Network classifications and capacities. As the City evolves, the Master Roadway Network serves as a coordinating tool that aligns land development, transportation planning, and capital investment decisions. By identifying future roadway functions and ROW needs in advance, the network helps support near-term actions that do not limit long-term system performance. ES.5.2. Functional Classification Framework The updated Master Roadway Network integrates multiple inputs—including the existing roadway system, regional travel demand forecasts, access characteristics, and identified connectivity gaps—into a single, coordinated framework. Each mapped roadway is assigned a functional classification
Spatial join of new Roadway Network Links to 2050 TDM Network Links
Classify links using TDM attributes (DAYVOL, TO TLANE)
QC classification based on access methodology
Functional Class
Access
Capacity Lanes
60,300 40,200 55,700 37,100 35,500
6 4 6 4 4 3 4
Principal Arterials Partially of Fully Controlled / Connects to Limited Access Routes
Major Arterials
Partially or Uncontrolled / Connects to Limited Access Routes
Minor Arterials
Uncontrolled / Connects to Major or Principal Arterials
16,100
Major Collectors
Uncontrolled / Connects to Major or Minor Arterials
20,000
Figure ES.12: Functional Classification Development Framework
that reflects its intended role within the broader transportation system and establishes expectations for access, capacity, and corridor continuity. This system informs planning-level capacity assumptions, guides lane configuration decisions, and supports the consistent operation of roadway corridors across the network as development occurs.
xvi
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
ES.5.3. Master Roadway Network Components The Master Roadway Network is organized as a nested hierarchy of maps and overlays that together define how Fort Worth’s roadway system is classified, designed, and managed over time. The comprehensive network establishes full citywide classification, within which City-controlled roads are identified as a distinct subset, and overlays are then applied to that subset to reflect land use context and design priorities — providing a coordinated framework that guides right-of-way preservation, cross-section design, and capital investment decisions. Figure ES.13 illustrates how these overlays shape cross-section design across Standard, Freight Priority, and Compact Development Area contexts. ES.5.4. Network Maps Figure ES.14 illustrates the comprehensive Master Roadway Network, which provides full network classification across the city and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, including TxDOT- owned facilities, US and State highways, and all City-controlled roadways. Figure ES.15 illustrates the MRN – City Roads (MRN-CR) map, which identifies the subset of City-owned and maintained roads, classifying them as Principal Arterials, Major Arterials, Minor Arterials, and Major Collectors based on their role in connecting people and goods across the city.
Figure ES.13: MRN Network Overlays
Figure ES.16 illustrates the MRN-CR Ultimate Lane Map, which defines the planned long-term lane configuration for each City-controlled corridor, establishing the baseline for right-of- way preservation, capital project development, and near-term construction decisions. The official boundaries, extents, and classifications of all network maps are maintained by TPW and available through the City of Fort Worth Open Data Portal at https://data.fortworthtexas.gov/. All static maps shown in this document are illustrative.
Figure ES.17 illustrates the network overlays, which are applied to the base network to reflect distinct travel patterns, land use, and design priorities in specific areas. Freight Priority Areas identify corridors supporting goods movement, while Compact Development Areas identify urban contexts where multimodal street design —including enhanced pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and on-street parking— is required.
xvii
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
Figure ES.14: Master Roadway Network (MRN): Functional Classification
xviii
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
Figure ES.15: Master Roadway Network - City Roads (MRN-CR): Functional Classification
xix
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
Figure ES.16: Master Roadway Network - City Roads (MRN - CR): Ultimate Lane Map
xx
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
Figure ES.17: Master Roadway Network - City Roads (MRN - CR): Network Overlays
xxi
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
ES.6. Project Evaluation & Prioritization With an understanding of available funding and delivery capacity, the City next evaluated how candidate projects contribute to system performance and adopted priorities. This screening process provides a consistent basis for comparing projects across corridors and modes.
ES.6.1. Project Screening Framework Candidate projects were screened using a consistent, data-driven framework to provide a common basis for comparison across system needs and adopted priorities. The screening focused on relative contribution to key outcomes—such as congestion relief, safety, multimodal connectivity, economic access, and plan alignment.
As shown in Figure ES.18 , inputs representing existing conditions, future growth, and adopted plans were evaluated across a defined set of performance criteria, with most measures derived through GIS-based analysis to create consistency. Screening results were summarized using contribution tiers—high, moderate, low, or no contribution—to support clear comparison and inform development of the prioritized project list.
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 ES.18: Project Scoring Framework
xxii
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
Prioritized Roadway Projects by Planning Horizon The map (Figure ES.19) on this page illustrates the prioritized projects identified through the screening process, organized by planning horizon. Projects shown in 2026 , 2030 , and 2034 reflect near- and medium-term priorities aligned with anticipated investment cycles and delivery timelines. Projects identified as long-term address future system needs beyond the next three investment cycles. These projects are included to guide ongoing planning, preserve corridor continuity, and inform future investment decisions.
Figure ES.19: Prioritized Project Map (all time horizons)
xxiii
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
Table ES.4 provides a summary of the 2026 investment cycle projects, including limits and improvement types, is provided below. Detailed cost informa- tion and PE Report documentation are included in Appendix H.
Table ES.4: 2026 Investment Cycle Projects Project ID Project Sponsor Facility From To
Investment Cycle Activities
City Funds
Other Funding
Federal Funding
Scope
Chapin School Rd (RM 2871) IH-20
City Limit / Aledo Rd SH 170 (Alliance Gtwy) Park Vista Blvd
Reconstruct and widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR Design, NEPA, ROW $5,000,000
111
TxDOT
High Mesa Rd SH 170 (Alliance Gtwy) Old Decatur Rd Wagley Robertson Rd
Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the creek and floodplain
Design, NEPA, ROW $500,000
$9,250,000
$5,000,000
116 City of Fort Worth Westport Pkwy
Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway
Design
$300,000
$4,200,000
Future Willow Springs
Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR and (2) bridge class culverts over the floodplain Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR, (2) bridge class culverts over the floodplain, and shared-use paths Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR, (2) bridge class culverts over the floodplain, and shared-use paths
Heritage Trace Pkwy Heritage Trace Pkwy Heritage Trace Pkwy
105 City of Fort Worth
Design, NEPA, ROW $3,600,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
Boulder Oak Blvd
105 City of Fort Worth
Design, NEPA, ROW $5,100,000
at BNSF Forth Worth Subdivision
105 City of Fort Worth
Design, NEPA, ROW $10,000,000
$8,000,000
E Bailey Boswell Rd
Blue Mound Rd/FM 156 Cobb Park Dr
Horseman Rd US 287 (MLK Fwy)
104 City of Fort Worth
Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway
Construction Design, Construction Design, Construction
$49,700,000
$2,500,000
Reconstruct four (4)-lane divided roadway with TWLTL
112 City of Fort Worth E Berry St
$11,250,000
$14,750,000
West Risinger Rd Bonds Ranch Rd Bonds Ranch Rd Bonds Ranch Rd
204 City of Fort Worth
Crowley Rd Hemphill St Reconstruct and widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with shared-use paths
$3,800,000
$8,300,000 $41,800,000
Saginaw Main St (BUS 287) Boat Club Rd (FM 1220)
107 City of Fort Worth
Blue Sky Dr Construct a (4)-lane divided with a bridge over the RR
Design, ROW
$2,500,000 $15,000,000 $29,000,000
Saginaw Main St (BUS 287)
106 City of Fort Worth
Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway Design, Construction
$14,800,000
$11,380,000
Wagley Robertson Rd
107 City of Fort Worth
Blue Sky Dr
Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway Design, Construction
$50,700,000
$11,958,280
Lon Stephenson Rd
0 Tarrant County
Forest Hill Dr
Bluebell Dr Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway City Soft and ROW $1,030,000
FW City Limits
Everman County Line Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway City Soft and ROW $50,000
0 Tarrant County
Wichita St Meacham Blvd
Blue Mound Rd
IH-35W (South Fwy) Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway
Design, NEPA, ROW, Construction
103 City of Fort Worth 219 City of Fort Worth
$11,800,000
$28,000,000
Wagley Robertson Rd
Bonds Ranch Rd
Quicksilver Trl
Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway Design
$3,000,000
City of Fort Worth/ Tarrant County
Construct a (2)-lane undivided roadway with a shared-use path on one side and a single bridge over the floodplain
E Altamesa Blvd
Dick Price Rd
109
Anglin Dr
Design, NEPA, ROW $2,900,000
$11,030,000 $15,000,000
xxiv
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
Table ES.5 provides a summary of the 2030 investment cycle projects is provided in this section, based on project limits and improvement types. Addi- tional detail, including PE Report summaries and updated cost information, is available in Appendix H.
Table ES.5: 2030 Investment Cycle Projects Project ID Facility From To
Investment Cycle Activities
Bond Activities Costs (Escalated to YOE)
Scope
Chapin School Rd (RM 2871)
City Limit / Aledo Road
Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR
111
IH-20
Construction
$20,000,000
116 Westport Pkwy High Mesa Rd Park Vista Blvd Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the creek and floodplain Construction
$92,114,100
Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR and (2) bridge class culverts over the floodplain Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR, (2) bridge class culverts over the floodplain, and shared-use paths Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR, (2) bridge class culverts over the floodplain, and shared-use paths Construct a (4)-lane divided with a bridge over the RR
105 Heritage Trace Pkwy Old Decatur Rd Future Willow Springs
Construction
$68,989,916
Wagley Robertson Rd
Boulder Oak Blvd
105 Heritage Trace Pkwy
Construction
$71,073,719
105 Heritage Trace Pkwy at BNSF Fort Worth Sub
Construction
$84,520,017
Saginaw Main St (BUS 287)
107 Bonds Ranch Rd
Blue Sky Dr
Construction
$17,945,354
219 Wagley Robertson Rd Bonds Ranch Rd Quicksilver Trl Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway
Construction
$62,027,376
Construct a (2)-lane undivided roadway with a shared-use path on one side and a single bridge over the floodplain
109 E Altamesa Blvd
Anglin Dr
Dick Price
Construction
$116,474,319
Table ES.6: 2030 Investment Cycle Forecasted Capacity 2030 Investment Cycle Total Bond Funding Amount $118,122,819.00 Other Source Funding $299,226,582.00 Total Funding Available $418,349,401.00 Total Funding Used $533,144,800.12 Balance $(115,795,399.12)
xxv
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
Table ES.7 provides a summary of the 2034 investment cycle projects is included in this section, reflecting project limits and improvement types. More detailed documentation and cost information are provided in Appendix H.
Table ES.7: 2034 Investment Cycle Projects Project ID Facility From To 237 Old Denton Rd/ Riverside Dr Westport Pkwy Sawtimber Trl
Investment Cycle Activities
Bond Activities Costs (Escalated to YOE)
Scope
Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with shared- use paths Widen from (2)-lane to (3)-lane with center turn lane Widen from (3)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with pedestrian and shared-use paths
Design, Construction Design, ROW Design, ROW Design, NEPA, ROW Design, ROW Design, Construction
$23,404,455.86
W. Bailey Boswell Rd
207 Bowman Roberts Rd
WJ Boaz Rd
$8,585,146.99
201
Meacham Blvd I-35W (South Fwy)
N. Beach St
$33,893,761.41
W Fork Trinity River WJ Boaz Rd East Lancaster Ave (SH180)
212 Amon-Carter Extension 222 Bowman Roberts Rd
Trinity Blvd Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with shared-use paths and a single bridge over wetlands, a river, and a flood zone
$112,784,754.69
Ten Mile Bridge Rd John T. White Rd
Widen from (2)-lane to (3)-lane with center turn lane Reconstruct roadway to include advanced signals, transit queue jumps, continuous shared-use paths, and intersection treatments
$34,984,441.30
Eastchase Pkwy/Dottie Lynn Pkwy
202
$162,944,687.71
Table ES.8: 2034 Investment Cycle Forecasted Capacity 2034 Investment Cycle Total Bond Funding Amount $134,171,213.00 Other Source Funding $285,284,668.00 Total Funding Available $419,455,881.00 Total Funding Used $376,597,247.95 Balance $42,858,633.05
xxvi
Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan | Introduction
A ranked summary of long-term projects is provided in Table ES.9 . Supporting materials, including planning-level cost assumptions and environmental screening notes, are included in Appendix H.
Table ES.9: Long-Term Projects: Ranked Priority List Rank Facility From To
Cost Esti- mate (2025) $27,719,348.86 $54,016,320.00 $66,188,072.97 $43,093,000.00 $85,083,123.00 $36,766,248.00 $10,921,342.86 $16,451,691.92 $96,526,765.99
Project ID
Scope
1
Camp Bowie Blvd Hulen St Camp Bowie Blvd Horne St
Boland St
306 Reconstruct brick pavement roadway
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wellington Rd
115
Reconstruct roadway to include pedestrian and lighting enhancements Widen from (3)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with pedestrian and shared-use paths Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway with shared-use paths and a single bridge over wetlands, a river, and a flood zone
Meacham Blvd
I-35W (North Fwy) N. Beach St
201
Amon Carter Blvd W Fork Trinity River Trinity Blvd
212 222 123
Bowman Roberts Rd WJ Boaz
Ten Mile Bridge Rd
Widen from (2)-lane to (3)-lane with center turn lane Reconstruct four (4)-lane divided roadway
Forest Park Blvd
IH-30 (West Fwy)
Fort Worth Trl Blue Mound
E. Bonds Ranch Rd Shire Meadow Roundabout
108 Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway
E Leslie Drive
Mistletoe Blvd
Park Place
228 Construct a (2)-lane divided roadway with pedestrian/bicycle/technology pathways
Marine Creek Pkwy Old Decatur/Angle NW Loop 820
304 Reconstruct (4)-lane divided roadway
Dottie Lynn Pkwy/ Green Oaks Pkwy Interchange Westport Pkwy
Dottie Lynn Pkwy/Green Oaks Pkwy at E. Lancaster Ave (SH 180)
10
202
Construct interchange
$124,000,000.00
11
IH-35W (North Fwy) Beach St
117
Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway
$56,000,072.00
Old Granbury Rd/ Sycamore School Rd
13
Bryant Irvin Rd
Summerglade St
220 Construct a (2)-lane roadway, ultimate build is (4)-lane divided roadway
$12,748,611.28
14 15 16 17 18 19
Shelby Rd Cooks Lane
Race St
Forest Hill Dr
119
Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane undivided roadway with a center turn lane
$28,675,640.00 $63,181,401.93 $15,936,889.41 $29,166,979.04 $42,185,649.11 $19,848,934.70 $10,689,265.55 $42,412,977.36 $175,138,929.76 $71,806,248.37
Brentwood Stair Rd Dottie Lynn Pkwy
206 Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway
John T White Rd Risinger Rd Randol Mill Rd Ten Mile Bridge
Newport Rd Hemphill St
Racquet Club Dr Technology Blvd
214 Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with shared-use paths 204 Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane with a at-grade RR crossing
Precinct Line Rd Racquet Club Bowman Roberts Rd FM 1220 (Boat Club Rd Rosedale Springs Ln Sycamore School Rd
209 Construct a (4)-lane divided roadway
221
Widen from (2)-lane to (3)-lane undivided roadway with a center turn lane
20
Hemphill St Risinger Rd
224 Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with shared-use paths 204 Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway with a single bridge over the RR 216 Widen from (2)-lane to (3)-lane undivided roadway with a center turn lane
21
Hemphill St
Technology Blvd
Boat Club Rd (FM 1220)
22 23
Ten Mile Bridge Rd
Samora Ct
Risinger Rd
Technology Blvd Crowley Rd (FM 731)
204 Widen from (2)-lane to (4)-lane divided roadway
xxvii
Introduction | Fort Worth Master Transportation Plan
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker