FORT WORTH VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN
Adopted September 2025
Acknowledgments Technical Advisory Committee Chad Davis, Wise County Chad Edwards, Trinity Metro Cintia Ortiz, Parker County Dee Long, Tarrant County Dillon Maroney, Tarrant County Precinct 4 French Thompson, BNSF Greg Royster, Aviation (DFW International Airport) Jeff Neal, North Central Texas COG John Polster, Denton County Kelly Johnson, NTTA Mary-Margaret Lemons, Fort Worth Housing Solutions Matt Larseingue, BNSF Russell Laughlin, Developer (Hillwood) Myron Wilson, Fort Worth ISD Richard Gonzalez, TxDOT Russell Laughlin, Developer (Hillwood) Scott Hall, Tarrant County Tara Crawford, Trinity Metro Tim Huya, BNSF Travis Clegg, Developer (Peloton) Victor Vandergriff, Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition
Community Advisory Committee Mendes David, District 2 Isaac Manning, District 3
Rusty Fuller, District 4 Nakia Cole, District 5 Haylee Carr, District 6 Ryan Smith, District 7 Dr. Sharla Horton, District 8 Austin James, District 9
Jacob Wurman, District 10 Dr. Erik Jones, District 11 Matt Dufrene, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee & Blue Zones Action Plan Team Lauren Prieur, P.E., PMP, CCM, Transportation and Public Works (TPW) Director Martin Phillips, P.E., TPW Assistant Director Kelly Porter, AICP, TPW Assistant Director Chelsea St. Louis, AICP, Sr. Capital Projects Officer Rajnish Gupta, P.E., PTOE, City Traffic Engineer Rashad Jackson, School Crossing Guard Program Manager
Marisa Conlin, P.E., Engineering Manager Namoo Han, P.E., Sr. Professional Engineer
Consultants
ii |
CONTENTS
4: Focus Areas & Actions 23 Establishing goals and outlining recommended strategies to improve safety throughout the city 44 In-depth studies on Safer Speed Management, Truck Traffic Management, and recommended safety improvements for 10 priority corridors 5: Safe System Priorities 6: Moving Forward 69 Recommending performance measures and funding strategies that support the City’s ongoing efforts to track and enhance safety
1: Why Does Fort Worth Need a Safety Action Plan? 6 Understanding the urgent need for safer streets in Fort Worth and the Safe System appproach 11 Assessing the state of traffic safety in Fort Worth and the city’s ongoing efforts to make streets safer” or “to eliminate deaths and severe injuries on our street network ongoing efforts to make streets safer” or “to eliminate deaths and severe injuries on our street network 2: Road Safety in Fort Worth Today 3: Our Community Voices Matter 17 Explaining how stakeholder and public input was gathered and incorporated into the plan
| iii
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Existing Policy, Plan, and Program Review Appendix B - State of Safety Report Appendix C - Engagement Summary Report Appendix D - Safe Speed White Paper Appendix E - Truck Traffic Evaluation Appendix F - Corridor and Intersection Prioritization Appendix G - Corridor Road Safety Assessment Appendix H- Additional Action Strategies
Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any project. All results, recommendations, concept drawings, cost opinions, and commentary contained herein are based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change. Further analysis and engineering design are necessary prior to implementing any of the recommendations contained herein. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction.
iv |
0 traffic fatalites and severe injuries on City of Fort Worth roadways by 2050. OUR GOAL v | v |
INTRODUCTION 1
| 6
WHY DOES FORT WORTH NEED A SAFETY ACTION PLAN?
Over 500 people are killed or severely injured on Fort Worth roadways each year.
THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH PRINCIPLES
4. Responsibility is shared: Everyone involved in transportation, from elected officials to street designers to everyday people traveling around Fort Worth, has a role to play in creating safer roads. 5. Safety is proactive: Rather than waiting for crashes to occur, transportation agencies should seek to proactively identify and address dangerous situations. 6. Redundancy is crucial: Redundancy means using a layered approach where multiple design treatments are used to reinforce safe behaviors. This way, if one part fails, people are still protected.
1. Death & severe injury is unacceptable: While minor incidents are almost inevitable, this plan focuses on preventing crashes that result in fatalities and severe injuries. 2. Humans make mistakes: Even the best drivers will inevitably make mistakes that can lead to a crash. How we design and operate our transportation system can ensure these mistakes don’t have life-altering impacts. 3. Humans are vulnerable: Human bodies can only withstand so much impact from a crash before death or severe injuries occur.
This Safety Action Plan 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. The Safe System Approach is built around six principles and is backed by five elements.
•
SAFE SYSTEM ELEMENTS
SAFE ROADS USERS
SAFE VEHICLES
1. Safe Road Users: Working towards a culture of safety requires safe
4. Safe Roads: Safer roads come from providing physical separation (like separated bike lanes and sidewalks) as well as designing to accommodate needs.
responsible driving and behavior by people who use the transportation system, as well as a network of City and civic partners who work together to address safety concerns.
T he S af e S y st em App roach The Saf System Approach The Safe
5. Post Crash Safety: A system-wide approach means working towards safety even after a crash has occurred. This comes from improving emergency response, traffic incident reporting, and traffic management.
POST-CRASH CARE
SAFE SPEEDS
2. Safe Vehicles: Making vehicles safer can be done through advanced driver assistance systems and by ensuring future technology prioritizes vulnerable roadway users.
SAFE ROADS
3. Safe Speeds: Slower vehicle speeds increase visibility and reaction times for drivers and reduce impact forces when a crash occurs. Moving towards safe speeds can be done through speed limit reduction, traffic calming, and roadway design.
T
I V
| 8 8 |
HOW TO READ THIS PLAN
strategy, the Plan highlights the timeline, cost, leading party, and supporting party. In addition to these Citywide goals and action strategies, we have identified specific Priority Projects for the implementation. These projects contain specific changes to corridors that have critical safety needs. These projects can improve roadway safety in Fort Worth. The Safety Action Plan lays out implementation strategies, funding strategies, performance measures as well as a transparency plan to hold ourselves accountable. Fort Worth needs your help in implementing the Safety Action Plan. Read this Safety Action Plan and keep informed about the progress of its implementation. Provide feedback and input on the progress as we all work to make Fort Worth a safer place to get around.
This Safety Action Plan will guide the City of Fort Worth’s efforts to improve roadway safety and create safe streets for all users. The Safety Action Plan incorporates input from the Technical and Community Advisory Committees, as well as insights from community members throughout Fort Worth. The Safety Action Plan builds upon the City’s past efforts, including the Vision Zero Resolution, Active Transportation Plan, Complete Streets Policy, and Master Thoroughfare Plan.
members, local agency staff, and neighborhood elected officials. These individuals provided their unique perspectives as users of the Fort Worth roadway system to highlight areas of concern and focus our priorities. The study team also performed extensive community engagement throughout the development of this plan, which informed the Plan’s priorities and actions. From both the crash data analysis and community engagement, four goals were identified for the Safety Action Plan (Vision Zero: Paradigm Shift, Safe Speeds, Reduce Conflicts, Policies and Programs). Supporting these four goals, we have identified 34 safety action strategies that will help the City improve traffic safety. These action strategies address the most important issues identified. For each safety action
The implementation of this Plan will not be the responsibility of just one City department or division, rather it will be a collaborative process involving many different parties. The City will focus on both addressing issues on City-owned streets and working with County and State officials to improve streets owned by those agencies. The Safety Action Plan identifies the state of road safety in Fort Worth by reviewing past efforts and analyzing crash data from the past five years. This review allows us to identify areas of concern and to focus our efforts on the areas with greatest need. To complement this review, the City has worked closely with the Technical and Community Advisory Committees , which are composed of community
| 9
IMPORTANT TERMS
VISION ZERO A strategy aimed at eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and fair access to mobility for al l. SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH A holistic framework that acknowledges human error and vulnerability in crashes, emphasizing redundancy in roadway design, vehicle safety, and policies to prevent severe injuries and deaths . TRAFFIC CRASH [NOT ACCIDENT!] The word “accident” implies that these harmful and life-changing events are not preventable or avoidable. Traffic-related severe injuries and deaths are often preventable events for which there are proven solutions. As such, the Safety Action Plan refers to them as “crashes,” not “accidents.” KILLED AND SEVERELY INJURED (KSI) Killed and Severely Injured (KSI) stands for the highest level of severity resulting from a traffic crash with at least one person involved in the crash either dead or suffering incapacitating injury .
VULNERABLE ROAD USERS (VRU) Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) are those at most risk in a traffic crash by not being inside an enclosed vehicle. When they are involved in crashes, VRUs are more likely to be severely injured or killed. HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN) A data-driven map identifying streets and intersections with the highest concentration of fatal and severe crashes used to identify priority safety improvements . SOCIAL VULNERABILITY Social vulnerability refers to the potentially negative effects that external stressors have on communities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a tool to help identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events. It measures the relative vulnerability of each U.S. census tract by ranking them on 16 social factors, including unemployment, racial and ethnic minority status, and disability status. These factors are grouped into four related themes, providing each census tract with a ranking for the individual variables, the four themes, and an overall ranking. This tool was used to identify the most socially vulnerable communities in Fort Worth.
| 10
ROAD SAFETY IN FORT WORTH TODAY 2
11 |
| 11
PLANS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
The City of Fort Worth’s commitment to improving the safety and efficiency of its transportation system has led to numerous policies, regulations, plans, practices, and programs. In developing the Fort Worth Safety Action Plan, the City reviewed its current plans, policies, and programs that support traffic safety. This includes an overview of policy frameworks, identification of potential policy gaps, and areas for improvement in both new and existing policies. By incorporating the takeaways from the policy review, along with data-informed analysis and public and stakeholder involvement, the SAP creates a holistic effort to identify and develop actionable strategies. A full review of the City’s plans, policies, and programs can be found in Appendix A .
The ATP developed a policy framework based on input from stakeholders. The policy framework includes nine subjects that organize actions needed for implementation: Coordinated, Connected, Safe And Comfortable, Accessible, Equitable, Healthy, Community Awareness And Culture, Funding, and Economic Vitality. Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) The Fort Worth MTP was adopted by City Council in 2017 and updated in 2020. The goal of the MTP is to provide a complete and connected transportation system that supports mobility, safety and opportunity. The MTP focuses on safety and comfort by narrowing street width where possible to facilitate pedestrian crossings, buffering people walking and biking from automobile traffic where appropriate, and providing space for streetscape elements to calm traffic. The MTP sets Complete Streets as an ultimate goal for street design, with most streets in the City intended to have some level of accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. The MTP also incorporates the concept of target speed, which is the speed at which the roadway designer intends motorists to travel. This approach attempts to control vehicle speeds by implementing horizontal and vertical curves, narrower lane widths, and vertical elements (such as street trees).
PLANS Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
The Fort Worth ATP was adopted in 2019 and provides a shared vision for active transportation infrastructure priorities and a comprehensive framework for implementation. The ATP prioritizes infrastructure investments and emphasizes local, short trips and connections to transit. It includes prioritized project lists, cost opinions, and performance measures to guide investments and accountability.
| 12
PROGRAMS Transportation Management Programs The Transportation Management division of the City’s Transportation and Public Works Department is responsible for traffic operations and safety initiatives in Fort Worth. The division performs citywide maintenance of streetlights, traffic signals, and signs, fulfills utility relocation requests, performs signal retiming and signal design review for private development, and operates the Traffic Management Center. Additionally, the division administers the Sidewalk Program, School Crossing Guard Program, Parking Management and Operations, Right-of-Way Management, and receives all customer traffic safety requests for the city. Transportation Management has key performance indicators for every service request type. Transportation Management’s integration of Vision Zero-specific measures such as crash reduction targets into key performance indicators will be key to quantifying the division’s success in improving traffic safety outcomes.
POLICIES Vision Zero Resolution
As part of the Vision Zero SAP process, the following areas have been identified as potential updates to the ordinance:
of vehicles; crashes; stopping, standing, and parking; bicycle and pedestrian rules; and other aspects of traffic that have implications for the overall safety of all users of the city roads. Relating to bicycles, the ordinances mandate the use of reflectors from 7pm to 5am, require the use of a proper seat and helmet, and prohibit cyclists from attaching themselves to vehicles or riding in a reckless manner. The ordinances also establish minimum separation distances when motorized vehicles are passing bicyclists or pedestrians. Relating to pedestrians, the ordinances support pedestrian safety by establishing the right-of-way for pedestrians and vehicles, including that drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and pedestrians must yield to vehicles outside crosswalks. An update was made to the ordinances in 2001, adding provisions prohibiting solicitation on or near roadways. Relating to truck traffic, the ordinances include provisions for designated truck and commercial delivery routes, restrictions on hazardous materials, and limits on vehicle dimensions and weight. These elements align with common regulations found in many truck traffic ordinances. This ordinance can support Vision Zero by having designated truck routes that avoid residential areas to limit the exposure of vulnerable road users to large trucks, enforcing weight and size restrictions to reduce the probability of accidents and mitigate crash severity, and providing hazardous materials transporting routes to minimize the risks of dangerous incidents in populated areas.
The City of Fort Worth adopted its Vision Zero Policy Resolution in 2019. The resolution supports a Vision Zero strategy to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries in the City of Fort Worth. While Fort Worth’s Vision Zero resolution outlines key commitments, there are areas for enhancement. Although Vision Zero policies vary among different cities, key elements often include the safe system approach, community engagement, designing and maintaining roads to prioritize the safety of all road users, using data analysis to understand trends, managing speed for safe travel, and setting a clear timeline to achieve zero traffic deaths and severe injuries. Complete Streets Policy The City of Fort Worth adopted its Complete Streets Policy in 2016, together with the MTP. This policy is applicable to all development and redevelopment in the public domain in Fort Worth. To implement the policy, the City is working to incorporate Complete Streets principles into all existing plans, manuals, checklists, decision-trees, rules, regulations, and programs as appropriate. The design guidelines and standards will be updated to effectively implement Complete Streets. Staff trainings, project selection criteria, and project guides are recommended for implementation. Fort Worth City Ordinances The City of Fort Worth Ordinance, Chapter 22 covers the regulations related to motor vehicles and traffic. It highlights general traffic rules; truck traffic; operation
Setting a clear timeline for achieving zero roadway deaths and sever injuries, also known as Vision Zero.
Prioritizing safe speeds.
Strengthening public engagement, particularly in underserved neighborhoods and the communities most impacted by traffic violence.
Including clear metrics and responsibilities across city departments.
Ensuring regular reporting and public transparency.
| 13
SAFETY IN NUMBERS
PERCENTAGE OF SPEEDIN-GRELATED CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
PERCENTAGE OF LACK OF RESTRIANT USE CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES PERCENTAGE OF LACK OF RESTRIANT USE CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
PERCENTAGE OF SPEEDIN-GRELATED CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
PERCENTAGE OF DUI CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
PERCENTAGE OF DUI CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
TOTAL AND KSI CRASHES BY YEAR
Crashes by Year
16,000
4.5%
All Crashes CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Major factors that contributed to crashes, deaths, and severe injuries in Fort Worth included: speeding, driving under the KSI Crashes 98.2% 88.8% All Crashes KSI Crashes 88.8% influence (DUI), lack of safety restraints (such as seat belts), and distracted driving. The figures on the left show the percentage of all crashes and KSI crashes caused by these factors .
35.8% comprising about 4% of total crashes per year. A full roadway safety analysis can be found in Appendix B . KSI Crashes KSI Crashes 2023, with severe and deadly crashes All Crashes All Crashes and 2,056 resulted in severe injury. Crashes remained fairly steady from 2019 to FIVE-YEAR TRENDS Between 2019 and 2023, 68,936 crashes occurred in Fort Worth. Out of these, 533 resulted in a person dying 35.8%
All Crashes
All Crashes
All Crashes
All Crashes
4.2%
1.8%
4.0%
4.0%
1.8%
3.3%
KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes
3.3%
4.0%
KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes
14,000
3.7%
8.1%
11.2%
8.1%
11.2%
71.8%
98.2%
96.7%
71.8%
3.5%
96.7%
28.2%
12,000
Speeding
28.2%
DUI
64.2%
64.2%
91.9%
35.8%
91.9%
35.8%
2.9%
3.0%
10,000
2.5%
PERCENTAGE OF DISTRACTED DRIVING CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES PERCENTAGE OF DISTRACTED DRIVING CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
PERCENTAGE OF SPEEDIN-GRELATED CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES PERCENTAGE OF SPEEDIN-GRELATED CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
PERCENTAGE OF LACK OF RESTRIANT USE CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES PERCENTAGE OF LACK OF RESTRIANT USE CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
PERCENTAGE OF DUI CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES PERCENTAGE OF DUI CRASHES IN ALL CRASHES AND KSI CRASHES
8,000
14,842
14,642
2.0%
13,341
13,370
All Crashes All Crashes
6,000
12,759
All Crashes
All Crashes All Crashes
All Crashes
1.5%
1.8% 1.8%
KSI Crashes KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes KSI Crashes
3.3%
KSI Crashes
3.3%
KSI Crashes
4,000
1.0%
76%
8.1%
11.2%
76%
8.1%
71.8%
98.2% 98.2%
96.7%
Lack of Restriant
71.8%
Distracted Driving
96.7%
19.5%
19.5%
28.2%
28.2%
2,000
24%
0.5% 64.2% 64.2%
24%
91.9% 544
511
562
539
91.9%
433
80.5%
88.8%
80.5%
0
0.0%
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total Crashes
KSI Crashes
% Crashes resulted in KSI
PERCENTAGE OF CMV AND LARGE TRUCK CRASHES PERCENTAGE OF CMV AND LARGE TRUCK CRASHES
12%
12%
Commercial Vehicle and Large Truck Crashes
1.9%
1.9%
0.4% 1.7% 1.9%
VULNERABLE ROAD USERS Crashes involving bicycles, pedestrians, and motorcycles are much more likely to result in death or severe injury. 1.9% These crashes accounted for only 4% of all crashes, but 34% of KSI crashes. 0.4% 1.7% 0.4%
1.7%
10%
TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES Crashes involving large trucks and commercial motor vehicles made up a higher percentage of all crashes in Fort Worth, compared to the statewide average and other large Texas cities.
0.4%
9.0%
1.9%
10%
8.6%
9.0%
1.7%
0.4%
8.6%
7.7%
1.9%
7.4%
8%
7.7%
18.0%
1.7%
18.0%
6.9% 8%
7.4%
6.6%
1.9%
6.9%
6.6%
6%
5.2% 5.4% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4% 5.1%
6%
4.8% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 4.8%
% Share of Total Crash % Share of
% Share of KSI Crash
% Share of KSI Crash
14.9%
4%
3.3%
14.9%
4%
3.3%
2.6%
65.2%
2.6%
Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Motor Vehicle 65.2%
2%
2%
Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Motor Vehicle
96.0%
0%
0%
State-wide Average
Fort Worth
Austin
Dallas
El Paso
Houston San Antonio Houston San Antonio
96.0%
State-wide Average
Fort Worth
Austin
Dallas
El Paso
Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Motor Vehicle
Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Motor Vehicle 96.0%
% of CMV Crashes % of Large Truck Crashes % of CMV Crashes % of Large Truck Crashes
96.0%
96.0%
| 14
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
The High Injury Network (HIN) highlights corridors in Fort Worth with the highest concentration and sever - ity of crashes, enabling the City to prioritize safety improvements where they are most needed. In devel- oping the HIN, crashes are weighted by severity—fatal and severe injury crashes receive the highest weight. Although the all-modes HIN covers just 6% of the city’s streets, it accounts for 54% of all fatal and severe injury crashes. Separate High Injury Networks that focus specifically on pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, commercial vehicles, and motor vehicles are in Appendix B. The High-Injury
DOWNTOWN INSET
Network comprises just 6% of the City’s streets yet accounts for 54% of fatal and severe injury crashes.
High Injury Network (all travel modes)
| 15
SOCIALLY VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES
Addressing roadway safety in Fort Worth cannot be fully addressed without focusing on communities that face disproportionate roadway safety impacts. The roadway network in Fort Worth must work for every - one. For that reason, vulnerable groups are a focus throughout the Safety Action Plan. The Safety Action Plan focuses its analysis on areas that score high on the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which is a tool developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to help public health officials and emergency response planners identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events. It measures the relative vulnerability of each U.S. census tract by ranking them on 16 social factors. These factors are grouped into four related themes, provid - ing each census tract with a ranking for the individual variables, the four themes, and an overall ranking. These measures of social vulnerability were analyzed and compared with crash data to assess the level of disproportionate impact of crashes on vulnerable communities. Over 34% of total crashes and 36% of severe and fatal crashes occurred in areas with high social vulnerability. Many of the corridors in the HIN are contained within areas of medium and high social vulnerability. Focusing on the corridors in these communities will help Fort Worth to address roadway safety in an equitable manner.
DOWNTOWN INSET
Social Vulnerability Index High Injury Network Low
Low-Medium Medium-High High
| 16
VOICES MATTER 3
OUR COMMUNITY
| 17
300+ IN-PERSON O P E N H O U S E PARTICIPANTS
COMMUNITY EVENTS 26
WHAT WE DID
Safety planning, evaluation, and measuring performance are very data- driven processes. However, community input ensures that changes to infrastructure and policy meet the needs of diverse system users and highlights the need for shared responsibility and accountability.
Fort Worth community members participated in a variety of community engagement events where they provided important feedback that amplifies how the City can respond to a commitment to Vision Zero. These voices will drive the action to create safer streets, which our community deserves. Engagement events and activities ranged from district open houses, steering committee meetings, community festival events, Trinity Metro Station outreach, newsletters, neighborhood association meetings, college campus visits, a project website, and online and paper surveys. Events were advertised through radio and news, neighborhood association email lists, social media, brochures and flyers, yard-signs, and business cards with QR codes.
IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSES
OPEN HOUSE COMMENT CARDS
273 2 NEWSLETTERS 10 COMMITTEE M E E T I N G S
21
1 PROJECT WEBSITE
1100 ONLINE SURVEY RESPONSES
14 MEETING INFORMATION POSTS
| 18 |
Fort Worth communities are comprised of many voices, from residents to elected officials, businesses, community advocates, and service agencies. Two advisory committees comprised of community advocates and agency representatives were formed to guide the planning process to ensure a strategic action plan customized for Fort Worth’s varied contexts. They were tasked with: COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
• developing the plan’s vision and purpose
• reviewing initial findings and analysis
• participating in discussions regarding messaging for engagement • guiding the development of action strategies reviewing ongoing plan efforts.
Open House Events
The City held three rounds of open house events consisting of one open house in each council district per round of engagement in the first two rounds, plus a third in-person open house at the Hazel Harvey Peace Center and one virtual open house with live broadcasts on YouTube. Open house events consisted of engagement activities for community input, including activities to prioritize goals, objectives, and measurable actions, countermeasure themes, participatory mapping of trips, hotspots, and network gaps, comment cards, and surveys. In total, there were 23 open house events with participation by more than 300 participants generating 273 comments for the SAP.
| 19
COMMUNITY EVENTS
LIST OF COMMUNITY EVENTS
DATE
OPPORTUNITY/EVENT
LOCATION
Outreach was conducted at 26 community events to gain input for the Vision Zero SAP and the parallel Moving A Million planning effort. Facilitators distributed traffic safety surveys, project information, and links to the Vision Zero website at each event. Community events were chosen to engage with a diverse cross section of Fort Worth’s population, emphasizing reaching underrepresented segments of the population. Many community events engaged large proportions of young people, people of color, those who are transit-dependent, do not speak English as a first language, and those who live in South/East Fort Worth. The events varied in participation levels. The largest events were the Tarrant County Back to School Round-Up, Tarrant County Harambee Festival, and ArtsGoggle, each of which was attended by well over 1,000 people each.
Aug. 2 Aug. 17 Aug. 24 Aug. 29 Sept. 12 Sept. 17 Sept. 19 Sept. 23 Sept. 25 Sept. 26 Oct. 1 Oct. 1 Oct. 5 Oct. 14 Oct. 14 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 19 Oct. 19
Tarrant County Back to School Round-Up Shine With Loving Kindness Festival SteerFW Civic Summit Fort Worth Report: Future of Transportation in
Tarrant County College South Campus Hương Đạo Buddhist Temple Amphibian Stage
Texas Wesleyan University
Tarrant County panel District 10 Town Hall
Texas Motor Speedway Texas Wesleyan University Texas Wesleyan University Ridglea Hills Elementary School
Booth at Texas Wesleyan University Booth at Texas Wesleyan University Polytechnic Neighborhood Association
Booth at Tarrant County College South Campus Booth at Tarrant County College South Campus National Night Out - Historic Southside: Neighborhood Association
Tarrant County College South Campus Tarrant County College South Campus
Glenwood Park
National Night Out - Ventana HOA Tarrant County Harambee Festival Trinity Metro - Sierra Vista Trinity Metro - La Gran Plaza Trinity Metro - Central Station Trinity Metro - Dr. Dennis Dunkins Harvest Community Fair ArtsGoggle
Ventana Amenity Center William M. McDonald YMCA Sierra Vista Transfer Center La Gran Plaza Transfer Center Fort Worth Central Station Dr. Dennis Dunkins Transit Center Turning Point Church Near Southside (Magnolia Avenue)
| 20
Trinity Metro Transfer Station Outreach
SURVEYS
An electronic survey was administered online and distributed via the newsletter, social media, and project website. Participants at the community events were provided the opportunity to take a short paper survey. In total, 1100 online survey responses and 273 comment cards were received from the public.
Tarrant County Harambee Festival
TRAFFIC SAFETY SURVEY
SPANISH TRANSLATED SURVEY
ArtsGoggle
National Night Out
| 21
WHAT WE HEARD
COMMUNITY-DESIRED SAFETY ACTIONS
1
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
Based on extensive community engagement, the overarching priorities that we heard were:
Make the transportation system more connected and accessible by adding and enhancing key infrastructure components such as lighting, wayfinding signage, street trees, sidewalks, crosswalks, ramps, and protected bike facilities.
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
2 3
ACCESSIBILITY
MOBILITY
Increase driver safety education and enhance enforcement to mitigate unsafe driving behaviors.
PROTECTED BIKE FACILITIES
MANAGING CONGESTION
Redesign roadways to include complete street elements, reduce vehicle speeds, and prioritize people.
| 22
STRATEGIES 4
GOALS & ACTION
| 23
SAFETY ACTION STRATEGIES
OVERVIEW & ORGANIZATION The Fort Worth Vision Zero Action Strategies are 34 detailed ways to address specific safety challenges through a holistic approach to reducing fatal and severe injury crashes. These actions are prioritized based on the city’s safety needs, crash analysis, and input from the Community and Technical Advisory Committee, as well as city staff. They are intended to supplement and support location-based project recommendations designed to address acute design and infrastructure needs for higher risk roadways.
The Safety Action Strategies are organized under the Plan’s four safety goals: Vision Zero: Paradigm Shift; Safe Speeds; Reduce Conflicts; and Policies and Programs . They are further categorized under 18 focus areas:
• REPORTING • ROAD SAFETY AUDITS • SAFETY COMMITTEE • SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) • SPEED • TRANSIT
• DEMAND MANAGEMENT • EDUCATION • GUIDELINES
• ACCESS MANAGEMENT • COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES (CMV) & FREIGHT • COMMUNICATIONS • COORDINATION • CROSSINGS • DATA ANALYSIS
ACTION STRATEGY SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION
The basis for the Recommended Action Strategies and additional actions is drawn from best practices in safety planning and a thorough review of safety actions from a variety of regions across Texas and the U.S. Specific attention was given to actions based on FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures, which research has shown are particularly effective in reducing fatal and severe crashes. A list of potential action strategies was developed using detailed analysis of Fort Worth’s crash data, a review of prior planning and policy efforts, and direct input from the stakeholders who will be involved in implementing the Fort Worth Vision Zero Safety Action Plan. To further develop the draft Action Strategies list, the project team reviewed recent planning documents, including Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Fort Worth District Safety Plan 2024 and draft findings from concurrent Fort Worth 2050–Moving a Million project deliverables. These introduced specific findings related to freight and commercial vehicle safety, speeds, and speed limit setting, which emerged as primary contributing factors to safety needs. The project team presented a draft list of 54 potential recommendations during an Action Strategies Workshop in early December 2024. During the workshop, 26 stakeholders representing public, private, and nonprofit-sector stakeholders reviewed and prioritized the draft action strategies. The following tables represent the 34 Safety Action Strategies that were prioritized during the December Stakeholder Workshop, which included city staff as well as members of the Technical Advisory Committee and Community Advisory Committee. An additional 20 strategies that were not indicated as priorities but which may warrant further consideration can be found in Appendix H . RECOMMENDED ACTION STRATEGIES
• INTERSECTIONS • MAINTENANCE • NETWORKS
Each strategy includes stakeholder input on implementation roles, partnerships, and considerations, including a high-level summary of the following factors:
COST $ $$ $$$ $$$$ $$$$$
IMMEDIATE: Less Than 1 Year SHORT: 1 To 3 Years MEDIUM: 3 To 5 Years LONG: Over 5 Years TIIMELINE
Under $100,000 $100,000 TO $250,000 $250,000 To $1 Million $1 Million To $5 Million Over $5 Million
| 24
GOAL 1 VISION ZERO PARADIGM SHIFT
Vision Zero represents a fundamental change in how we approach transportation safety. Traffic deaths are not inevitable; they are preventable. This goal rejects the status quo and demands a bold commitment: human life must come first in every transportation decision.
| 25
GOAL 1 | VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY
FOCUS AREA CMV/Freight
Evaluate and consider amending Fort Worth Code of Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV: Truck Traffic to better align with the city’s evolving goals of protecting health, safety, and welfare and strengthen freight transportation safety and efficiency. Truck route designations could be updated to reflect current freight needs and consider future freight volume growth. Additional regulations of truck parking (e.g., prohibiting commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas during certain hours), loading zones (designated curb space for loading and unloading with appropriate signs and enforcement), and driver rest periods (mandatory rest break for truck drivers, referencing practices in peer cities) could be incorporated into the ordinance. Incorporate specific freight transportation performance measures into safety and mobility reporting and dashboards. Key metrics may include vehicle classification counts, facility inventory updates, reduction in annual number of crashes, travel speeds for truck and non-truck traffic, improved Truck Travel Time Reliability, and number of truck parking locations. This effort should include identifying the sources and ownership of relevant data and prioritizing facilities for inventory, given the current lack of a citywide vehicle count. Additionally, coordination with NCTCOG will be essential to align on travel time reliability performance measures. Analyze the geographic distribution of freight facilities, origins, and destinations for long-haul, through, and local truck trips, and commercial vehicles volumes and speeds to directly inform planning decisions, including reserving right-of-way for future freight corridors. Identify and designate truck routes that align with Fort Worth’s land-use plans, strategically cluster freight siting and investments, and ensure surrounding land uses and transportation corridors are compatible. Prioritize Complete Streets-informed designs that incorporate freight needs and include context-sensitive design approaches tailored specifically to freight. Focus on facilitating freight transportation on key corridors and zones to divert truck traffic from residential areas, school zones, and pedestrian districts.
1.1 TRUCK TRAFFIC ORDINANCE
$
TxDOT, City Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (CVE)
NEEDS Data Tools, Staff Capacity
LEAD
TIMEFRAME Short
TPW
1.2 FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
SUPPORT SUPPORT AGENCY
COST
FOCUS AREA CMV/Freight
$$
NCTCOG, Texas A & M Transportation Institute (TTI)
NEEDS Data Tools, Staff Capacity
LEAD AGENCY
TIMEFRAME Short to Mid
TPW
1.3 INTEGRATE FREIGHT, TRANSPORTATION, AND LAND USE PLANNING
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY NCTCOG, TxDOT
FOCUS AREA CMV/Freight
$
NEEDS Plan/Study
TIME Short to Mid
LEAD
TPW, Planning, Economic Development
| 26
GOAL 1 | VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT
1.4 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY NCTCOG NEEDS Partnerships; Plan/ Study, Staff Capacity
FOCUS AREA Communications
Develop a comprehensive multimedia public communications safety campaign to educate the community and promote transportation safety for all roadway users and all modes. Key considerations and tactics should include: • Aligning with existing communication efforts to ensure consistency and effectiveness, while incorporating relevant data to support messaging and measure impact. • Focusing on storytelling, such as stories of the personal and social impacts of traffic violence, neighborhood and project success stories, and messaging from trusted community leaders. • Content tailored to specific audiences and platforms, including short-form video, earned media, and social media content, targeted print media, radio, television, and streaming services. • Outreach to media partners to report traffic crashes more accurately and avoid victim blaming, specifically for VRUs. • Messaging & media targeting drivers to promote safer driving, reduce driver distractions, and improve yielding to pedestrians and other VRUs. • Using languages, messaging, and ambassadors representative of the cultural, generational, and demographic diversity of the Fort Worth community.
$$-$$$
TIME Mid to Long
LEAD
TPW, Communication
| 27
GOAL 1 | VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT
1.5 SAFETY PROJECTS AND PROGRAM ENGAGEMENT
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY TxDOT, Communications NEEDS Partnerships; Plan/ Study, Staff Capacity
FOCUS AREA Communications
Embed transportation safety into existing community engagement efforts and increase staff capacity for outreach related to safety-focused programs, policies, and infrastructure projects. Develop standard language regarding Vision Zero and roadway safety that is informed by and reflects the values and perspectives of the community. Conduct training for city agencies, staff, and partners to promote consistent messaging when interacting with media, community partners, and the
$$
TIMEFRAME Short to Mid
LEAD AGENCY
TPW
public. Specific tactics may include: • Maintaining communications tools that aid staff in sharing traffic safety- related information when doing engagement on street projects. • Developing processes and funding to support community-based organization participation in the development and delivery of safety efforts. • Piloting follow-up engagement at select locations where traffic safety improvements were installed as part of project evaluation.
• Routinely incorporating community input – specifically from underrepresented communities – throughout the planning and implementation of transportation safety projects. • Hosting Vision Zero / Complete Streets design trainings and workshops for local government staff, elected officials, TxDOT project managers, consultants, and other stakeholders in project delivery.
1.6 VISION ZERO COORDINATOR
COST
FOCUS AREA Coordination
Create an upper-management level office Vision Zero coordinator position within City government tasked with promoting collaboration, managing implementation, and evaluating transportation safety progress across agencies and organizations. This position should be supported by cross-departmental staff assigned to the collaborative implementation of this plan and should ensure the City can proactively address safety efforts. The coordinator may also provide additional support in regional and state-level planning and implementation processes. Additionally, assess and consider increasing departmental capacity by redesignating or creating new positions dedicated to planning, designing, and implementing Vision Zero and safety projects.
SUPPORT AGENCY City Council
$$
TIMEFRAME Immediate
LEAD AGENCY
NEEDS Staff Capacity
TPW
| 28
GOAL 1 | VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT
1.7 STATE AND REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY NCTCOG, TxDOT, Toll Authorization NEEDS Partnerships, Plan/ Study
FOCUS AREA Coordination
Work with planning and funding partners, including TxDOT, NCTCOG, counties, neighboring jurisdictions, and representatives from developers to coordinate safety plans, strategies, projects, and campaigns. Strengthen partnerships to identify shared goals and objectives and promote consistent safety strategies across local and regional boundaries, prioritizing data sharing and collaboration. Some examples of
$$
TIMEFRAME Ongoing
LEAD AGENCY
potential collaborations include: • Aligning thoroughfare plans with neighboring cities and the state to improve consistent design and safety on major regional corridors. • Advocating for local priorities in state projects and policies, such as safe speed limit setting and design/ infrastructure treatments for traffic calming paired with speed studies and education efforts.
TPW
• Meeting routinely with TxDOT to share data, identify streets of concern, develop consistent policies, and advance joint projects.
1.8 SAFETY EDUCATION-
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY TPW, Planning, Communications NEEDS Partnerships, Plan/ Study
FOCUS AREA Education
Develop a suite of educational tools to reach community members at various stages of learning, from early childhood through post-secondary education and vocational training. These tools should include curriculum and educational materials suitable for a wide variety of settings, audiences, and delivery methods, and should broaden capacity through a “train-the-trainer” program. Specific target groups and approaches include: • Elementary and middle school-age children and parent organizations. • High-school and post-secondary level driver education. • Professional driver education and fleet training and management. • Volunteer and civic learning programs such as Citizens Police Academy and Leadership Fort Worth. • Employers and office campuses.
$$
LIFELONG LEARNING
TIMEFRAME Immediate
LEAD AGENCY
TPW, All School Districts Private and Charter Schools
| 29
GOAL 1 | VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT
1.9 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY DASHBOARD
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY Information Technology, Communications
FOCUS AREA Reporting
Develop a citywide Transportation Safety Dashboard to track progress toward Fort Worth’s Vision Zero goals, share summary safety data, highlight key safety projects, and communicate successes and lessons learned through implementation and evaluation. Publish an annual report to document implementation status of the Action Plan.
$$
NEEDS Data Tools, Staff Capacity
LEAD AGENCY
TIMEFRAME Short
TPW
1.10 VISION ZERO TASK FORCE / ROAD SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY Police, Fire, TxDOT, NCTCOG, NGOs, Advocates NEEDS Data Tools, Legislative Action, Staff Capacity
FOCUS AREA Safety Committee
Form a permanent advisory body to advise and support Vision Zero implementation, incorporating diverse perspectives from city departments and key stakeholders. This group should include representatives from Communications, Police, Fire, and Public Works and be tasked with reviewing crash reports and safety data, making recommendations for site-specific and systemic changes to eliminate future risk, and conducting activities like Road Safety Audits (RSAs). The committee’s work should also include ride, bike, or walk-along assessments of streets with input from Neighborhood Associations and Neighborhood Patrols to better understand local safety concerns. Staff should provide the group with regular updates on traffic safety data, training in accessing and understanding traffic safety data, and support for tracking Vision Zero performance and determining strategies for improvements.
$
TIMEFRAME Immediate
LEAD AGENCY
TPW
1.11 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY NCTCOG, Adjacent Municipalities, School Districts, Charter and Private Schools NEEDS Data Tools, Legislative Action, Staff Capacity
FOCUS AREA Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
Establish a citywide or district-wide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program and develop a schedule for completing school travel and safety action plans. Plans should identify both infrastructure and programming recommendations to increase safety, comfort, and convenience of walking, bicycling, or rolling to schools. Install safety projects near schools, including installing high visibility crosswalks and midblock crossings, walkways and bikeways, and enforcement measures.
$$
TIMEFRAME Mid
LEAD AGENCY
City, TxDOT
| 30
GOAL 2 SAFE SPEEDS DESIGNING FOR LIFE
Speed kills and driving slower saves lives. This goal combines street design, policy, education, and behavioral change to ensure speeds are safe for all. By shaping both infrastructure and culture, we create streets that prevent deadly consequences and prioritize human life.
| 31
GOAL 2 | SAFE SPEEDS - DESIGNING FOR LIFE
COST
SUPPORT AGENCY Libraries, Parks and Recreation NEEDS Partnerships, Plan/ Study, Project Funding
FOCUS AREA Speed
Create localized speed zones, similar to school zones, to address locations with higher multimodal needs and high crash risks, including areas around schools, parks, and transit facilities. These zones should incorporate appropriate speed management treatments (e.g., signs, markings, speed tables) and connectivity improvements paired with lower posted speed limits. Collaborate with the Police Department to ensure effective enforcement of speed limits and compliance within these zones.
2.1 LOCAL SPEED ZONES
$$
TIMEFRAME Short to Mid
LEAD AGENCY
TPW
2.2 SPEED LIMIT SETTING
Evaluate and update the City’s policy for setting posted speed limits on local roadways to de-emphasize the 85th percentile approach and use a more contextual approach to speed limit setting (SLS). The City’s SLS policy should rely on the latest best practice in understanding the impact of speeds on roadway safety and be paired with design and infrastructure improvements to set and enforce safe speeds. Additional factors for SLS should include traffic volumes, road geometry, traffic control devices, multimodal access needs, and surrounding land use and development density.
SUPPORT SUPPORT AGENCY NCTCOG, TxDOT
COST
FOCUS AREA Speed
$-$$
NEEDS
LEAD AGENCY
TIMEFRAME Immediate
TPW
None
2.3 SPEED MANAGEMENT
Evaluate posted speed limits and speeding-related crashes along the HIN and major thoroughfares; using the updated speed limit setting (SLS) policy recommended in this plan, identify corridors for speed studies and propose design, signalization, and infrastructure improvements to accompany reduced speed limits. Implement speed management on local roadways and seek agreement from TxDOT to reduce speed limits and manage speeds along on-system roadways.
SUPPORT SUPPORT AGENCY TxDOT, Counties, NCTCOG NEEDS Plan/Study, Project Funding
COST
FOCUS AREA Speed
$$
LEAD AGENCY
TIMEFRAME Short to Mid
TPW
| 32
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 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online