The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 27824-06-2025Ordinance No. 27824-06-2025 AN ORDINANCE ADJUSTING ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GRANTS OPERATING FEDERAL FUND, SUBJECT TO THE RECEIPT OF THE GRANT, IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $1,200,000.00 FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPDATING THE CITY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TRANSITION PLAN PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; MAKING THIS ORDINANCE CUMULATIVE OF PRIOR ORDINANCES; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That in addition to those amounts allocated to the various City departments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 in the Budget of the City Manager, there shall also be an adjustment to the estimated receipts and appropriations in the Grants Operating Federal Fund, subject to the receipt of the grant, in an amount up to $1,200,000.00 for the purposes of updating the City's Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan project. SECTION 2. That should any portion, section or part of a section of this ordinance be declared invalid, inoperative or void for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision, opinion or j udgment shall in no way impair the remaining portions, sections, or parts of sections of this ordinance, which said remaining provisions shall be and remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of Ordinance 27107-09-2024 and all other ordinances and appropriations amending the same except in those instances where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with such other ordinances and appropriations, in which instance said conflicting provisions of said prior ordinances and appropriations are hereby expressly repealed. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Qada.�;�2 Gl%� �//JAssistant City Attorney ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE: June 24, 2025 CITY SECRETARY Jannette S. Goodall City Secretary 000mft\ a a= � � U Q 0 u - .- CN E :3 E M oco u a �U Q CN -E x a) C cn H o Z' -r- oo2 Cc,)) �' r s ° C w _o U o S' o ':3 o ►' a �14 Y co cn LL Table of Contents Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................III 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Legislative Mandate................................................................................................................1 1.3 Title II Requirements..............................................................................................................1 1.4 New Construction and Alterations.......................................................................................2 1.5 Exceptions and Exemptions.................................................................................................4 2.0 Community Engagement.............................................................................................6 2.1 Mayor's Committee on Persons with Disabilities(MCPD)................................................6 2.2 Web Survey..............................................................................................................................7 2.3 Web Map...................................................................................................................................7 2.4 Open House.............................................................................................................................8 3.0 Efforts To-Date...........................................................................................................10 3.1 Administrative Requirements.............................................................................................10 3.1.1 Public Notice Under the ADA.........................................................................................10 3.1.2 ADA1504 Coordinator (Title 11)........................................................................................10 3.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of the ADA1504 Coordinator..................................................11 3.1.4 ADAITitle VI Coordinator Support Staff...........................................................................11 3.1.5 ADA Liaison Committee.................................................................................................12 3.1.6 ADA Grievance Policy, Procedure, and Form with Appeal Process for the Americans with DisabilitiesAct...........................................................................................................................12 3.2 Program, Services, and Activities Inventory ....................................................................12 3.3 Facilities Inventory ...............................................................................................................13 3.3.1 Buildings.......................................................................................................................13 3.3.2 Parks. ............................................................................................................................ 14 3.3.3 Public Rights-of-Way.....................................................................................................15 3.3.4 Facif►fy inventory Summary ............................................................................................16 3.4 Ongoing Accessibility Efforts.............................................................................................16 3.4.1 Property Management Department.................................................................................16 3.4.2 Park & Recreation Department.......................................................................................17 3.4.3 Transportation & Public Works Department....................................................................17 4.0 Action Plan..................................................................................................................19 4.1 Self-Evaluation......................................................................................................................19 4.2 Transition Plan......................................................................................................................19 4.2.1 Unevaluated Facilities.................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2 Phased Self -Evaluation Approach..................................................................................20 4.2.3 Best Practices and Considerations................................................................................. 21 5.0 Funding Opportunities..............................................................................................24 5.1 Federal and State Funding..................................................................................................24 5.2 Local Funding:.......................................................................................................................24 6.0 Conclusion and Next Steps......................................................................................25 bftbas Kimley>>>Horn I Appendix.................................................................................................................................26 Web Survey Response Summary Web Map Response Summary List of Tables Table 1. General Fund -Maintained Building Inventory Summary ............................................................13 Table 2. General Fund -Maintained Buildings with Public Access...........................................................14 Table 3. Unevaluated Facilities.....................................................................................................................20 List of Figures Figure1. Web Survey.......................................................................................................................................6 Figure2. Web Map Welcome Page.................................................................................................................7 Figure 3. ADA Compliance Plan Booth..........................................................................................................8 Figure 4. ADA Compliance Plan Flyer............................................................................................................9 Figure 5. Screenshot of 2021 TPW Asset Inventory for Sidewalk...........................................................15 Kimley»)Horn Abbreviations ADA — Americans with Disabilities Act ADAAG — Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines CFR — Code of Federal Regulations Cl P — Capital Improvement Projects DBE — Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program DOJ — United States Department of Justice DOT — United States Department of Transportation FHWA — Federal Highway Administration MCPD — Mayor's Committee on Persons with Disabilities MUTCD — Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices PARD — Park & Recreation Department PMD — Property Management Department PROWAG — 2023 Public Rights -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines Final Rule PSA — Programs, Services, and Activities RAS — Registered Accessibility Specialist TAC — Texas Administrative Code TDLR — Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation TxDOT — Texas Department of Transportation TMUTCD — Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices TPW — Transportation & Public Works Department KimIce, >>>Horn 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance Plan is to summarize the activities completed to date related to ADA compliance and to create a roadmap for the City of Fort Worth to complete a Self -Evaluation and develop an ADA Transition Plan. In an effort to provide the most accurate information, this document includes language directly from official sources, including, but not limited to, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division (https://www.ada.gov), National ADA Network (hftps://adata.org), U.S. Access Board (https://www.access-board.gov), and the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) (hftps://tdir.texas.gov). 1.2 Legislative Mandate The ADA is a comprehensive civil rights law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a disability. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people with disabilities have the same right and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in employment, access to state and local government services, places of public accommodation, transportation, and other important areas of life. The ADA also requires newly designed and constructed or altered state and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The ADA consists of five titles: • Title I: Employment • Title II: State and Local Government • Title III: Public Accommodations • Title IV: Telecommunications • Title V: Miscellaneous Provisions The City of Fort Worth is obligated to observe all requirements of Title I in its employment practices; Title II in its programs, services, and activities; and any parts of Titles IV and V that apply to the City and its programs, services, and activities. 1.3 Title II Requirements Title II has the broadest impact on the City and is published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 28 CFR part 35. Per §35.130 (General provisions against discrimination), no qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of a disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the City's programs, services, or activities or be subjected to discrimination by the City. Title II includes administrative requirements for all government entities employing more than 50 people. These administrative requirements are: §35.105 Self -Evaluation o Evaluate current services, policies, and practices. o Modify non -compliant services, policies, and practices. o Provide an opportunity for interested persons to participate in the self -evaluation process by submitting comments. o For at least 3 years following the self -evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: 1) list of intersected persons consulted; 2) description of areas examined and any problems identified; description of any modifications made. Obftab Kimley»>Horn • §35.106 Notice o Provide notice to the public about the City's obligations under the ADA and its applicability to the City's programs, services, or activities. §35.107 Designation of Responsible Employee and Adoption of Grievance Procedures o Designate at least one employee to coordinate City efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities (commonly called the ADA Coordinator). o Provide the name, office address, and telephone number of the ADA Coordinator to the public. o Investigate any complaint communicated to the City alleging noncompliance or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by the ADA. o Adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging noncompliance or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by the ADA. §35.150(d) Existing Facilities, Transition Plan o Develop a transition plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete structural changes to achieve program accessibility. o Identify physical obstacles in City facilities that limit the accessibility of City programs or activities to individuals with disabilities. o Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make facilities accessible. o Specify the schedule for taking steps necessary to achieve compliance for each year of the transition period. o Indicate the official responsible for implementation of the plan. o Include a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrian walks cross curbs. o Provide an opportunity for interested persons to participate in developing the transition plan by submitting comments. A copy of the transition plan shall be made available for public inspection. 1.4 New Construction and Alterations If the start date for construction is on or after March 15, 2012, all newly constructed or altered state and local government facilities must comply with the 2010 ADA Standards. Before that date, the 1991 Standards (without the elevator exemption), the Uniform Federal Accessibility Guidelines, or the 2010 ADA Standards may be used for such projects when the start of construction commences on or after September 15, 2010. The most recent standard is the 2010 ADA Standards, which sets the minimum requirements — both scoping and technical — for newly designed and constructed or altered state and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. It is effectuated from 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 35.151 and the 2004 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). However, the FHWA and DOJ recommend using PROWAG for designing facilities within the public rights -of -way as a best practice until it is adopted at the federal level. Additionally, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has adopted PROWAG and incorporated the guidelines into design standards for pedestrian facilities. It is recommended that the City of Fort Worth adopt PROWAG to become an enforceable document for all City projects within the public rights -of -way, regardless of its adoption status at the state and federal level. Kimley>>> Horn 2010 ADA Standards The Department of Justice's revised regulations for Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) were published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2010. These regulations adopted revised, enforceable accessibility standards called the 2010 ADA Standards. On March 15, 2012, compliance with the 2010 ADA Standards was required for new construction and alterations under Titles II and III. March 15, 2012 is also the compliance date for using the 2010 ADA Standards for program accessibility and barrier removal. Public Rights -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) The U.S. Access Board recently published new guidelines under the ADA and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) that address access to sidewalks and streets, crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, on -street parking, and other components of public rights -of -way. These guidelines also review shared use paths primarily for use by bicyclists and pedestrians for transportation and recreation purposes. The Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rights -of -Way (PROWAG) provide minimum guidelines for the accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public rights -of -way. When these guidelines are adopted, with or without modifications, as accessibility standards in regulations issued by other federal agencies implementing the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the ABA, compliance with those enforceable accessibility standards is mandatory. The final rule was published on August 8, 2023, and became effective on September 7, 2023. PROWAG is the recommended best practice and can be considered the state of the practice that could be followed for areas not fully addressed by the 2010 ADA Standards. In the state of Texas, the Texas Administrative Code JAC) Chapter 68 (Elimination of Architectural Barriers), Rule §68.102 (Public Right -of -Ways Projects) references compliance with the latest version of PROWAG for the elimination of barriers for public rights -of -way projects. The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) adopted Rule §68.102, effective May 15, 2017. The applicable section of the rule states: (a) For public right-of-way projects, in addition to accepting compliance with applicable TAS requirements, the department will also accept compliance with the Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right -of -Way, published by the Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board (Access Board) on July 26, 2011, 36 CFR Part 1190 or its final adopted guidelines. Until the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and DOJ adopt accessibility standards for pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way, public entities have some degree of flexibility in determining how they will comply with the general obligation under Title II of the ADA (to operate each service, program, or activity so that it is "readily accessible and useable by" individuals with disabilities). Public entities are not required to adopt the Final PROWAG at this time but may turn to different resources for guidance (e.g., Final PROWAG, DOJ's 2010 ADA Standards for buildings and site, and other accessibility resources). However, it is recommended that the City of Fort Worth adopt PROWAG to become an enforceable document for all City projects within the public rights -of -way, regardless of PROWAG's adoption status at the state and federal level. When DOT undertakes its own rulemaking to adopt PROWAG as enforceable standards, DOT will determine how to ensure that there is no "conflict" within its own regulations (i.e., no inconsistencies between the adopted public rights -of -way accessibility standards and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). Kimley*Horn 3 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) The MUTCD defines the standards road managers use nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets, highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site roadways open to public travel. The MUTCD is published by the FHWA under 23 CFR, Part 655, Subpart F and is a compilation of national standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation's changing transportation needs and address new safety technologies, traffic control tools, and traffic management techniques. On December 19, 2023, a Final Rule adopting the 111h Edition of the MUTCD was published in the Federal Register, effective January 18, 2024. The current version of the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) is Revision 2 of the 2011 TMUTCD, which became effective on October 9, 2014, and remains effective until the Texas Transportation Commission adopts a new TMUTCD into Texas law. A new version of the TMUTCD is being revised based upon the new federal MUTCD and Texas State laws. Texas has two years from the federal MUTCD effective date to adopt the new TMUTCD. 2013 Outdoor Developed Areas Guidelines The Access Board is responsible for developing accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of facilities covered by the ADA and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1968, which include outdoor developed areas. The Outdoor Developed Areas guidelines ensure that the facilities are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The Access Board issued the current guidelines in 2004. The 2004 guidelines contain provisions for several types of recreation facilities, including boating facilities, fishing piers and platforms, golf facilities, play areas, sports facilities, and swimming pools. The Access Board amended the 2004 guidelines in 2013 by adding new provisions for trails, picnic and camping facilities, viewing areas, and beach access routes constructed or altered by federal agencies or by non-federal entities on federal land on behalf of a federal agency pursuant to a concession contract, partnership agreement, or similar arrangement. The new provisions for trails, picnic and camping facilities, viewing areas, and beach access routes are not included in the DOJ's 2010 ADA Standards and have no legal effect on state and local governments and private entities subject to the DOJ's ADA regulations. However, state and local governments and private entities may use the provisions for guidance when designing trails, picnic and camping facilities, viewing areas, and beach access routes. State and local governments and private entities are cautioned to check with DOJ about using the technical requirements for outdoor recreation access routes, instead of accessible routes, to connect elements at picnic and camping facilities, viewing areas, and trailheads. 1.5 Exceptions and Exemptions Per 28 CFR Part 35 §35.150 (Existing facilities) and §35.139 (Direct threat), the City is required to operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. However, this section does not: (i) Necessarily require the City to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The City may choose to alter existing facilities and/or construct new facilities to meet the accessibility requirements of §35.150, but the City is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance. In choosing among the available methods for meeting the requirements of §35.150, the City shall give priority to those methods that offer services, programs, and activities to qualified individual with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate. Kimley>>)Horn (ii) Require the City to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or result in undue financial and administrative burdens. According to the DOJ, an undue burden means a significant difficulty or expense. Whether something is a significant difficulty or expense will vary from agency to agency and may vary from year to year. The City has the burden of proving that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of the City or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the City shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the City. (iii) Require the City to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a historic property. In determining whether an alteration would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a historic property, the City should first confirm if the property is (or is qualified to be) on the National Register of Historic Places. The City may consider the assistance of the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission. The Commission has several duties including increasing public awareness of the value of the historic, cultural, architectural and archeological preservation; conducting ongoing surveys to identify and list significant historical, cultural, architectural and archeological resources; and holding hearings and recommending to the City Council that certain structures and property be designated as Historic Structures. In meeting the requirements of § 35.150 in historic preservation programs, the City shall prioritize methods that provide physical access to individuals with disabilities. In cases where a physical alteration to a historic property is not required because it would: 1) threaten or destroy the historic significance of a historic property, 2) fundamentally alter the nature of a service, program, or activity; or 3) create undue financial or administrative burdens, alternative methods of achieving program accessibility include: o Using audio-visual materials and devices to depict those portions of an historic property that cannot otherwise be made accessible; o Assigning persons to guide individuals with handicaps into or through portions of historic properties that cannot otherwise be made accessible; or o Adopting other innovative methods. (iv) Require the City to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the services, programs, or activities of the City when that individual poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, the City must make an individualized assessment based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk. Kimley#>Horn 2.0 Community Engagement 2.1 Mayor's Committee on Persons with Disabilities (MCPD) The Fort Worth Mayor's Committee on Persons with Disabilities (MCPD) is an organization consisting of citizen volunteers working with the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission to increase public awareness of the abilities of persons with disabilities and promote employment opportunities and housing accessibility. To accomplish these goals, the committee creates opportunities for dialogue and encourages open communication related to these issues as well as facilitate accessibility within the community and city government. City staff coordinated with the MCPD to provide an overview of the ADA Compliance Planning process, seek feedback from the committee on how the City is doing regarding accessibility, and seek input on public outreach materials that will be used to solicit feedback for the ADA Compliance Plan. The MCPD also assisted in developing a stakeholder list that will be used for future community engagement efforts as the Self -Evaluation and Transition Plan is developed. The goal in developing the list was to have people representing a broad range of abilities and disabilities. Below is the initial list of organizations identified: • ACCESS Paratransit • Aging and Disability Resource Center • American Red Cross • American Associate of Retired Persons • Business Accessibility for the Disabled • Catholic Charities • Deaf Action Center • Dementia Friendly FtW • Easterseals North Texas • Governor's Committee on Persons with Disabilities • Hearing Loss Association of America • Historic Southside Association • Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Council of Tarrant County • Lighthouse for the Blind • REACH • Tarrant County ADA Coordinator The following sections describe the public outreach tools developed to request public feedback for the ADA Compliance Plan. The City will continue to solicit feedback from the MCPD, stakeholders, and the public as the ADA Self -Evaluation and Transition Plan is developed through various outreach platforms such as City News digital newsletter, social media (Facebook, Instagram, X, and Nextdoor), emails to community, neighborhood, and faith - based stakeholders, flyers at City buildings and City meetings, and pop -ups at neighborhood and City events. Figure 1. Web Survey Kimley>Morn 2.2 Web Survey The City developed a web survey that is open to the public(https:llcfw.typeform.com/CFWPublicAccess). The survey was designed to help the City locate areas of greatest concern to the public and help provide better access within the community. The survey was available on the City's website and advertised in the City News digital newsletter. It was made available in both English and Spanish. Feedback was documented between May 20, 2024, and July 9, 2024. An image of one of the web survey pages is shown in Figure 1. Approximately 70% of those surveyed answered positively when asked about the accessibility of the City's buildings, parks, or public rights -of -way sidewalk corridors. 80% of those surveyed answered positively when asked if they have experienced any communication barriers when accessing the City's programs. Ella Mae Shamblee Library, Handley Meadowbrook Community Center, Southside East Community Center, and East Regional Library where the most visited facilities by respondents. Response summaries for the web survey are included in the Appendix. 2.3 Web Map The City also developed an online map to allow the public to identify specific locations where they experience issues related to accessibility, safety, connectivity, or suggestions for accessibility improvements that are needed in Fort Worth (ht(ps:llwikimapping.com/Fort-Worth-ADA-Compliance-Plan.html). The web map welcome page is shown in Figure 2. �— FORTWORTH Help u: update the City of Fort Worth �. •� ` ADA Compliance Plan d t w ,,� • �"'- WMa.rtbbov pl WbIXl Mara Mwrafl,au4 wlrtbptlrfian �-- - r n,rM •f� '� �•- w+.4 w�rdWlT adaA'. rnrbwl�M.MM MM rywsdwf�E4enPw/nar. - •,�� y,,, 3 tiowMbCwEn aw CpdFen Noe ! �. , yM„ °i� nw r.a.. MWa Mq Tow-W.00— T Ud'M&NOC W'AM Pobb- � arr .M.ase tlw Top alMlMrDYbThMra Tow Nsmskon aoLTwNtToiwl Nbrw i+. IT,.Mirr Yww Z"VW wMoas wwe PaoOpb IJp6wtl NaoB rrmMIX dac»T01rarMYen ewlpbCMTndMMMastbpawaM varrked6r[F �+ - • t "U"y� P6a .,u- n.rr omrynrdwtb•DMM TMMib nMw bT dCIMq NMhllwtN erlop llh odwae�yrabWpW irtMbaa00�dNMlwp 9 rOdeM wtl 00FRf Gw. al YM $ .r,r..M .� TOY-wH .t. .wrM � ' r4-r �y,� •. OMCL*A W Tlw rbmrlrw pra,d.ap T.rwTravwrmrnwwMr CM ^Di4s r..o.. - ...�...T-MIXnp.poTedaTMdon.Q Ne11M CaprimM TOW abuMr i � • "' �sM.nwM,orv�cras.MprMy ..� T� ..» ., i Figure 2. Web Map Welcome Page The web map responses help the City locate areas where the public is making accessibility requests. The responses were grouped into three categories that highlight locations where the public is facing challenges. • Areas where members of the public frequently walk with no sidewalks. • Locations where the public rights -of -way sidewalks are in poor condition. • Crossing locations that are made difficult due to the lack of a pedestrian signal and high traffic volumes. A full summary of the responses for the web map is included in the Appendix. Kimley>))Horn .I 2.4 Open House The City hosted a 2050 Comprehensive Plan Vision Summit on June 18, 2024. To capitalize on the in -person attendance, the City set up a booth dedicated to the ADA Compliance Plan to distribute information to the public about the Compliance Plan development and how to provide feedback via the web survey and web map (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Computers were made available during the Vision Summit to allow people access to the online tools, and assistance was provided to help individuals use the tools. Figure 3. ADA Compliance Plan Booth The City will conduct additional community engagement during the Self -Evaluation and Transition Planning process. Input from the community engagement phases will help guide the prioritization of barrier removal and facility improvements as the City works to implement the ADA Transition Plan. Kimley>>> Horn City of Fort Worth ADA Compliance Plan The City of Fat Worth is seeking input from interested persons to participate In the developmentof dre Citys ADA Compliance Plan. feedbackcanbe provided by completing anonline survey or using an online map. QR codes and URts for both methods are provided at the bottom of this page The online survey allows the public to Identify specific locations or facilities where barriers to access exist and to Provide feedback on how the City is doing related to program accessibility. The online map Is Interactive and allows the public to identify specific butions or facilities where barriers to access exist. Feedback received prior to July 9, 2024, will be incorporated into the 2024 ADA Compliance Plan. Feedback received after that time will be incorporated into the next Plan update. a- diversity-imiusiori/accessibility-accommodations DISCLAIMER: The information provided by survey respondents will only be used for the purpose of developing the ADA Compliance Plan. To file a formal ADA complaint with the City of Fort Worth, please visit the City's website and follow the grievance procedure instruction to complete a grievance form on- line or report by maiVernail: https://www.fortwortht"aclov/clepartments/ diverstty-inckskn(acees bgky-a ommodations. City of Fort Worth gT WOgTH ADA Compliance Plan The Americans with Disabilities Act 7 jADA) Is a civil rights law that prohibits 1A discrimination against individuals with of disabilities in all areas of public life, .� including jobs, schooK transportation. �{ and all public and private places that are open to the general public The I t purpose of the law is to make sure but people with disabilities have the same 111 rights and opportunities as everyone, else Title 11 of the ADA prohibits `+r discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all Program, activities, and servkes of public entitles and requires state and local governments to complete an ADA Self -Evaluation and Transition Plan to Identify and remedWe barriers to access. The City of Fort Worth Is currently developing an ADA Compliance Plan which will guide the City in the oompletion of the Self -Evaluation and development of the Transition Plan over the next several yen. Figure 4. ADA Compliance Plan Flyer Kimley>» Horn 9 3.0 Efforts To -Date The City of Fort Worth has been actively working to improve accessibility throughout the City. The following sections document the City's efforts to date regarding ADA compliance. 3.1 Administrative Requirements 3.1.1 Public Notice Under the ADA The ADA public notice requirement applies to all state and local governments covered by Title II, including entities with fewer than 50 employees. The target audience for the public notice includes applicants, beneficiaries, and other people interested in the entity's programs, services, and activities. This notice is required to include information regarding Title II of the ADA and how it applies to the programs, services, and activities of the public entity. The DOJ suggests including brief statements about: • Employment; • Effective communication; • Making reasonable modifications to policies and programs; • Not placing surcharges on modifications or auxiliary aids and services; and • Filing complaints. The notice should also include the name and contact information of the ADA/504 Coordinator. Publishing and publicizing the ADA notice is not a one-time requirement. State and local government entities should provide the information continuously, whenever necessary. The City's Accessibility Policy is posted online (https://www.fbrtworthtexas.gov/departments/diversity- inclusion/accessibility-accommodations) and includes all the DOJ suggested content. 3.1.2 ADA1504 Coordinator (Title 11) Under ADA Title II, when a public entity has 50 or more employees based on an entity -wide employee total count, the entity must designate at least one (1) qualified responsible employee to coordinate compliance with ADA requirements. This individual's name, office address, and telephone number must be available and advertised to employees and the public. This allows someone to assist with questions and concerns regarding disability discrimination to be easily identified. The City of Fort Worth has appointed Al Henderson as ADA/Title VI Coordinator for Title I and Title II. Below is the ADA Coordinator's contact information. Al Henderson, ADAITitle VI Coordinator Diversity & Inclusion Department 200 Texas Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Office: 817-392-8552 Relay: 711 ada@fortworthtexas.gov KimleyA Horn 10 The ADA1504 Coordinator's contact information must be provided to interested parties. The following distribution methods should be considered: • Post on the City website; • Prominently display in common areas that are accessible to all employees and areas open to the public; • Provide in materials that are distributed by the City for meetings and events where requests for auxiliary aids or services for effective communication might be needed; and • Provide in materials distributed by the City where ADA questions or concerns may arise. 3.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of the ADA1504 Coordinator Below is a list of qualifications for ADA Coordinators that are recommended by U.S. Department of Justice: • Familiarity with the entity's structures, activities, and employees; • Knowledge of the ADA and other laws addressing the rights of people with disabilities, such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; • Experience with people with a broad range of disabilities; • Knowledge of various alternative formats and alternative technologies that enable individuals with disabilities to communicate, participate, and perform tasks; • Ability to work cooperatively with local entities and people with disabilities; • Familiarity with any local disability advocacy groups or other disability groups; • Skills and training in negotiation and mediation; and • Organizational and analytical skills. The responsibilities of the ADA1504 Coordinator include coordinating the City's efforts to comply with Title II and investigating any complaints related to potential violations of Title II. The role of the ADA Coordinator typically includes being the primary contact when members of the public request an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, such as a sign language interpreter or documents in Braille. An effective ADA Coordinator will be able to assist people with disabilities with their questions efficiently. These roles and responsibilities are consistent with the Department of Justice's guidance for "An Effective ADA Coordinator" (https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkiVchap2toolkit.htm). 3.1.4 ADA/Title VI Coordinator Support Staff The FHWA requires all state transportation agencies to monitor their subrecipients for compliance with Title VI and the ADA. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) recently developed an online Subrecipient Compliance Assessment Tool. This assessment is a first step for TxDOT to determine subrecipient compliance, help subrecipients understand their ADA/504 and Title VI responsibilities, and assist TxDOT in planning future training and technical assistance. Upon completion, subrecipients were identified as having a satisfactory or unsatisfactory status. Title VI is referenced here solely for the purpose of highlighting the TxDOT assessment tool. However, the City will create and implement a separate Title VI Plan in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. TxDOT issued a "red" rating for ADA noncompliance to the City of Fort Worth on May 16, 2023. Subsequently, the City regained its "green" rating based on the City's 1992 ADA Transition Plan (see Section 4.2 Transition Plan) and an agreement to update its ADA Transition Plan within 3 years of the original "red" noncompliance rating. The City is currently contracted with Kimley-Hom to provide a roadmap for ADA compliance, starting with creating of an ADA Compliance Plan (this document). As described in the following sections, a substantial amount of work required by the City of Fort Worth to complete and maintain the citywide ADA Transition Plan and additional staff with ADA expertise will be required for these initiatives. Kimley>>> Horn 3.1.5 ADA Liaison Committee The City of Fort Worth has established an ADA Liaison Committee that is comprised of a representative from each City department. These representatives are tasked with serving as the ADA contact for their department and will consult with the ADA1504 Coordinator regarding all ADA issues impacting their department. Each representative is responsible for keeping a detailed log of all ADA inquiries within their department. This log shall be shared with the ADAt504 Coordinator and shall be retained for at least three (3) years. To promote awareness of the committee and its activities, the ADA Liaison Committee information can be publicized in common areas that are accessible to employees and areas open to the public. This includes posting this information on the City website. It is recommended that the City hire or assign a full-time equivalent staff member to help administer Fort Worth's ADA Transition Plan. 3.1.6 ADA Grievance Policy, Procedure, and Form with Appeal Process for the Americans with Disabilities Act Local governments with 50 or more employees must adopt and publish procedures for resolving grievances promptly and fairly that may arise under Title II of the ADA. The ADA grievance procedure aims to provide a mechanism for resolving discrimination issues at the City level, rather than requiring the complainant to resort to resolution at the federal level. Neither Title II nor its implementing regulations describe what ADA grievance procedures must include; however, the DOJ suggests the following content: • A description of how and where a complaint under Title II may be filed with the City; • If a written complaint is required, a statement notifying potential complainants that alternative means of filing will be available to people with disabilities who require such an alternative; • A description of the time frames and processes to be followed by the complainant and City; • Information on how to appeal an adverse decision; and • A statement of how long complaint files will be retained. The City's ADA grievance procedure and complaint form are posted online (hfps://www.fortworthtexas.gov/departments/diversity-inclusion/accessibility-accommodations) and include all the DOJ-suggested content. 3.2 Program, Services, and Activities Inventory The City of Fort Worth has compiled a list of current services, policies, practices required to be evaluated for compliance with Title II of the ADA and the affected programs, services, and activities (PSAs) the City offers to the public. The City intends to evaluate the identified services, policies, and practices and modify those found to be non- compliant so that the City can operate each service, program, and activity to be readily accessible and useable by individuals with disabilities. Examples of items identified for evaluation or creation include: • Department -specific handbooks, policies, procedures, and guidelines, • Standard operating procedures • Ordinances • Reasonable modification request policy, procures, and request form • Non-discrimination assurance • Non-discrimination language for non-federal contracts, agreements, and waivers • Non-discrimination policy statement • Alternate format policy, procedure, and request form • Effective communication policy, procedure, and request form Kimleyo)) Horn 12 • Meeting agendas and minutes • Videos • Design standards • Emergency management documents • Service animal guidance/policy • Event planning guidance/policy/checklist • Event ticketing guidance/policy • Other power -driven mobility device guidancelpolicy • Retaliation and coercion policies 3.3 Facilities Inventory The City completed a facilities inventory in 2024 to identify the total number of facilities the City is responsible for and to identify which had been previously evaluated for ADA compliance. City staff in the following departments collaborated to verify the inventory quantities: • Property Management Department (PMD) • Park & Recreation Department (PARD) • Transportation & Public Works Department (TPW) 3.3.1 Buildings The City maintains a detailed database of all properties the City owns and leases. The database contains property details such as year built, size, sponsor department, and if there is public access or employee access only. There are over 700 facilities in the database, but PMD is responsible for general fund -maintained facilities which includes all the public facing facilities. The City currently operates five enterprise funds consisting of Water and Sewer, Municipal Airports, Municipal Parking, Stormwater Utility and Solid Waste. The City will be reviewing all contractual agreements for enterprise fund -maintained facilities to verify the City's responsibility with respect to ADA compliance. A summary of the general fund -maintained facility counts by sponsor department and year built are provided in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 2 only quantifies those facilities with public access. Table 1. General Fund -Maintained Building Inventory Summary Code Compliance 3 10 13 Economic Development 3 --- 3 Fire 37 26 63 j Fort Worth Public Library 8 10 18 Information Technology Solutions 3 8 11 Municipal Court 3 1 4 Neighborhood Services 6 2 8 j Park & Recreation 41 16 57 Police 11 12 23 Property Management 18 11 29 Public Events 4 2 6 Transportation and Public Works 1 5 4 9 Total 1 142 102 I 244 Kimlep Horn 13 _.00909 Table Z General Fund -Maintained Buildings with Public Access Code Compliance --- 8 8 Economic Development 1 --- 1 Fire --- --- 0 Fort Worth Public Library 8 7 15 Information Technology Solutions --- --- 0 Municipal Court --- --- 0 Neighborhood Services I 6 2 8 Park & Recreation 20 9 29 Police 5 5 10 Property Management 6 2 8 Public Events 3 2 5 Transportation and Public Works 1 --- 1 Total 50 35 85 Over the past 10 years, the City has conducted facility assessments to either review a building's overall accessibility to determine compliance with Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) or observe the conditions of the site, facility, and system to provide a list of life safety and maintenance items to be addressed. Below is a list of buildings that have been reviewed to date. The year of evaluation is noted in parentheses. 1. Andrew °Doc" Sessions Community Center (2023) 2. Bradley Community Center (2023) 3. Cowtown Coliseum (2013) 4. Convention Center (2016) 5. Fort Worth Community Arts Center & W.E. Scott Theater (2022) 6. Gateway Park Concession Restroom Building (2023) 7. Greenbriar Community Center (2023) 8. Guinn Complex (2023) 9. Haws Athletic Center (2023) 10. Highland Hills Community Center (2023) 11. Handley Meadowbrook Recreation Center (2017) 12. Hardwicke Visitor Center (2023) 3.3.2 Parks 13. Log Cabin Village and Van Zandt Homestead (2023) 14. McCray Recreation Center (2017) 15. McLeland Pro Shop (2023) 16. McLeland Tennis Courts (2023) 17. Northside Community Center (2017) 18. North Tri-Ethnic Community Center (2017) 19. R.D. Evans Community Center (2023) 20. Riverside Community Center (2023) 21. Rose Marine Theater (2023) 22. Southwest Community Center (2023) 23. Sycamore Community Center (2019) 24. Thomas Place Community Center (2023) 25. Will Rogers Memorial Center (2018) 26. Worth Heights Community Center (2017) The City owns and maintains 302 parks. PARD maintains a digital database of all parks on the City's website: https://www.fortworthtexas.gov/departments/parks/parks-and-trails. The database contains property details such as dedication year, size, amenities, and rental information. All community centers are contained in the PMD database. The City has not evaluated any parks for ADA compliance to date. Kimkny*Horn 14 3.3.3 Public Rights -of -Way TPW maintains an extensive Geographic Information System (GIS) database that contains records for the following pedestrian facilities in the public rights -of -way: • 730 signalized intersections • 2,730 on -street marked or metered parking • 3,150 miles of sidewalk corridors spaces, including approximately 110 • 11,500 unsignalized intersections accessible on -street parking spaces • 33,900 curb ramps • 174 railroad crossings, including 42 at -grade pedestrian railroad crossing In 2021, TPW conducted an asset inventory of public rights -of -way facilities using UDAR. The primary goal was a pavement condition assessment, with a secondary goal of collecting transportation assets. The collected assets consisted of pavement, sidewalks, curb ramps, streetlights, signs, poles, pavement striping, and speed bumps. The following attributes were collected for 3,036 miles of sidewalk: • Material • Qualitative condition (see Figure 5) • Width • Cross slope A� �„,.— .Kits dub" Ar Figure 5. Screenshot of 2021 TPW Asset Inventory for Sidewalk The following attributes were collected for 33,263 curb ramps: • Curb ramp type • Curb ramp run width • Cross slope • Running slopes • Landing area • Landing length • Landing running slope • Flare slopes • Detectable warning • Visual facility condition • Condition • Obstruction type and severity Kimley>>)Horn 15 3.3.4 Facility Inventory Summary Based on the completed inventory, the City has identified the following facilities for future evaluation: • 52 buildings 302 parks 89 miles of trails • 114 miles of public rights -of -way sidewalk 628 curb ramps Pedestrian street crossings at approximately 11,500 unsignalized intersections along the sidewalk corridors • 730 signalized intersections (pedestrian signal equipment and pedestrian street crossings only) • 110 on -street accessible parking spaces • 42 at -grade pedestrian railroad crossings. Additional buildings may need to be evaluated once the contractual agreements for the enterprise fund -maintained facilities are reviewed and the responsibility for those facilities is confirmed. 3.4 Ongoing Accessibility Efforts The City of Fort Worth currently includes ADA compliance through the following efforts: 3.4.1 Property Management Department As discussed in Section 3.1.1 Buildings, PMD contracted for accessibility reviews of 15 facilities in 2023. The evaluation cost was approximately $100,000 with a rough order of magnitude construction estimate of $4.6 million. Based on the 2023 reviews, PMD outlined the department's 6-year (2024-2029) budget needs for assessing 90 facilities and associated remediations. Using a 20% annual escalation, the future assessments are estimated to cost approximately $895,000, and the associated rough order of magnitude construction interpolation estimate is $55 million. The'2020 Vision: A System Master Plan for the Fort Worth Library' was prepared in 2011. It outlines a 20-year strategy for renovating and improving access to existing libraries while also identifying areas where access to services can be expanded and improved in underserved neighborhoods as the City of Forth Worth continues to grow. All development projects, whether new construction or renovation since 1991, meet ADA requirements. Facilities built before 1991 are being renovated and brought into compliance based on facility usage numbers. Construction documents for individual capital projects of more than $50,000 are filed with the State (TDLR) and reviewed by a Registered Accessibility Specialist (RAS) to ensure they comply with current standards. Additionally, once a project is complete, the RAS inspects the site to verify it was constructed according to approved plan documents. For example, PARD opened the Diamond Hill Community Center in 2023, which replaced the 1969 building. Other examples of current projects include: Chisholm Trail Community Center, Como Community Center, Fort Worth Far North Branch Library, Reby Cary Youth Library, and Fort Worth Police Department South Patrol Division. PMD continues to budget and request ADA accessibility reviews of unevaluated facilities through Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding, bonds, and grants. Kimley*Horn 16 3.4.2 Park & Recreation Department As part of the 2022 Bond Program, voters approved Fort Worth Proposition B which authorizes the sale of $123,955,500 in General Obligation public securities to finance parks, recreation, and community center -related improvements to enhance the number, quality, and accessibility of park land and facilities and to address growth in developing/redevelopment areas. These improvements include development, design, construction, enhancement, expansion, renovation, major repair, and/or replacement of: aquatic facilities; athletic fields; community centers; community parks; neighborhood parks; special -use parks and facilities; park and recreation facilities; roadways, parking, and/or drainage facility improvements at or integrated into parks; playgrounds; the City's walks and trail systems; and supporting facilities and infrastructure for any or all of these as well as the purchase and/or improvement of land, as necessary, to support these improvements. PARD's 5-year (2024 — 2028) CIP represents the department's roadmap for future project expenditures for city-wide park system improvements. These fiscal resources reflect the department's commitment to replacing and renovating existing park infrastructure and providing new facilities for developing and redeveloping areas. This plan outlines about $55 million in improvements such as: • erosion repair, • road and parking lot repaving projects, • playground replacement projects, • development of new athletic field facilities, • construction and sustainment of walks and trails, • installation of security lighting, • irrigation improvements, and • development of reserve parks. The City's Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is currently under development. This master plan outlines the City's commitment to improving Fort Worth residents' quality of life by ensuring equitable access to the parks and recreation system. A comprehensive and detailed analysis of the park system, features, and locations was completed to aid this objective. Community input highlighted the need for more park and recreation facility locations, the need for amenities, the need for connected sidewalk/multi-modal trail systems, and the need for more variety in the look and feel of the parks. The master plan carefully considers vital factors such as environmental and socioeconomic vulnerabilities. It aims to address both immediate needs and future requirements, aligning with the City's commitment to equity. 3.4.3 Transportation & Public Works Department TPW outlined $264 million for CIP work in the 2022 Bond Program. These projects would focus on improving the streets and mobility infrastructure. TPW has grouped these projects into the following categories: • Corridor improvement projects that are focused on pedestrian, bicycle, motorist, and transit improvements that increase safety, accessibility, and connectivity to the surrounding community, such as sidewalks, bicycle facilities, special bus lanes, facilities to provide safe roadway crossings, public transportation stops, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and intersection and travel lane reconfiguration. • Street construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation projects that include pedestrian improvements alongside travel lane and intersection improvements. Kimley>» Horn 17 • Citywide reconstruction of intersections to improve ADA compliance, safety, and traffic flow with modifications to turn lanes, medians, signal devices, and pedestrian equipment. There are also projects focused on upgrading and improving the pedestrian hybrid beacons throughout the City. • Neighborhood and school safety projects that focus on pedestrian mobility and safety improvements near schools, such as new sidewalks, rehabilitation of existing sidewalks, ADA ramps, and the installation of crosswalks. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] Kimley»)Horn 18 4.0 Action Plan As described in Section 1.3 Title II Requirements, the City must evaluate current services, policies, and practices and develop a Transition Plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete the structural changes to achieve program access. The following sections describe the City's Action Plan to complete the Self -Evaluation and Transition Plan. 4.1 Self -Evaluation The goal of the Self -Evaluation is to meet the requirements in §35.130 (General prohibitions against discrimination) that no qualified individual with a disability shall, based on a disability be excluded from participation in or be denied benefits of the services, programs, or activities of the City, or be subjected to discrimination by the City. To complete the Self -Evaluation the City will evaluate all current services, policies, and practices to confirm there is an equal opportunity for people with disabilities to participate in services, programs, and activities and that there are no circumstances in which the participation of a person with a disability would be excluded or restricted from participating unless the exclusions or restrictions are necessary to the operation of the program or the safety of other participants. The evaluation will consider several areas, including but not limited to: • Contracting with external organizations • Reasonable modifications • Service animals • Wheelchairs and other power -driven mobility devices • Surcharges and costs • Ticketing • Availability of information about the City's accessible services, activities, and facilities that are available to the public and current and future program participants • Auxiliary aids and services • Policies and procedures • Telecommunications The City will modify all non-compliance services, policies, and practices and provide an opportunity to interested persons to participate in the self -evaluation process by submitting comments. 4.2 Transition Plan The Transition Plan aims to identify physical obstacles in City facilities that limit the accessibility of City programs or activities to individuals with disabilities and to develop an implementation plan to complete structural changes to achieve program accessibility. The plan will specify the steps necessary to achieve compliance for each year of the transition period, including a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrian walks cross curbs. The plan will also indicate the official responsible for implementing the plan. An opportunity will be provided to interested persons to participate in developing the transition plan by submitting comments, and a copy of the Transition Plan will be made available for public inspection. The City of Fort Worth developed an ADA Transition Plan in July 1992 that consisted of inspections of facilities with a large volume of public traffic (e.g., City Hall, recreation centers, multipurpose centers, Public Safety Building, Police Department, etc.) and worksites with little public traffic (e.g., service centers, water plants, storage warehouse, etc.). The original Transition Plan identified changes that needed to be made to the facilities with a large volume of public traffic over a three-year period to achieve program accessibility. Approximately 10% of the intersections within the Kimley*Horn 19 City of Fort Worth were also evaluated to determine where curb ramps were needed. The initial emphasis was place on areas of the city which are most traveled and visited by the general public, including the Central Business District, the Cultural District, the Hospital District, the Stockyards, intersections adjacent to all public schools, Texas Christian University area, Texas Wesleyan area, and the Southwestern Baptist Seminary area. The original Transition Plan also included several opportunities for public input. The City will be updating the ADA Transition Plan to reflect current conditions. 4.2.1 Unevaluated Facilities After comparing the evaluations completed to date to the total number of facilities the City is responsible for, the City has identified the facilities listed in Table 3 that need to be evaluated for ADA compliance: Table 3. Unevaluated Facilities Facility Type Quarifity Facilities and Associated Parking Lots 52 Parks and Associated Parking Lots 302 Stand-alone Shared Use Paths and Trails (miles) 89 Sidewalks (miles) 114 Curb Ramps 628 Pedestrian Street Crossings (unsignalized intersections) 11,515 Pedestrian Signal Equipment (intersections) 730 On -street Accessible Parking Spaces 110 i At -grade Pedestrian Railroad Crossings 42 _I 4.2.2 Phased Self -Evaluation Approach The City intends to phase the evaluation of the unevaluated facilities in Table 1. In selecting which facilities to evaluate first, the City has identified the following considerations: Prioritization Considerations for all Facilities • Facility type — Selecting various facilities (e.g., public rights -of -way, buildings, parks) to be evaluated during each phase instead of all of the same facility type, may provide a better understanding of different issues. • Spatial distribution of facilities — Selecting facilities to be evaluated evenly across different areas of the City or Council Districts might be more well -received by the public, assuming all the risk factors above are equal. • Upcoming Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects — If curb ramps are completely removed and replaced as part of an upcoming project, the ADA compliance of the new construction should be confirmed during construction inspections, and resources would be better spent evaluating curb ramps that are not planned for reconstruction. • Equity factors — Underserveldisadvantaged communities based on the Social Vulnerability Index. • Number of existing complaints — If the public has already identified locations as problem areas through a compliant, these locations should be evaluated as soon as possible to determine whether the area(s) of concern are in compliance. Kimley*Horn 20 - Public Input — Receiving and considering feedback from the public to better understand their concerns is recommended. While formal complaints may not have been filed, areas of concern to the public are more likely to have a higher risk for litigation if no improvements are made where an issue exists. • Age of facility — Facilities constructed or remodeled after July 26, 1991, are at a higher risk than those constructed before the 1991 Standards for Accessible Design were published because they were constructed out of compliance. Additional Prioritization Considerations for Buildinas and Parks • Public access — Facilities with public access are more likely to have a higher risk than facilities without public access or employee -only areas of a facility with public access. PMD maintains a database that specifies public access, as summarized in Table 1. • Usagelpatronage — Facilities with higher patronage and where City services are offered, and programs and activities are hosted are more likely to have a higher risk than those with lower patronage and no hosted programs or activities. PARD maintains a database of program registrations, membership usage, and park patronage. Additional Prioritization Considerations for Public Rights-of-Wav • Proximity to pedestrian attractors — Locations near pedestrian attractors (e.g., hospitals, retirement facilities, medical offices, parking garages, major employers, disability service providers, event facilities, bus or transit stopiroutes, schools, government and public facilities, parks, libraries, churches) are more likely to have a higher risk compared to those locations without pedestrian attractors. • Proximity to residential areas — Locations near residential areas are more likely to have a higher risk than those adjacent to industrial areas where pedestrians are less likely to travel. • Number of crashes — Locations with pedestrian -related crashes should be evaluated to determine if there is a design issue that may be contributing to the crashes (e.g., a push button is not within the required reach range, so pedestrians are not activating the button and crossing the street without a protected phase). • Street classification — Arterials typically have higher pedestrian activity than local roadways and may be a higher risk. • Pedestrian/vehicle volumes — Higher pedestrian/vehicle volume roadways are more likely to have higher risk than lower volume pedestrian/vehicle roadways. Pedestrian volumes may be quantified using indicators such as the number of pedestrian activations at a signalized intersection. • Existing sidewalks — The ADA does not require sidewalks to be installed, but existing sidewalks must be compliant, and the accessible route must be maintained in an accessible condition. Locations with existing sidewalks are at higher risk than locations without existing sidewalks. 4.2.3 Best Practices and Considerations The following sections describe best practices and considerations for evaluation criteria, evaluation methodology, reporting capabilities, implementation, and progress monitoring. Kimley*Horn 21 Evaluation Criteria Building and park facilities should be evaluated for compliance with Title II of the ADA based on the applicable ADA standards in effect at the time of construction or alteration: • Properties constructed before September 15, 2010 will be reviewed against the 1991 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADA Standards) or Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). • Properties constructed between September 15, 2010 and March 15, 2012 will be reviewed against the 1991 ADA Standards, UFAS, or the 2010 ADA Standards. • Properties constructed after March 15, 2012 will be reviewed against the 2010 ADA Standards. Evaluations will initially be limited to all publicly accessible areas. Employee -only areas and work areas, including con -use spaces located in employee -only areas, will be excluded from the evaluations. However, if reasonable accommodations are requested by a City employee, evaluations of the employee -only areas may be conducted at that time. In addition to building interiors, other elements to be evaluated will include but are not limited to, accessible parking, the path of travel from the accessible parking lot to the building/park entrance, access to buildings, signage, drinking fountains, telephones, restrooms, counter heights, and park amenities. All on -site sidewalks and all associated curb ramps, ramps, stairs, pedestrian bridges, and other paths of travel required to be ADA-compliant will also be evaluated. The following City -maintained pedestrian facilities in the public rights -of -way will be evaluated based on PROWAG: sidewalk, curb ramps, pedestrian street crossings at unsignalized intersections, pedestrian signal equipment, on - street accessible parking spaces, and at -grade pedestrian railroad crossings. State and local building codes under which projects were originally constructed will be excluded from all evaluations. Evaluation Methodology Several technologies are currently available to aid in the data collection process. At a minimum, the equipment used to collect the data should be capable of the following: • Measuring slopes to the nearest tenth of a percent; • Measuring dimensions to the nearest inch or the nearest foot, depending on the compliance threshold units; • Isolating the measurements for each element listed in the applicable ADA Standards or PROWAG; and • Creating output in GIS file format with geospatially referenced photos of evaluated elements. Reporting Capabilities For the data to be readily usable by the City for developing its ADA Transition Plan, the reporting methodology should provide the following output: • Compliance status of each element evaluated based on the applicable ADA Standards or PROWAG; • Possible solutions to remove any barriers and bring the element into compliance; • Conceptual budget estimates to implement each possible solution; and • Prioritization of the individual facility or element, independent of other facilities or elements of the same type, so that severity of non-compliance can be compared. hftftsm Kimley>>> Horn 22 Implementation After the Self -Evaluation is complete, possible solutions have been identified, and conceptual budget estimates have been determined for each improvement, an implementation plan can be developed. Depending on the conceptual budget estimates of all improvements, a typical implementation plan for an entity the size of the City of Fort Worth can range from 15 to 20 years. The implementation plan needs to show both a strong commitment toward upgrading ADA elements identified in the inventory of barriers in the short-term (planned capital improvement projects) and a strong commitment over time toward prioritizing curb ramps at walkways serving entities covered by the ADA. To aid in developing the implementation plan, all identified compliance issues should be prioritized for remediation. The same prioritization considerations provided in 4.2.2 Phased Self -Evaluation Approach can also be used to prioritize remediation projects in addition to the severity of non-compliance, DOJ priorities, and available funding. The DOSs priorities are: 1. Issues with accessible approach and entrance 2. Issues with access to goods and services 3. Issues with access to public restrooms 4. Issues with other measures to provide access to goods and services The implementation of the Transition Plan should also be incorporated into all City projects, including: • Bringing required elements into ADA compliance during road reconstructions and widenings; • Bringing required elements into ADA compliance as facilities are reconstructed; • Reviewing design plans for all reconstructions to verify ADA-required elements are included and designed to meet the ADA standards or PROWAG; and • Inspecting all new construction to ensure facilities were built per the design plans. Progress Monitoring The City should establish a working database that will allow staff to track and monitor progress as projects are implemented and barriers are removed. The database should allow staff to report progress by facility type on a periodic basis as required by City management (e.g., quarterly reports) or as requested by enforcing agencies such as DOJ and FHWA, or agencies that are required to monitor the progress of their federal funding recipients such as the TxDOT. There is no one -size -fits -all solution to progress monitoring, and the City should make a citywide collaborative effort to understand what existing City project information and accessibility evaluation data need to be integrated into the database to make progress monitoring usable by City staff in maintaining the City's ADA Transition Plan. Kimley>>> Horn 23 5.0 Funding Opportunities The City has several alternative funding sources available to complete the improvements in this Transition Plan. These opportunities include applying for resources at the federal, state, and local levels. The following sections detail some different funding options. 5.1 Federal and State Funding Federal and state funding is available for the City to apply for through numerous agencies for various improvements. A copy of this information is also available on the FHWA website: https://www.fhwa.dot.govlenvironment/bicycle—pedestriarVfunding/. Most of these programs are competitive -type grants; therefore, the City of Fort Worth is not guaranteed to receive these funds. It will be important for the City to track these programs so that they can apply for the funds. Federal -aid funding programs have specific requirements that projects must meet, and eligibility must be determined case -by - case. 5.2 Local Funding There are several local funding options for the City to consider, including: • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) • Community Improvement District (CID) —A geographically defined district where commercial property owners vote to impose a self -tax. Funds are then collected by the taxing authority and given to a board of directors elected by the property owners. • General fund (sales tax and bond issue) • Scheduled/funded CIP projects that are funded through bonds • Sidewalk or Access Improvement Fee • Special tax districts — A district with the power to provide some governmental or quasi -governmental service and raise revenue by taxation, special assessment, or service charges. • Tax Allocation District (TAD) — A defined area where real estate property tax monies gathered above a certain threshold for a certain period (typically 25 years) is to be used for a specified improvement. The funds raised from a TAD are placed in a tax-free bond (finance) where the money can continue to grow. These improvements are typically for revitalization and especially to complete redevelopment efforts. • Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) — A TIF allows cities to create special districts and to make public improvements within those districts that will generate private -sector development. The tax base is frozen at the predevelopment level during the development period. Property taxes continue to be paid, but taxes derived from increases in assessed values (the tax increment) resulting from new development either go into a special fund created to retire bonds issued to originate the development or leverage future growth in the district. • Transportation Reinvestment Zone • Transportation User Fee / Street Maintenance Fee KimleylMorn 24 6.0 Conclusion and Next Steps This document serves as the ADA Compliance Plan for the City of Fort Worth. The next steps for the City of Fort Worth are: 1. Finalize the prioritized list of programs, services, activities, and facilities to be evaluated in the first phase of the Self -Evaluation. Phase 1 will begin in fiscal year 2025 with a $1 M budget to begin evaluations and develop a Transition Plan. 2. Complete a Self -Evaluation for all City programs, services, activities, and facilities. Facility evaluations should include the following: a. Facility reports with the compliance status of each element evaluated based on the applicable ADA Standards and PROWAG; b. Possible solutions to remove any barriers and bring the element into compliance; c. Conceptual budget estimates to implement each possible solution; and d. Prioritization of the individual facility or element, independent of other facilities or elements of the same type, so that severity of non-compliance can be compared. 3. Develop an Implementation Plan, including a schedule for completing the recommended facility improvements and funding sources to be used. 4. Update the City's Accessibility & Accommodations webpage (https://www.fortwodhtexas.gov/departments/diversity-inclusion/accessibility-accommodations) to clearly document the City's efforts toward ADA compliance. 5. Complete remaining Self -Evaluation phases and update the City's ADA Transition Plan after each additional phase. 6. Continue to update the City's ADA Transition Plan as projects are implemented and citizen requests/complaints are received and addressed. At a minimum the ADA Transition Plan will be updated every three to four years. 7. Determine the best approach for receiving public input on the Self -Evaluation and ADA Transition Plan. Kimley>>)Horn 25 Appendix Web Survey Response Summary Web Map Response Summary Kimley>>)Horn 26 FORTWORTH City of Fort Worth Public Access Survey Which of these City of Fort Worth buildings do you visit regularly? 6 out of 6 answered Library Ella Mae Shamblee,1062 Evans Avenue 5 resp. 83.3% Community Center Handley Meadowbrook, East 6201 Beaty Street 2 resp. 33.3% Community Center Southside East, 959 Rosedale Street 2 resp. 33.3% Library East Regional, 6301 Bridge Street 2 resp. 33.3% Community Center Bethlehem, 951 Evans Avenue 1 resp. 16.7% Community Center Bradley, 2601 Timberline Drive 1 resp. 16.7% Community Center Como, 4660 Horne Street i resp. 16.7% Community Center McCray, 4932 Wilbarger Street Community Center Riverside, East 3700 Belknap Street Library Reby Cary Youth, East 3851 Lancaster Avenue Municipal Complex City Hall, 200 Texas Street FORT WORTH 1 resp. 16.7% 1 resp. 16.7% 1 resp. 16.7% 1 resp. 16.7% Thinking only about City -owned, public properties in City of Fort Worth, have you experienced any physical barriers or obstructions in a public building or parking structure/parking lot you currently use or would like to use? 6 out of 6 answered NO 3 resp. 50% Yes 3 resp. 50% FORT WORTH Have you encountered any physical barriers or obstructions within a City of Fort Worth building or parking structure/parking lot that prevented you from using or participating in a City program, service or activity? 5 out of 6 answered No 2 resp. 40% No, but someone I know has. 2 resp. 40% Yes 1 resp. 20% Have you encountered any communication barriers in a City of Fort Worth building, parking structure/parking lot that kept you from using or participating in a City program, service, or activity? 6 out of 6 answered No Yes 5 resp. 83.3% 1 resp. 16.7% No, but someone I know has. 0 resp. 0% FORTWORTH Have you encountered any other accessibility -related challenges/concerns related to City of Fort Worth buildings or parking structures/parking lots not covered by the questions above? 6 out of 6 answered No Yes 4 resp. 66.70,6 2 resp. 33.3% No, but someone I know has. 0 resp. 0% FORT WORTH Which of these City of Fort Worth parks do you visit regularly? 6 out of 6 misw rt-c: Botanic Garden, 3220 Botanic Garden Boulevard 83.3% Will Roger Memorial Center Complex, 3401 W Lancaster Avenue 4 resp. 66.7% Trinity Park, 2401 University Drive 3 resp. 50% Fort Worth Zoo,1989 Colonial Parkway 2 resp. 33.3% Gateway Park, 751 Beach Street 2 resp 33.3% Oakland Lake Park,1645 Lake Shore Drive 2 resp. 33.3% Sycamore Park, 2525 E Rosedale Street 2 resp. 33.3% Forest Park,1989 Colonial Parkway l resp. 16.7% Marion Sansom Park, 2500 Roberts Cut -Off Road 1 resp. 16.7% FORTWORTH Thinking only about City -owned, public properties in City of Fort Worth, have you experienced any physical barriers or obstructions in a public park or along a public trail you currently use or would like to use? 6 out of 6 answered Yes No, but someone I know has. 3 resp. 50% 2 resp. 33.3% 1 resp. 16.7% Have you encountered any physical barriers or obstructions within a City of Fort Worth park or along a trail that prevented you from using or participating in a City program, service or activity? 5 out of 6 answered No a resp. 80% Yes 1 resp. 20% No, but someone I know has. 0 resp. 0% FORTWORTH Have you encountered any communication barriers in a City of Fort Worth park or along a trail that kept you from using or participating in a program, service, or activity? 6 out of 6 answered No T resp. 83.3% Yes 1 resp. 16.7% No, but someone I know has. r resp 0% Have you encountered any other accessibility -related challenges/concerns related to City of Fort Worth parks or trails not covered by the questions above? 5 out of 6 answered No , resp. 60% Yes 2 resp. 400/b No, but someone I know has. 0 resp. 0% FORTWORTH Thinking only about City -owned, public rights -of -way in City of Fort Worth, have you experienced any physical barriers, inaccessible sections, or poor conditions along a pedestrian path (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian street crossings, pedestrian driveway crossings, curb ramps, etc.) you currently use or would like to use? 6 out of 6 answered Yes a resp. 66.7% No 2 resp. 33.3% No, but someone I know has. o resp. 0% When using sidewalks along the public rights -of -way within the City of Fort Worth, have you encountered locations without curb ramps as you enter or exit a street or driveway crossing? Yes No 4 resp. 66.7% 1 resp. 16.7% No, but someone I know has. 1 resp. 16.7% FORTWORTH Have you encountered difficulties crossing a street near a City of Fort Worth building or park due to lack of pedestrian push buttons and pedestrian signals? 6 out of 6 answered NO 3 resp. 50% Yes 3 resp. 50% No, but someone I know has. 0 resp. 0% Have you encountered any other accessibility -related challenges/concerns related to the public rights -of -way within the City of Fort Worth not covered by the questions above? 6 3ut of 6 answered No 3 resp. 50% Yes 3 resp. 50% No, but someone I know has. 0 resp. 0% FORTWORTH Are there programs, services or activities sponsored by the City of Fort Worth that you would like to participate in or use but have been unable to? 6 , .....r... No 4 resp. 66.7% Yes 2 resp. 33.3% No, but someone 1 know has. o resp. 0% Are there programs, services or activities sponsored by the City of Fort Worth that you have tried to participate in or use but were unable to? 6 !f1'�.4I-it..;i No 4 resp. 66.7% No, but someone 1 know has. 1 resp. 16.7% Yes 1 resp. 16.7% FORTWORTH Are you able to obtain available information from the City of Fort Worth website? 6 out of 6 answered Yes 6 resp. 100% No 0 resp. 0% Are you able to obtain available information from the City of Fort Worth social media sites? 6 out of 6 answered No a resp. 66.T% Yes 2 resp. 33.3% FORT WORTH Have you encountered any other accessibility -related challenges/concerns related to programs, services or activities sponsored by the City of Fort Worth not covered by the question above? 6 out of 6 answered No 4 resp. 66.7% Yes 2 resp. 33.3% Ito, but someone I know has. 0 resp. 0% FORTWORTH On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate the accessibility of the City of Fort Worth's public amenities overall? 6 out of 6 answered 3 = Adequate 3 resp. 50% 4 = Good 2 resp. 33.311k 2 = Fair ]resp. 16.7°% l = Poor 0 resp. 0% 5 = Exceptional 0 resp. 0% FORT WORTH On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate the accessibility of the City of Fort Worth's programs, services, and activities overall? 6 out of 6 answered 4 = Good 3 resp. 50% 3 = Adequate 2 resp. 33.3% 2 = Fair 1 -sp. 16.7% 1= Poor 0 resp. 0% 5 = Exceptional a resp. 0% FORTWORTH Is the City of Fort Worth accommodating of persons with disabilities? 6 out of 6 answered Yes No In your opinion, what is the best platform in which to submit ADA complaints to the City? 6 out of 6 answered MyFW Mobile Application City of Fort Worth Website 311(phone) Other 4 resp. 66.7% 2 resp. 33.3% 3 resp. 500/o 1 resp. 16.7% 0 resp. 0% 2 resp. 33.3% FORTWORTH Do you have any general comments or items regarding accessibility that you would like the City to be aware of that were not covered by the questions above? 6 out of 6 answered No 3 resp. 50% Yes 3 resp. 50% FORTWORTH Which of the following describes you? (OPTIONAL TO ANSWER) 6 out of 6 answered I am a resident of the City of Fort Worth a resp. 66.7% I'm a person with one or more disabilities 3 resp. 50% I have a family member with one or more disabilities but I'm not their caregiver 2 resp. 33.3% I am a caregiver for a person with one or more disabilities o resp. 0% I have clients who have one or more disabilities o resp. 0% I live in the Fort Worth area, but reside outside the City limits of Fort Worth 0% None of these choices describe me ' resp. 0% FORT WORTH Web Map Response Summary The City of Fort Worth received nine (9) comments for locations within the City where the public would like improvements made along the public rights -of -way (see Table A). A map showing the areas of concern is provided in Figure A. The "Map ID" in Table A correlates to a location in Figure A. Table A. Web Map Comments Received Map ID Issue Type Comment Major corridor in the Rolling Hills/Highland Hills NA/ Glencrest Civic League has no sidewalk or handicap accommodations to McDonald YMCA community center and Renaissance Square for shopping for pedestrian or bike access. Sidewalks are missing. Need wide boulevard sidewalks and lighting with pedestrian crosswalk and signage to allow safe crossings on 1 Sidewalk Missing this very busy community road that connects and transverses thru our communities. Safe pedestrian Access especially for seniors and youth and ADA access to the Y is the key emphasis. The population is more senior, but youth exist in nearby multifamily housing which does not have direct sidewalks for handicap accommodations or signage. Pis work with Glencrest Civic League and Whisky Ranch on this project to add ADA and sidewalks for overall safety. Sidewalks missing for this area connecting to city park greenbelt in 2 Sidewalk Missing neighborhood. Use area along fence line on Glen Garden Dr to place curbs and sidewalk and potential bike lane improvements to join community with ADA features to accommodate the elderly residents in the community 3 Sidewalk Missing Ph 2 extension of Glen Garden Dr sidewalk and ADA compliance to area shopping access at Family Dollar and Nearby elementary school. Sidewalk to service as connector to Villa by the parks multifamily housing 4 Sidewalk Missing unit and park areas. Students and residents must walk on grass path. Units are isolation on a hill and have no sidewalks at all in the area to even access the nearby McDonald YMCA. They must drive 5 Sidewalk Missing Add route for wider pedestrian community pathway of large community multifamily housing Palladium Sidewalk upheaval in several areas. ADA hazard and elderly fall risk due to uplifting and subsiding of existing sidewalk plates in high traffic areas. City Sidewalk in Poor public works and MyFW app was used to report issues but no action is 6 Condition planned to address this immediate risk. 1001 E Terrell ave is address. Area around both church and school ( Fortress YDC ) have sidewalks that are in poor condition and represent a hazard especially to elderly and wheel chair bound citizens in the community of the historic Southside 76104 area. 900 block of new York and 1000 block of Terrell Ave needs new sidewalk 7 Sidewalk Missing on a short section. Grass only and no curbs or ADA features in this area used by elderly and mobility challenged individuals. Safety risks of falling. 8 Sidewalk Missing No comment provided. FORT WORTH Map ID Issue Type Comment Pedestrian High traffic cross street with popular churches near the intersection and N/A Signal community building on New York Ave crossing street. Youth programs at Requested both churches and school nearby (Our Mother of Mercy Catholic Church and Fortress YDC school) have active pro [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] � i n a HISTORIC l A m° a c Fit_ SUUTHSIDE o °1 E Vickery Blvd j � veil Ave I I Glenwood ? l Avenue B _ � $yeemoMrc Tares Wesleyan _ - - ( EL POLY University PYRAMID Avenue E E 0.y.gae�e y. ® — E Rosedale S' er I I -kvenue G vtal I ; I SOUTHEAST Avenue H A+e.ue I E Maddox All {"_„'+ 'T') rn E All Ave Avenua K j Elmwood Ave • Y Avenue L E Jefferson Ave < / I E Richmond Ave E o y POLY'• ap` E Baltimore Ave > EMPOV AS SO E Arlington Ave m Ads Ave Wo E Davis Ave O jHILLSIDE EHarvey Ave - MORNINGSIDE EPowell Ave m n BURCHILL n • z • c' I j:l UTHEAST '13 • • KINGDOM Fitzhugh Ave II to — Cobb V � Strong Ave > • 1i : Robert 8% ` Colvin St c Burton Ave \ -�` Burton Ave WEST RNINGSIDE) I E Morningsido or Renaissance Sq Judd St MLTCHELL E Canby StMORNINGSIDE -"-6LVD Glen Garden or s I E Lowden St Baker St Hi 4� VICKIE LANE -BOWIE E B11" St ST m Montague St ` 3 y' H MORNINGSIDE %pale Rd O 2 W i PARK 4�vyyvlew bt 6 L w � o i 'Flat Q` LL ' 'Gle"n a N � LLCiquio Veaquer — 'GDII'ond -t GLEN n }Cpunt't, !. 'o Clue E Rtpy St Fairway Dr $ i 1BRENTMOOR I Glencrest Dr ' ' -. . E Butter S[ LEAGUE Timberline or i Hunting or j Gardenia St (t v7ei •. Sarah Jane LA CARTER m Rodeo St O PARK 00 Pioneer St Debbie St H Town �r I IE Seminary Or E Seminary or E Seminary or m > r Carter. � 3 •1/a st P OAKRtDGE c tISOUTHLAND TERRACE TERRACE I NEIGH IMP Pc:��g Hilli ASSN m Joe B Rushing 5 1 SEA_ T -- -- P e?o �~ D vOe SE L�p'rtpd County' i_ 3 SE _ -- 4 College +� O -!� �, O� .. Campus i O a \ Figure A. Web Map Comments C. 0 Pedestrian Signal Requested % SF sE�a pB2po —Sidewalk Missing Baylor University, Tarrant County College, City of Fort Worth, Taws 0¢ Parks rat Wildlife, CONANP, ESri, TornTom, Offnin, Safe -Graph, —Sidewalk in Poor Condition GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS FORTWORTH VISION ZERO SAFETYACTION PLAN • • April 2025 DRAFT 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 ISO 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 • ZERO 0 Community Advisory Committee Mendes David, District 2 Isaac Manning, District 3 Rusty Fuller, District 4 Nakla Cole, District 5 Haylee Cart, 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., PiOE, City Traffic Engineer Rashad Jackson, School Crossing Guard Program Manager Marisa Conlin, P.E., Engineering Manager Namoo Han, P.E., Sr. Professional Engineer Consultants • • i° AZECQM PA LiK CONTENTS 1: Why Does Fort Worth Need a 4: Focus Areas & Actions 23 Safety Action Plan? 6 Establishing goals and outlining recommended strategies to improve safety Understanding the urgent need for safer streets in Fort Worth and the throughout the city Safe System appproach 2: Road Safety in Fort Worth Today 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 3: Our CommunityVoices Matter 17 Explaining how stakeholder and public Input was gathered and Incorporated into the plan 5: Safe System Priorities 44 In-depth studies on Safer Speed Management, Truck Traffic Management, and recommended safety improvements for 10 priority corridors 6: Moving Forward 69 Recommending performance measures and funding strategies that support the City's ongoing efforts to track and enhance safety 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 panning purposes and should not be used for final design of any project. All resula, recommendations, endations, concept drawings, cost opinions, and commentay 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 nemmtendations comaM herein. The overall cost opinions are intended to be gereral and used only for panning purposes Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based an the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of concoction. ZERO' .1 A o 00 00 so ie !• i! i! !i Ga i• so i0 i0 ii iiiiiiiii 6!•9lii!• 00000i•ii 0*9000 � *Oloe *00000000 00 ii ss 00 ii ii *i00 0090 i!!i •iii G W W Z H 0 H LL N W *4 z Q a z O F- Q F- LL a iiiiiiiii i!ilii000 0*0l000ii i0 000000 00 40l*i 0000000s 000i0 0100 00000iiii•0 000010 001 000 00,60i0i( Sii i�i��#i�iii • �lw+�i i� iii•��•ii�iiiiiiiilf i�iil��ii�i�ii�•1'iiii* Ili+ iliii � i �ii i i i +•i! i •#i•iiilii�ili#�il�iii THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH This Safety Action Plan is Fort Worth's roadmap to reducing roadway SAFE SYSTEM deaths and severe injuries. It is grounded in the Safe System Approach, APPROACH which aims to eliminate deaths and severe injuries by anticipating PRINCIPLES 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. GG�Q�r�Le �5 +4iliygNsM A kFM/sT "4q In SAFE SYSTEM ELEMENTS L Death & severe Injury Is unacceptable: While minor incidents are almost inevltabie_ 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. 1. Safe Road Users: Working towards a culture of safety requires safe 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. ao oo� Oo0 rO 2. Safe Vehicles: Making vehicles safer can be done through advanced driver assistance systems and by ensuring future technology prioritizes vulnerable roadway users. & 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. Fo_ ar� x, 2050 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. 4. Safe Roads: Safer roads come from providing physical separation (like separated bike lanes and sidewalks) as well as designing to accommodate needs. 'Noe 3 5. Post Crash Safety: A systemwide approach means working towards safety even after a crash has occurred. This comes from improving emergency response, traffic incident reporting, and traffic management. HOW TO READ THIS PLAN 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. 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 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 Clty improve traffic safety. These action strategies address the most important issues identified. For each safety action FoxTNoxni 2050 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. 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 all. 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 [NOTACCIDENT!] 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. . c ZER 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. a 0 ZO >m W � LL O h °ate 00 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. PLANS Active Transportation Plan (ATP) The Fort Worth ATP was adopted in 2019 and provides a shared vision foractive 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. ZERB'p 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). 1W POLICIES Vision Zero Resolution The City of Fort Worth adopted its Vision Zero Policy Resolution in 20t9. 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 and equity, 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 + is ZENO. 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 Sam, 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. 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. r Crashes by Year 4.2% 4.0% 4.0% r% 2.9% 0 1 433 ■ 511 M 144 562 . 539 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Crashes KSI Crashes % Crashes resulted in KSI VULNERABLE ROAD USERS Crashes involving bicycles, pedestrians, and motorcycles are much more likely to result in death or severe injury. These crashes accounted for only 4% of all crashes, but 34% of KSI crashes. ZEROS FIVE-YEAR TRENDS Between 2019 and 2023, 68,936 crashes occurred in Fort Worth. Out of these, 533 resulted in a person dying and 2,056 resulted in severe injury. Crashes remained fairly steady from 2019 to 2023, with severe and deadly crashes comprising about 4% of total crashes per year. A full roadway safety analysis can be found in Appendix B. o.a%li s■ 1.9% TRUCKSAND Ir COMMERCIAL r VEHICLES % Share of % Share of Crashes involving large Total Crash KSI Crashit trucks and commercial motor vehicles made 65.2"/o up a higher percentage 960% of all crashes in Fort Worth, compared to the statewide average and ■ Bicycle ■ Pedestrian • Motorcycle Motor Vehicle other large Texas cities. 3% CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Major factors that contributed to crashes, deaths, and severe injuries in Fort Worth included: speeding, driving under the Influence (DUI), lack at safety restraints (such as seat belts), and distracted driving. The figures on the left show the percentage of ail crashes and KSI crashes caused by these factors. Commercial Vehicle and Large Truck Crashes 8.6% 7.4% 7.7% 1.9% 6.6% 5.4% 4.6% 4.9% 5.1% 4.6% 3.3% 2.6% State-wide Fort Worth Austin Dallas El Paso Houston San Antonio Average ■ % of CMV Crashes ■ % of Large Truck Crashes 1 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 Network comprises just 6% of the City's streets yet accounts for 54% of fatal and severe injury crashes. ZERO DOWNTOWN INSET r WE �M A I" r �J L, High Injury Network (all travel modes) V HIGHWAY r , a o , � -0 ' � m MC�' 7 r4 A I Q r` 1 vTfN'Nil�r- J (L' T - RGE RO,'O _ __J�� J o JFj , C �. q L3P r azo 01 2 htj w. 2050 I Is 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, 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. 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. ZERO if \ 1-�r- ? !ti �jr1f HIGHWAY 174 L � a 0 2 5 w 1 LF z� DOWNTOWN INSET �fta n �y�`rr�l� {fie r! o WEST-F9, .fon High Injury Network �� Y o Social Vulnerability Index Low Low -Medium Medium -High i� High G 4 p f i mr J� m n t L, 97 ROgpl 2050 1 16 FORT WORTH STOCK ; C I I INIKS el low Wl LVA VA 0 12 ML 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. A zee ti A Chrwide Tnimponstion Fair Find ALocation NSW% W COMMUNITYAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES Fort Worth communities are comprised of many voices, from residents to elected officials, businesses, community advocates, and service agencies. 7Wo 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: • 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. OF COMMUNITY EVENTS 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. FMrRyoerx. r- 2050 DATE OPPORTUNITY/EVENT LOCATION • Aug. 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Tarrant County Back to School Round -Up Tarrant County College South Campus • Aug.17 Shine With Loving Kindness Festival Huang Dao Buddhist Temple • Aug. 24 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SteerFW Civic Summit Amphibian Stage • Aug. 29 Fort Worth Report: Future of Transportation in Texas Wesleyan University .....................................................................................................................................................................................................I.......I............... Tarrant County panel • Sept.12 ...............................I.......... District 10 Town Hall ............................................................................................................................................................................. Texas Motor Speedway . • Sept.17 _........................................................ Booth at Texas Wesleyan University ................................................................................................................................................................ Texas Wesleyan University - Sept. 19 _.............................................................................................................................................................................................I.............................. Booth at Texas Wesleyan University Texas Wesleyan University - Sept 23 Polytechnic Neighborhood Association Ridglea Hills Elementary School ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. - Sept 25 Booth at Tarrant County College South Campus Tarrant County College South Campus ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. . Sept. 26 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Booth at Tarrant County College South Campus Tarrant County College South Campus • Oct 1 National Night Out - Historic Southside: Glenwood Park ....................................................................... Neighborhood Association -.,.,................................................................... .............................. ............................................ • Ott 1 National Night Out - Ventana HOA Ventana Amenity Center ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. • Oct 5 Tarrant County Harambee Festival William M. McDonald YMCA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. • Oct 14 Trinity Metro - Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Transfer Center ............................................................................................................ • Oct 14 -... .............................. Trinity Metro - La Gran Plaza ..... .... ........................................... I.................. La Gran Plaza Transfer Center - ..............-............................. • Oct 16 ,,... ...... ........................................................................................................................................... Trinity Metro - Central Station Fort Worth Central Station _ ....................................... • Oct 17 ...1....... -...... ,........,......,,,....................................................................... Trinity Metro - Dr. Dennis Dunkins .... ... ............. ................... ..... ........................... Dr. Dennis Dunkins Transit Center _........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... • Oct 19 Harvest Community Fair Turning Point Church ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. • Oct 19 ArtsGoggle Near Southside (Magnolia Avenue) 1m 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. TRAFFIC SAFETY SURVEY SPANISH TRANSLATED SURVEY �..,.�..........., i solo ....—..._...,.....— i xoso �gsarpai�Ynn.n`rw�Wa.ra�cv Y�rw.w�_iw�Yrw�i..M YYw�neus,YwW.rasv TM.��+w�.i r'm^ieu�..w'w� ram_ �r�Mor.�risW�ws'..�a ��•wrww GI�YaMMY11.r1.wW� *-,.. ��2050 ❑■ � 12050 1 0-9 0 1 10 0-0 1 : g ZERBR 0 Trinity Metro Transfer station Outreach Tarrant County Harambee Festival ArtsGoggle National Night Out 4 x w j§gr_ _N. 2050 COMMUNITY -DESIRED SAFETYACTIONS 1 �► 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. Increase driver safety education and enhance enforcement to mitigate unsafe driving behaviors. Redesign roadways to include complete street elements, reduce vehicle speeds, and prioritize people. Foa_r�WT- 2050 122 SAFETYACTION STRATEGIES OVERVIEW & ORGANIZATION The Fort Worth Vision ZeroActlon 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 The Safety Action Strategies are organized under the Plan's four safety goals: Vision needs, crash analysis, and input from the Community and Technical Advisory Committee, as well as city staff. They are Zero: Paradigm Shift; Safe Speeds; Reduce Conflicts; and Policies and Programs. intended to supplement and support location -based project recommendations designed to address acute design and They are further categorized under 18 focus areas: infrastructure needs for higher risk roadways. 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 US. 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 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. RECOMMENDED 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. • ACCESS MANAGEMENT • DEMAND MANAGEMENT • REPORTING • COMMERCIAL MOTOR • EDUCATION • ROAD SAFETY AUDITS \ VEHICLES (CMV) & FREIGHT • GUIDELINES • SAFETY COMMITTEE *COMMUNICATIONS •INTERSECTIONS • SAFE ROUTES TOSCHOOL • COORDINATION (SRTS) • MAINTENANCE • CROSSINGS • SPEED • NETWORKS • DATAANALYSIS • TRANSIT Each strategy includes stakeholder input on implementation roles, partnerships, and considerations, including a high-level summary of the following factors: 0 TIIMELINE COST IMMEDIATE: Less Than IYear �# $ Under$100,000 SHORT: 1 To 3 Years $$ $100,000 TO $250,000 MEDIUM: 3 To 5 Years $$$ $250,000 To $1 Million LONG: Over 5 Years $$$$ $1 Million To $5 Million $$$$$ Over $5 Million FORT %VORT]I 2050 zBet, 121. c u _-a O � > L a� b c c� "+3 F- � -0 c v ' u � c cv > i � c Q� O C O N C cC p E O 0 U. � W Ln �_ �c 0 mj C i 4 = ,o Z v v u p� c 0 "�� u s O c O Lam.^+j0 °fl-vw� Q� _C:. L L _ 0-E� 0. >s-0H O v s p i u� Itik5��1'iirR f1 7 2050 GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT 1.1 Evaluate and consider amending Fort Worth Code of Ordinances Chapter 22, Article �� FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORT AGENCY IV: Truck Traffic to better align with the city's evolving goals of protecting health, p g CMV/Freight ©� $ >� 1ScDOT, City TRUCK TRAFFIC safety, and welfare and strengthen freight transportation safety and efficiency. Truck Commercial Vehicle ORDINANCE route designations could be updated to reflect current freight needs and consider Enforcement (CVE) future freight volume growth. Additional regulations of truck parking (e g., prohibiting commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas during certain hours), loading TIMEFRAME LEAD NEEDS zones (designated curb space for loading and unloading with appropriate signs O Short ® TPW, City Data Tools, Staff and enforcement), and driver rest periods (mandatory rest break for truck drivers, Council Capacity referencing practices in peer cities) could be incorporated into the ordinance. 1.2 Incorporate specific freight transportation performance measures into safety and FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORT AGENCY FREIGHT mobility reporting and dashboards. Key metrics may include vehicle classification �� CMV/Freight O $$ S `� NCTCOG, Texas A counts, facility inventory updates, reduction in annual number of crashes, travel & M Transportation TRANSPORTATION speeds for truck and non -truck traffic, improved Truck Travel Time Reliability, and Institute (TTI) PERFORMANCE number of truck parking locations. This effort should include identifying the sources MEASURES and ownership of relevant data and prioritizing facilities for inventory, given the TIMEFRAME LEAD AGENCY NEEDS current lack of a citywide vehicle count Additionally, coordination with NCTCOG O ® Data Tools, Staff will be essential to align on travel time reliability performance measures. Short to Mid TPW Capacity 1.3 Analyze the geographic distribution of freight facilities, origins, and destinations for long -haul, through, and local truck trips, and commercial vehicles volumes 0 FOCUS AREA (a$ COST °° �� SUPPORT AGENCY INTEGRATE CMV/Frelght NCTCOG,TxDOT and speeds to directly inform planning decisions, including reserving right-of-way FREIGHT, TRANSPORTATION, for future freight corridors. Identify and designate truck routes that align with Fort Worth's land -use plans, strategically cluster freight siting and investments, ®TIME ® LEAD NEEDS AND LAND USE and ensure surrounding land uses and transportation corridors are compatible. Short to Mid TPW, Planning, Plan/Study PLANNING Prioritize Complete Streets -informed designs that incorporate freight needs and Economic Development 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. ME1 26 2050 GOAL 1 VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT 1.4 Develop a comprehensive multimedia public communications safety campaign to educate the community and promote transportation safety for all roadway users and PUBLIC all modes. Key considerations and tactics should include: COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN • 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. FOCUS AREA OV COST Communications ©: $$-$$$ TIME LEAD O Mid to Long Q city ®SUPPORTAGENCY NCTCOG NEEDS Partnerships; Plan/ Study, Staff Capacity GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT 1.5 Embed transportation safety into existing community engagement efforts and increase staff capacity for outreach related to safety -focused programs, policies, SAFETY PROJECTS and infrastructure projects. Develop standard language regarding Vision Zero and AND PROGRAM roadway safety that is informed by and reflects the values and perspectives of ENGAGEMENT the community. Conduct training for city agencies, staff, and partners to promote consistent messaging when interacting with media, community partners, and the 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. a 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 Create an upper -management level office Vision Zero coordinator position within City government tasked with promoting collaboration, managing implementation, VISION ZERO and evaluating transportation safety progress across agencies and organizations. COORDINATOR This position should be supported by cross -departmental staff assigned to the collaborative implementation of this plan and should ensure the City can proacttvely 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 redesiignating or creating new positions dedicated to planning, designing, and implementing Vision Zero and safety projects. MR A QFOCUS AREA Communications TIMEFRAME Short to Mid QFOCUS AREA Coordination ® TIMEFRAME COST O $$ ®LEAD AGENCY TPW COST O $$ ® N'i, ENCY SUPPORTAGENCY TxDOT, Mayor Comms Off. gNEEDS Partnerships; Plan/ Study, Staff Capacity SUPPORTAGENCY City Council ". 2050 1 2e 1 28 R7NbR rL 2050 GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT 1.7 Work with planning and funding partners, including WDOT, NCTCOG, counties, neighboring jurisdictions, and representatives from developers to coordinate safety FOCUS AREA �� O COST SUPPORTAGENCY Coordination $$ NCTCOG, TkDOT, STATE AND plans, strategies, projects, and campaigns. Strengthen partnerships to identify shared Toll Authorization REGIONAL goals and objectives and promote consistent safety strategies across local and PARTNERSHIPS regional boundaries, prioritizing data sharing and collaboration. Some examples of TIMEFRAME LEADAGENCY NEEDS potential collaborations include: O Ongoing ® City, TPW Partnerships, Plan/ • Aligning thoroughfare plans with • Meeting routinely with TkDOT to Study neighboring cities and the state to share data, identify streets of concern, improve consistent design and safety develop consistent policies, and on major regional corridors. advance joint projects. • Advocating for local priorities in state projects and policies, such as safe speed limit setting and design/ infrastructure treatments for traffic calming paired with speed studies and education efforts. 1.8 Develop a suite of educational tools to reach community members at various FOCUS AREA COST „ SUPPORT AGENCY stages of learning, from early childhood through post -secondary education and � Education ©� $$ `'^� TRW, Planning, SAFETY vocational training. These tools should include curriculum and educational materials Communications EDUCATION- suitable for a wide variety of settings, audiences, and delivery methods, and should LIFELONG broaden capacity through a'train-the-trainer' program. Specific target groups and TIMEFRAME LEADAGENCY NEEDS LEARNING approaches include: O� Immediate ® City, FWISD and Partnerships, Plan/ • Elementary and middle school -age children and parent organizations. Other Districts Study • 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. ZERO ° 1 29 GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO - PARADIGM SHIFT 1.9 Develop a citywide Transportation Safety Dashboard to track progress toward Fort Worth's Vision Zero goals, share summary safety data, highlight key safety TRANSPORTATION projects, and communicate successes and lessons learned through implementation SAFETY and evaluation. Publish an annual report to document implementation status of DASHBOARD the Action Plan. 1.10 Form a permanent advisory body to advise and support Vision Zero implementation, Incorporating diverse perspectives from city departments and key stakeholders. VISION ZERO TASK This group should include representatives from Communications, Police, Fire, and FORCE / ROAD Public Works and be tasked with reviewing crash reports and safety data, making SAFETYADVISORY recommendations for site -specific and systemic changes to eliminate future risk, COMMITTEE 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 Neighbor -hood 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, 1.11 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 SAFE ROUTES TO should identify both infrastructure and programming recommendations to increase SCHOOL 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. QFOCUS AREA Reporting O0 TIMEFRAME Short COST ®LEAD AGENCY TPW 8FOCUS AREA COST Safety Committee O $ O0 TIMEFRAME Immediate isFOCUS AREA Safe Routes To School (SRTS) O0 TIMEFRAME Mid LEADAGENCY is TPW FIkAT, 1�07�Tf1. 2050 SUPPORTAGENCY Infoirrriation Technology, Coranunkations NEEDS Data Tools, Staff Capacity 0 SUPPORTAGENCY Police, Fire, fxDOT, NCTCOG, NPOs, NGOs, Advocates NEEDS Data Tools, Legislative Action, Staff Capacity OCOST n SUPPORTAGENCY S; �� NCTCOG,Adjacent Municipalities, School Districts, Charter and Private Schools ®LEAD AGENCY NEEDS Clty, TxDOT ® Data Tools, Legislative Action, Staff rapacity A ZWIT 130 r_l bio N L 3 N 4- CU L V1 �..i N cr L N • ,o N v " -0 N c LL � i A J �� V) L tau 0 C4�/I Q O p a w � c J W N ��10o��c c " °' � W ��(1)�o4mE z C L to 0 LAJN Ln N fa m i •L C .2 N N •0- aW � �� m a �o ao�=�c V)u-0mum GOAL 2 1 SAFE SPEEDS - DESIGNING FOR LIFE 2.1 Create localized speed zones, similar to school zones, to address locations with higher Q FOCUS AREA multimodal needs and high crash risks, including areas around schools, park;, and ♦ Speed LOCAL SPEED transit facilities. These zones should incorporate appropriate speed management ZONES treatments (e g., signs, markings, speed tables) and connectivity improvements paired ®TIMEFRAME With lower posted speed limits. Collaborate with the Police Department to ensure effective enforcement of speed limits and compliance within these zones. Short to Mid 2.2 Evaluate and update the Cty'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 speed limit setting (SLS). The Cty's SLS policy should rely on the latest best practice SETTING 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. 2.3 Evaluate posted speed limits and speeding -related crashes along the HIN and major thoroughfares; using the updated speed limit setting (SLS) policy recommended in SPEED this plan, identify corridors for speed studies and propose design, signalization, and MANAGEMENT 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. QFOCUSAREA ♦ Speed •® TIMEFRAME Intermediate QFOCUS AREA ♦ Speed 0 TIMEFRAME Short to Mid COST ©0 ss LEAD AGENCY City Council COST ®LEAD AGENCY TPW o COST LEAD AGENCY TPW FORTiiORTH ? _ 2050 ®SUPPORTAGENCY TP K Parks & Recreation NEEDS qu Partnerships, Plan/ Study, Project Funding SUPPORTAGENCY NCTCOG, TXDOT NEEDS None �� n, SUPPORTAGENCY TxDOT, Counties, NCTCOG NEEDS Plan/Study, Project Funding ZEN 32 FoxrW p, 2050 GOAL 2 1 SAFE SPEEDS - DESIGNING FOR LIFE 2A Assess intersections between the local network and state highways or interstates, FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORTAGENCY including all interstate off -ramps, to identify design and infrastructure opportunities �� Speed O $ TxDOT EVALUATE LOCAL that reduce speeding during transitions to city streets. This evaluation should also NETWORK consider improvements to signage for motorists to enhance clarity and promote INTERSECTIONS safer driving behavior at these critical transition points. TIMEFRAME LEAD AGENCY NEEDS WITH STATE Short to Mid ® TPW Plan/Study, HIGHWAYS AND Partnerships INTERSTATES 2.5 Identify and prioritize high -risk two-lane corridors and intersections for design FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORT AGENCY improvements, infrastructure enhancements, and appropriate speed limit reductions, �� Speed O $$$ PRIORITIZE as over 40% of total crashes and 35.4% of I(SIs—including 31% of VRU I(Sls—occur SAFETY on two-lane roadways that are often under local control for speed management As IMPROVEMENTS a short -tern, high -impact opportunity, focus on locations where immediate action is TIMEFRAME LEAD AGENCY NEEDS ON TWO-LANE feasible. Develop and implement a data -driven prioritization plan to systematically O Short to Mid TPW qu Plan/Study, Project ROADWAYS assess sash history and risk factors, ensuring targeted safety interventions at the Funding most critical locations. 2.6 Collaborate with private -sector employers and fleet managers to implement safety FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORT AGENCY actions aimed at promoting safe driving and reducing the negative impacts of large �� CMV/FREIGHT (a $$ °° �� None FOSTER commercial vehicles. Begin by engaging with the private industry to understand existing PARTNERSHIPS practices and initiatives addressing these issues. Safety strategies could include: WITH PRIVATE- SECTOR •Installation of speed govemorslregulators on trucks and other CMVs. � _ TIMEFRAME © LEADAGENCY ° NEEDS Short to Mid NCTCOG, Regional Partnerships EMPLOYERS AND • Safety education and training for Fleet drivers. Freight Advisory VEHICLE FLEET Committee (RFAC) MANAGERS •Diversifying fleets with smaller vehicles for service or delivery in specific context zones, particularly for the 31% of trips that are under 30 minutes. • Collaboration on truck size restriction and truck route setting policies. ZE0B° 33 r 2050 GOAL 31 REDUCE CONFLICTS 3.1 Conduct a detailed analysis of traffic conditions and crashes related to vehicle timing movements and commercial vehicles access on thoroughfares and other ACCESS applicable roadways citywide (beginning with the HIN) to identify locations where MANAGEMENT access management improvements can be used to improve safety for all modes. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3.2 Update the Gty's 2018 Access Management Policy based on the findings of the Master Transportation Plan, Safety Action Plan, and related plans (Metropolitan Transportation ACCESS Plan, MasterThomughfare Plan, etc) and recommended Access Management Needs MANAGEMENT Assessment to strengthen standards and prioritize access management projects, in POLICY particular hardened centerline and median installations, in the Gty's capital improvements. 3.3 Collaborate with NCTCOG and TXDOT to align Fort Worth's truck routes with regional freight corridors. This coordination will promote a cohesive and efficient COORDINATE regional network that minimizes unexpected detours and bottlenecks. WITH REGIONAL • Update truck route street designations to reflect current freight needs, future PARTNERS freight volume growth, and vehicle weight capacity, ensuring roads are rated appropriately for the vehicles using them. • Incorporate :: d. , _.... L... and communication strategies to ensure compliance and improve awareness among freight operators. • Analyze crash data to identify the percentage of crashes occurring on freight corridors and connect these findings with regional freight corridors to target safety improvements. • Differentiate between smaller commercial vehicles and 18-wheelers when updating route designations and planning infrastructure to meet the specific needs of each vehicle type. a ZERO! FOCUSAREA COST Access Management a $S-$$$ TIMEFRAME LEAD AGENCY O Short Q City FOCUS AREA COST Access Management O $ TIMEFRAME 0 Short to Mid QFOCUS AREA CMV/Freight 0 TIMEFRAME Short LEAD AGENCY City, TPW O;C.OST ®LEADAGENCY TPW, Planning SUPPORTAGENCY NCTCOG, Counties, TxDOT ®NEEDS Plan/Study CSUPPORTAGENCY None ®NEEDS Plan/Study 0S SUPPORTAGENCY �� NCTCOG, TxDOT NEEDS Data Tools, Partnerships, Staff Capacity 1 35 Wkr_��ry. 2050 GOAL 31 REDUCE CONFLICTS 3A • Real -Time Monitoring: Track traffic volumes, crash data, and congestion trends FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORT AGENCY on key freight corridors to quickly identify and address problem areas, leveraging CMY/Freight O $Ss asaa� TxDOT REAL-TIME technologies and communications systems, such as cameras and sensors, from MONITORING initiatives like the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA)Grant for Alliance AND Inland Port. TIMEFRAME LEADAGENCY NEEDS MANAGEMENT *Adaptive Signal Control: Equip key intersections with adaptive signals that adjust ® Mid to Long ® City, NCTCOG Data Tools, Project Funding, Staff Capacity ON KEY FREIGHT timing based on real-time conditions to reduce delays and congestion -related CORRIDORS incidents. Integrate these systems with the existing TPW Traffic Management Center for streamlined operations. • Dynamic Lane Management: Designate truck -only lanes or apply peak -hour lane adjustments to improve Flow on freight corridors. e Freight and Curb Management: Develop curb management strategies for freight trucks, ride -sharing services, and parking along busy corridors to optimize space and minimize congestion. • Freight Management Strategies: Expand the use of technologies such as real-time route optimization, smart parking management, adaptive traffic sighaK and enhanced dab collection. Consider' .. - .' „systems to must freight drop-off and pick-up times to avoid peak congestion and extend these solutions into the public realm for broader impact 3.5 Redesign intersections on primary freight routes to accommodate large vehicles turning FOCUS AREA COST _ SUPPORT AGENCY at safe speeds, reducing crash risks and conflicts with other modes. Intersection designs �� CMWFreight O $ � NCTCOG, TxDOT OPTIMIZE should prioritize safety and efficiency for the specific types of vehicles expected to INTERSECTIONS use the road while ensuring that pedestrian and freight infrastructure are not treated FOR TRUCK as muWally exclusive. Design solutions should address the needs of both modes, TIMEFRAME LEADAGENCY NEEDS SAFETY recognizing that min design choices must balance the safety of all users as the top Short TPW, Planning Data Tools, priority. Incorporate these design considerations into the transportation engineering Parirrershlps, Staff Capacity manual to standardize best practices across future projects. ZL-'r:rLr 36 GOAL 31 REDUCE CONFLICTS 3.6 The City has identified approximately 400 roadway locations requiring flood mitigation or improved safety and flood warning measures, presenting a vital opportunity to INTEGRATE HIGH- integrate transportation safety with broader hazard and disaster preparedness. WATER WARNING Implement high-water warning flashing beacons, enhanced lighting, barriers, and SYSTEM (HW WS) robust emergency communication systems to significantly reduce risks to both motorists and pedestrians during flooding events. Consider installing automated crossing arms to physically restrict access to hazardous areas during high-water incidents, providing an added layer of safety and protection. Integrate flood warning notifications with apps (such as 511DFW and WAZE) and assisted driving within vehicles, and integrate the HW WS with external traffic management signals, e-signs, and roadside signage to better warn and navigate drivers around flooded roadways. 3.7 Evaluate wan -ant requirements and guidance and update city policies according to best practice for the placement, design, and installation of high -visibility crossing treatments, ACTIVE mid -block crossings, flashing or hybrid beacons, pedestrian refuge islands, grade TRANSPORTATION separated active transportation crossings, and safety -focused signal enhancements. CROSSINGS Evaluate existing signal timing, crossing distances, and crosswalk spacing to prioritize pedestrian oozing improvements including leading pedestrian intervals, median refuge islands, high -visibility mid -block crossings, rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB), pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB), and pedestrian friendly cycle lengths based on a maximum of 3 feet per second of walking speed. 3.8 Identify and prioritize locations for'dayltghting" at intersections, foaising on removing obstacles that impair sight lines and formalizing on -street parking restrictions to maximize IDENTIFY visibility and crossing safety. Inttfal efforts should begin along the High Injury Network (HIN), PRIORITY in downtown centers and in high -volume pedestrian antes. Incorporate consideraticxs for LOCATIONS FOR accessibility in all intersection treatments, including addressing dralkrees associated with °DAYLIGHTING"AT roundaboulsforpeWleinwheelchairs.PartnerwithADAspecialiststoensurecompfiance INTERSECTIONS and proactiveIV address accessibility concems, as mundabouts; are a frequent source of complaints Leverage e)isttng internal city communications, such as training articles, to ate the public and city stiff on effective use of roundabouts and other safety measures. ZE0B1. QFOCUS AREA CMV/Freight TIMEFRAME OShort QFOCUS AREA Crossings TIMEFRAME Short /,sue FOCUS AREA Intersections 0 TIMEFRAME COST O $-$$ ( OrIL LEAD AGENCY City COST O $-$$ LEAD AGENCY City O COSi ® LEADAGENCY Four %bdTK. IV — 2050 0 SUPPORTAGENCY TxDOT NEEDS qu Legislative Action, Plan/ Study CSUPPOirrAGENCY TxDOT NEEDS Legislative Action, Plan/ Study OSUPPORTAGENCY NCTCOG, TxDOT NEEDS Data Tools,Partneiships, Staff Capacity 1 37 AT;T . 2050 GOAL 31 REDUCE CONFLICTS 3.9 Deploy leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at signalized intersections, focusing FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORT AGENCY on applicable High Injury Network (HIN) corridors and urban villages such as 7th Intersections f fff f °° TxDOT IMPLEMENT Street, Rosedale, Berry, and North Main Street. Revise standard roadway project LEADING PEDESTRIAN details to make LPIs the default condition at all intersections and signal replacements. Expand LPI implementation based on the positive impact already TIMEFRAME LEADAGENCY NEEDS INTERVALS (LPIS) Mid to long TPW Legislative Action, observed in improving pedestrian experiences in downtown Fort Worth, ensuring Project Funding similar benefits are realized in other urban areas with high pedestrian activity. 3.10 Based on the City's current Active Transportation Plan and the forthcoming Moving FOCUS AREA COST n SUPPORT AGENCY 1 Million Master Transportation Plan, assess and install bicycle and pedestrian Networks _ © $3S ffff ° rvone ACTIVE projects to increase separation and complete the active transportation network TRANSPORTATION Ensure that context -sensitive designs are used to ensure a more comfortable active CROSSINGS transportation environment for people of all ages and abilities, including: TIMEFRAME LEADAGENCY NEEDS • Grade -separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings of roadways with 55 mph+ Short to Mid TPW Project Funding vehicle speeds. • Use of `Bikes May Use Full Lane' signs (vs. 'Share the Road') and high visibility lane markings for shared bicycle facilities where applicable (e g., shared lanes with vehicles that are narrower than 141. . Install side paths or separated, raised, or protected bicycle facilities on roadways with speeds exceeding 35 mph, following the guidelines outlined in the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide. i Z0F1 38 Imp" 2050 GOAL 41 POLICYAND PROGRAM 4.1 Conduct annual or bi-annual crash analysis updates to track progress and changes in FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORT AGENCY ACCESS the high injury network and crash risks over time, with a particular focus on: �� Data Anal Analysis O $ NCTCOG, TkDOT MANAGEMENT • Single -vehicle crash locations for • Crash locations near transit stops and NEEDS ASSESSMENT roadway departure risks, fixed object risks, facilities, parks, and schools or potential risks to Vulnerable Road Users Locations TIMEFRAME ®TPW LEAD AGENCY NEEDS • near recent safety Ongoing Data Tools, Plan/Study, • Large vehicle crashes for implications improvement & other infrastructure Staff Capacity related to commercial motor vehicles projects • Crash trends in areas of persistent • Speed related crash locations poverty and other socially vulnerable communities 42 Evaluate current conditions and consider setting a stated mode shift goal for FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORTAGENCY converting trips from single -occupancy vehicles (SOV) to other modes. Update, �` Demand (aS-SS Z� (; NCTCOG, City TRANSPORTATION adopt, and implement land use plans, TDM incentives, and street design policies that Management Council DEMAND increase safety and provide travel and other benefits for people who travel in ways MANAGEMENT other than driving alone. FRAME LFAQ AGENCY D NEEDS �M' O Short Q � Legislative � �� Action, Plan/Study 4.3 Develop and enforce requirements, provide guidance, and coordinate with city FOCUSAREA COST SUPPORTAGENCY en engineers, construction companies, and external stakeholders to ensure that access pa 0APT Guidelines S$ 0B TPtN city Council for people walking, bicycling, and using transit is maintained during all phases of REQUIREMENTS roadway or site construction, special events, and other temporary closures. Address FOR MAINTAINING challenges experienced by transit users, such as limited access to busy bus stops TIMEFRAME LEADAGENCY NEEDS MULTIMODAL during construction, by collaborating closely with transit authorities. Promote Short to Mid City Legislative Action, ACCESS DURING successful practices, such as the construction of temporary ramps to maintain Partnerships TEMPORARY access to bus stops, as demonstrated during bike lane construction on W 7th Street. CLOSURES Incorporate these best practices into standard operating procedures to improve consistency and accessibility across projects. ZE81 1 60 FfIR_ T, r- 2050 GOAL 4 1 POLICYAND PROGRAM 4.4 Conduct a comprehensive review and update of all City site and street design FOCUSAREA COST SUPPORT AGENCY standards to ensure alignment with this plan's recommendations, the Complete0 Guidelines ©� ��-S4S °° �'�� NCTCOG REVIEW AND Streets Policy, and the latest best practices in design guidance. Reference updated UPDATE CITY resources such as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)lith SITEAND Edition, AASHTO Bike Guide 5th Edition, FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and TIMEFRAME ® LEADAGENCY � NEEDS STREET DESIGN Design Guide, and Public Rights -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines. Incorporate design A Short City Legislative Action, Plan/ STANDARDS guidelines that prioritize speed management, prevent left -angle crashes, and reduce Study pedestrian and bicycle risks. • As a first step, add all orphaned roads to the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) to create a consistent and comprehensive network. • Clearly designate bike -friendly roads, including downtown streets and potential bike highways, and highlight pedestrian -friendly streets with modern sidewalks. • Update the MTP to reflect these designations and ensure consistency across the network. • Incorporate buffering infrastructure, such as tree -lined narrow points, to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety while contributing to speed management. • Address residential and neighborhood streets, recognizing that smaller streets with on -street parking can naturally reduce speeds and improve safety. 4,5 Evaluate rand striping conditrmsalong High Injury Network (HIM roadways and FOCUSAREA COST SUPPORTAGENCY identlrykxationswhere repwrigand restripingcan be to safer road � Maintenance © �;-�� o° �� None ASSESS AND designs, particularly forvukraabl a road users. Coordinate with rimafadng, ms*ing, and other IMPROVE maintenarxe programs to prioritize safety inrpravernents at locations with a demonstrated PAVEMENT crash history orhWriskfabbors.FrLwrecity sbwtsare maintained to.— ....... /.:. TIMEFRAME LEADAGENCY Q EP NEEDS ANDSTRIPING vulnerable road users byintegtatingsafetyi�ir�ongoing asset mar�ementand O Short to Mid TPW Plan/Study, Project CONDITIONSALONG maintenance plans. Leverage the City'ssincreased fundingforsbeetmainbenar=tosuppot Funding HIN ROADWAYS these initiatives and develop a longterm funding strategy to sustain these efforts ZER141 2050 GOAL 41 POLICYAND PROGRAM 4.6 Develop a comprehensive RSA program to evaluate locations with a history of KSt FOCUS AREA COST SUPPORTAGENCY ashes, sites of new KSI crashes, and segments or intersections identified through crash crashes, Road SafetyAudits O $� NCTCOG, TxDOT, ESTABLISH A assessments for safety improvements. Build on arry prior City or TRW experiences Corridor Stakeholders, ROAD SAFETY with internal reviews of KSl locations to ensure continuity and learning. Assign a cross- PD, FD, EMS, Parks AUDIT (RSA) disciplinary and cross -department RSA team, including representatives from police, fire, TIMEFRAME LEAD AGENCY Department PROGRAM, EMS, parka, and other relevant departments, to meet regularly to evaluate crash patterns O Immediate City, TPW, FWPD, NEEDS POLICY, AND and risks, identify programmatic and infrastructure safety interventions, and provide Admin Data Tools, Plan/Study, PROCEDURES annual recommendations for budgets and improvements to address identified issues Project Funding The RSA program should emphasise actionable fixes, such as inkastiwai o upgrades, signage, markings, fighting, and other immediate safety measure% in addition to long-term studies. Equip the RSAteam with the capacity for tectrrml analyses, high-level strategic thinking, and driving systernkchange fiynrdrd Fort WaWs goal of ( um KSUfatalcrashes by20451 4.7 Collaborate with Trinity Metro to align this plan with their ongoing transit planning and FOCUSAREA COST SUPPORTAGENCY investments, including route and network organization, bus stop replacements, and ©Transit O $SSS NCTCOG, TxDOT COORDINATE transit station access. Work wrth Trinity Metro to incorporate their upcoming bus stop WITH TRINITY siting policy, ensuring alignment with the City's goals. Encourage the placement of METRO FOR stops near intersections, preferably far -side locations, and prioritize the installation of TIMEFRAME ® LEADAGENCY NEEDS TRANSIT high -visibility pedestrian crossings at stops and stations along the transit system. Immediate City, Trinity Metro Partnerships, Project PLANNING AND Funding Support Trinity Metro in the development of their Strategic Action Plan and upcoming INVESTMENTS System Plan (expected in FY26), ensuring oons'istency with City objectives. Continue coordination on bus stop pad installation and explore funding opportunities, including grants that require a 20% local match, to support these initiatives. ZER 1 62 FOCUS AREAS Based on the existing safety conditions analysis, identified goals and recommended action strategies, the Fort Worth Safety Action Plan identifies four priorities that align with the Safe System Approach elements. f " d 1--------- Setting Safe Speeds [Safe Speed] I 2 Managing Truck Traffic [Safe Roads/Safe Vehicles] i Prioritizing Specific Projects [Safe Roads] 1 I N- - - - - - - - - - ZERO; Implementing a Traffic Safety Campaign [Safe People] FORTWORN 2050 SETTING SAFE SPEEDS E \ I One of the immediate action priorities for the City of Fort Worth is developing a comprehensive policy for setting speed limits that are safer and help reduce the occurrence of KSI crashes. Following a review of national best practices and standards, the City of Fort Worth identified three tools it can use to set safe speeds citywide. A full review of national best practices and standards, and detailed recommendations can be found in Appendix D. Establish a streamlined framework for setting speed limits based on street classification and context This process will be supported by automated tools that analyze key data —including existing speeds, crash history, and roadway characteristics —to determine appropriate speed limits efficiently and consistently. Evaluate the implementation of'siow zones' in select areas with higher concentrations of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. These zones are typically located near schools, parks, urban villages, and downtown, where lower speed limits can help enhance safety and reduce crash severity. Adopt a more detailed, data -driven approach to setting speed limits for select corridors, including those on the High Injury Network. Utilizing a Safe Speed Study, assess current speeds, roadway characteristics, and safety data to establish appropriate speed limits that enhance safety and reduce crash risk The City will develop a Safe Speeds Policy and Methodology that integrates these three key tools to guide speed management. As part of this policy, the City will update the ordinance to define all speed limits beyond prima facie speeds and establish guidelines for implementing variable speed limits. Additionally, the City will provide clear guidance for staff and private developers on setting safe speed limits when designing new roads, expanding existing roadways, or extending current corridors. I" MANAGING TRUCK TRAFFIC raf� 13*3-31*1 Fort Worth, when compared to several other larger cities in the state, such as Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston and San Antonio, has the highest share of height trips among all trips and highest share of crashes that involve large trucks. Unsurprisingly, truck traffic was identified by the community as one of the top concerns. Fort Worth's current truck traffic was evaluated, including freight trips on the city roadway network, top freight trip origins and destinations, locations of truck parking facilities, a review of current truck and commercial vehicle policies, and a review of national leading practices and standards. From this evaluation, the following issues were identified and actions are recommended. A full review of truck and commercial vehicle policies and detailed recommendations can be found in Appendix E. ISSUES • The Crty's existing buck routes as designated by the buck traffic ordinance do not capture all high freight volume corridors • Short-clistance freight trips that last less than 10 minutes make up 31% of the total freight trips. Over 50% of total freight trips have a duration of less than 20 minutes. Most freight trips with less than 20 minutes duration are on local roads instead of interstate and other major highways • No public truck parking facilities exist within the City boundary. Private truck parking facilities are limited and often over capacity, especially those along 1-35 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS • Establish criteria for adding and removing to better align freight movement with indusl and safety objectives • Implement no -trucking zones in nesidentia areas sensitive to freight traffic • Introduce additional regulations on truck I loading zones • Identify high -need locations for truck party utilize public -private partnerships to expand solutions across the city • Implement technology -driven height traff management, such as adaptive signal contra automated incident detection Close coordination and collaboration between the City and other regional partners, such as TxDOT, counties, and NCTCOG, is crucial to improving truck traffic management and safety. � High Injury Network Fort Worth Truck Routes Commercial Delivery Route Hazardous Material Route Truck Route - Y 90 Lmr s L.�---� Fq _ rsuu. 0 t 2mi F+i © TOOLE D[•IDM 1 45 1 PRIORITIZING SPECIFIC PROJECTS ".' The City of Fort Worth has developed a prioritization framework to identify high - impact locations and projects, ensuring that limited funding is allocated effectively to address the most critical safety concerns. This approach supports the City's goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries. The framework evaluates locations and projects based on four key categories: • CRASH HISTORY • ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS • LAND USE CONTEXT . EQUITY A detailed description of the prioritization framework, along with the top 50 roadway segments and top 30 intersections, is available in Appendix F. Among the top 15 ranked roadways, ten corridors (shown on the map to the right) were selected for a more in-depth roadway safety assessment and capital project recommendations. Detailed information on the roadway safety assessments, project recommendations for each corridor, and how the benefits and costs were calculated can be found in Appendix G. A a fanida ID Z[ 8= cMk1W 0 2.5 5 mi '1 3 ( ( I ' do 1 66 PRIORITIZING SPECIFIC PROJECTS Based on field observations and crash data analysis, both corridor - wide countermeasures and location -specific safety improvements were identified for each corridor. Countermeasures were selected primarily from FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures Initiative (PSCI), categorized into five key areas: • Speed Management • Pedestrian/Bicyclist Safety • Roadway Departure • Intersections • Crosscutting Measures Additional countermeasures beyond PSO were recommended where they could provide meaningful safety benefits based on the corridoes crash profile. Each proposed countermeasure includes a suggested implementation timeframe to support project execution. BENEFIT COSTANALYSIS A benefit -cost analysis (BCA) compares the total benefits of recommended improvements to their overall cost over a specified period. The benefit - cost ratio is calculated using a 20-year horizon by estimating the monetized value of crashes prevented. Future crashes are projected assuming a stable crash rate with traffic growth, while a crash modification factor (CMF) adjusts for expected reductions with safety improvements. Project costs include initial expenses (construction, survey, and engineering) and ongoing maintenance over 20 years. Cost estimates, l �90 ID ROADWAY FROM TO FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION HIN MODE ilw�HL�i.ik I11 7 2050 BENEFIT COST RATIO 1 Ellis Ave NW 21st St NW 28th St Residential Pedestrian, Motor Vehicle 16.29 ............................................................................................................................. 2 Sharondale St 6th Ave James Ave Residential Bicycle 22.07 ............................................................................................................................. 3 NW 14th St N Main St Gould Ave Residential Pedestrian 48.08 ............................................................................................................................. 4 S Beach St Ave H Mitchell Blvd MajorArterial Motor Vehicle 17.04 ............................................................................................................................. 5 Evans Ave E Momingside Dr E Berry St MajorArterial Motor Vehicle 5.54 ............................................................................................................................. N Main St / Angie Ave / 6 NW 26th St Residential Pedestrian 6.69 Stockyards Blvd Refuglo Ave ............................................................................................................................. E Pennsylvania Ave / 7 Pennsylvania Ave 8th Ave Minor Arterial Pedestrian, Motor Vehicle 30.90 ............................................................................................................................. S Main St 8 W Seminary Dr 6th Ave RectorAve MajorArterial Bicycle, Pedestrian 35.82 ............................................................................................................................. 9 Mark Iv Pkwy Meacham Blvd Crossover Ramp Major Arterial Motor vehicle, Commercial 18.26 motor vehicle, Motorcycle ............................................................................................................................. Bicycle, Pedestrian, 10 Sycamore School Rd South Fwy Sr Nb W Everman Pkwy Minor Arterial 26.56 Motor vehicle 1 47 CONTEXT This is a minor arterial in the Historic Stockyards District, lined with TOTALCRASHES residential properties and commercial developments. The roadway has (2019-2023) four lanes with unmarked parallel parking, a pavement width of 52 to 58 feet, and a right-of-way of 80 to 86 feet. All intersections are stop- 139 controlled, and sidewalks on both sides are mostly continuous. Key destinations include Rodeo Park and All Saints Catholic School. The corridor is part of both the Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN) and the Motor Vehicle HIN. TOTAL CRASHES Other Modes .95% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 33% • 33% Pedestrian Bicycle 440 33%..............: Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE INJURYCRASHES K51 NON-KSI CRASHES CRASHES ~� 3 NW 28TH STREET NW 2TH STREET CRASH LOCATION 22% Mid -block 78% Intersection KEY CRASH TYPES KEYCONTRIBUTING FACTORS Angle • ;� One Motor Failed to Yield Driver Crashes Vehicle Crashes r — Right of Way Inattention 0- Stop Sign ZERO! NW 26TK STWt NW 25TH STREET WEXCWWGEAVE • Z W � Q W NW 23RD STREET NW 22ND STREET NW215T STREET • . 0 20R © SIGNALS I & LANES _ F^1 30 2,530010 NDN SIDEWALK SPEED vemc IS LIMIT PER DAY 1 48 ELLIS AVENUE FROM NW 21ST STREET TO NW 28TH STREET (0.86 MILES) Ai Install high -visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, and install a sidewalk on the east side of Ellis Ave Install high -visibility crosswalks. curb extensions. Create sidewalk green buffer, and widen sidewalk Install high -visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, median crossing island, and install curb ramps Install high -visibility Recommend eliminating Install high -visibility Install high -visibility crosswalks, crosswalks, curb extensions, parking at intersection if crosswalks, curb extensions. curb extensions, and create and median crossing island property gets redeveloped Reconstruct wider sidewalks sidewalk green buffer ForsRTx. 2050 .K7:f*Nfi This is a residential corridor with a two-lane roadway and unmarked TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE on -street parking on both sides. There are no sidewalks, and no posted (2019-2023) INJURYCRASHES speed limit The corridor spans approximately 0.28 miles, with a pavement width of 26 to 28 feet and a right-of-way of about 50 feet. 22 2 The corridor is part of the Bicycle High Injury Network (HIN). TOTALCRASHES 9% Other Modes 91% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES Bicycle C: S» i. 50%... : Motor Vehicle CRASH LOCATION 36% Mid -block 64% Intersection KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 0 Same is DriverDirection Angle Crashes Inattention Speeding Crashes KS1 , NON-KSI CRASHES CRASHES • S6THAVE HAAWEDST ,AMESAVE a 49 6N 30 DATA NOT AVAILABLE :i SIGNALS SPEED i LANES SIDEWALKLIMIT VEHICLES PER DAY >t ZEN1 50 CORRIDOR -WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS Crosswalk ' Walkways Visibility Enhancements 40 Bicycle Lanes MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS tiJ V 0 W z H W Q 2 FINAL BENEFIT/ BENEFITS TOTALCOST COST RATIO �� • $16,880,000 $764,900 CONSTRUCTION SHORTTERM MEDIUM TERM LONG TERM COST (0-2 YEARS) (2-5 YEARS) (S+YEARS) SEGMENT $0 $194,738 $0 INTERSECTION $2,100 $168,000 $0 TOTAL $2,100 $362,738 $0 V SHARONDALE STREET W Q 2 H 10 qA 0 "Oft 01.1 f 1 ) CONTEXT This corridor is a residential street with some commercial use near its TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE northeastern section. Rufino Mendoza Elementary School is located KSI NON•KSI at the southwest end of the corridor. The roadway has two lanes with (2019-2023) INJURYCRASHES • CRMHB • CR SNEs unmarked on -street parking and a speed limit of 30 mph. Sidewalks are 21 2 NMAIN, present on both sides but are not continuous along the entire corridor. Pavement width ranges from 28 to 34 feet, with a right-of-way of Eu1:AVE approximately 60 to 80 feet The corridor is part of the Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN). N HOUSWN ST ' TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES CRASH LOCATION W 10% .............. 100%.....,....... . 14% OINiON AVE C Other Pedestrian Mid -block = G Modes _ r 0 W LEEAVE _ • f K 0 30 Z AM 90% 86% aacLE PARK BLw Motor Intersection Vehicle CIRCLE PARK BLVD KYRSH TYPES KEOFACTORS LINCOIN AVE Failed to Yield G Angle ��'� One Motor = Ri ht of Wa DriverCrashes —" Vehicle Crashes I _ Right Sign Y inattention GOUID AVE . • SIGKAU R Wit © &LANEs SIDEWALK LIBArT 314 ► VBi= VER WV I Z��+p� L•'I:le 1 52 CORRIDOR -WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements lt._x Bicycle Pavement Marking 40 SPEEo M T Speed Management • Walkways Lighting 0") Installation MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS W Q LU 0 Q O ..I a � FINAL BENEFIT/ 48 08 COST RATIO • CONSTRUCTION SHORTTERM COST (0-2 YEARS) SEGMENT $6,000 INTERSECTION $25,330 TOTAL $31,330 0 0 m m > N a a Q Z Z O tn uj 0 J J Z J Z 0 NORTHWEST 14TH STREET W Q W W J BENEFITS TOTAL COST $66,020,000 $1,373,000 MEDIUMTERM LONGTERM (2-5 YEARS) (S+YEARS) $337,456 $0 $221,400 $0 $558,856 $0 W Q Ln J W 0 500 ft This is a major arterial with Sycamore Park and Polytechnic Senior High TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE School located just north of the study area. The roadway has four to (2019-2023) INJURY CRASHES five lanes with a median between Avenue I and Mitchell Boulevard. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides, and the corridor is 66 7 designated as a commercial delivery route. Pavement width ranges from 62 to 83 feet, including the median, with a right-of-way of approximately 92 to 115 feet. The corridor is part of the Motor Vehicle High Injury Network (HIN). TOTALCRASHES 100% ................ Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES •29% Motorcycle 71%.....: Motor Vehicle CRASH LOCATION 15% Mid -block t3 .......... 85% Intersection KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS '£ Angle Opposite Driver Disregard Stop Crashes 0 Direction Crashes Inattention And Go Signal KSI NDN•KSI GNASHES CRASHES . ram""• WOW i 1Roee► i SIGNALS SPEED VaM4.Ei y & LANES SIDEWALK LIMIT PFR fiAV OF154 CORRIDOR -WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS Median Refuge Island JEL Roadway Reconfiguration gPEEoI Speed LIMIT)) Management Walkways Bicycle Lanes MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS -0 Eel FINAL BENEFIT/ Eel FINAL BENEFIT/ BENEFITS TOTALCOST COST RATIO 17• 04 $20,060,000 $1,177,100 CONSTRUCTION SHORTTERM MEDIUM TERM LONGTERM COST (0-2 YEARS) (2-5 YEARS) (S+ YEARS) SEGMENT $400 $205,506 $0 INTERSECTION $44,918 $128,700 $77,000 TOTAL $45,316 $334,206 $77,000 SOUTH BEACH STREET x 0 i 0 Soo ft ss CONTEXT This is a minor arterial lined with residential properties and medium- TOTALCRASHES FATAL &SEVERE scale commercial developments. The roadway has continuous sidewalks (2019.2023) INJURYCRASHES KSI NON•KSI on both sides throughout the corridor, with a pavement width of 45 `RASHES CRASHES to 48 feet and a right-of-way of approximately 80 feet. Morningside 94 ` / EAST MORNMG5IDE DR Elementary School is located north of the corridor, and a Trinity Metro bus route operates nearby. The corridor is part of the Motor Vehicle High Injury Network (HIN). AIDDST EMTCANTEVST TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES CRASH LOCATION 2% .................. 100% ............... 20% ... Mid block GLEN GARDEN DR Other Motor Modes Vehicle ' m z z FAST LOWDEN ST Q z Z 0 •y BAKER ST 80% ......... 98% ............ Intersection Motor Vehicle EAST BOWIE ST KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • wKI LN Angle Opposite Driver Failed To Yield I Right of Way - Crashes0Direction Crashes Turning Left FASTBERRYST 4- BbtT do 5,034 ► 1 SIGNALS SIDEWALK SPEED Y04KW & LANES LIMIT 00 DAY G ZERI 156 EVANS AVENUE FROM E MORNINGSIDE DRIVE TO E BERRY STREET (0.5 MILES) Consider consolidating driveways near Reconstruct or repair existing curb intersection. Recommend widening ramps, high -visibility crosswalk; the curb ramp to align with crosswalk Reconstruct/widen sidewalk High -visibility crosswalk, Install new sidewalk, install reconstruct/widen sidewalk on curb extensions. and eastern side M install/upgrade lighting Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps, mark crosswalks and reconstruct sidewalks Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps, mark crosswalks, and reconstruct sidewalks to be wider Install new high -visibility crosswalks, install new sidewalk; Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps Foaxu. 2050 Install curb extensions, LPI, install traffic calming measures; Reconstruct or repair sidewalk CONTEXT This corridor is a residential street with commercial use at its eastern TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE end. It intersects with Ellis Avenue at Rodeo Park and terminates in {2019-2023) INJURY CRASHES the Historic Stockyards District The roadway consists of two lanes in residential areas and expands to four lanes in commercial sections, with 43 0 unmarked on -street parking. Sidewalks are intermittent on both sides. Pavement width ranges from 26 feet in residential areas to 48 feet in commercial areas, with a right-of-way of approximately 68 feet The corridor is part of the Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN). TOTALCRASHES 16% ..........., Other Modes 84% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 0% 0% Pedestrian Bicycle 0% Motor Vehicle KEY CRASH TYPES Angle Same Direction + Crashes Crashes ZERO; CRASH LOCATION 19% - . Mid -block 0% — 81% Motorcycle Intersection KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 0 Driver r��s�i Speeding Inattention KSI NON-KSI CRASHES CAASHES REFUGKI AVE PROSnctAVE LEE AVE f W x r ROSSAVE y~j W r O •.Z CLINTON AVE N HOWTON ST EL115 AYE +Ap N MAIN Sr 6mh SIGNALS © fi LANES I NA ► • SIDEWALK SPEED Vi1:K01 PC LIMIT PERDAT I ss NORTHWEST 26TH STREET FROM N MAIN STREET TO ANGLE AVENUE (0.5 MILES) Install new curb ramp, new Install new high -visibility crosswalks, high -visibility crosswalks, and traffic calming elements, and advanced new sidewalks warning signs, repair curb ramps Install new high -visibility . New high -visibility crosswalk, install crosswalks, install/upgrade advance yield or stop markings and lighting, install new sidewalk signs, install new sidewalk Install new curb ramp, new high -visibility crosswalks.upgrade lighting, traffic calming elements, and advanced warning signs New high -visibility crosswalk. install mid -block crosswalk. and new sidewalk Fo'IIWoa 2050 Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramp, install curb extensions, new high -visibility crosswalks, and median crossing island Install LPI, reconstruct or repair existing curb ramp, install curb extensions CONTEXT This is a minor arterial primarily lined with commercial uses, with a large medical campus —including Cook Children's Medical Center and Harris Methodist Hospital —at its western end. The roadway has three to five lanes, with marked on -street parking at the eastern end. It is a designated bike route with intermittent directional bike lanes and features continuous sidewalks on both sides. ATrinity Metro bus route serves the corridor. Pavement width ranges from 50 to 60 feet, with a right-of-way of approximately 80 to 84 feet. The corridor is part of the Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN) and Motor Vehicle HIN. TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 3%...............: 33% Other Pedestrian Modes (:) Z) .. 97% 67%...._ . .: Motor Motor Vehicle Vehicle TOTALCRASHES FATAL &SEVERE (2019-2023) INJURYCRASHES CRASHES • NOW 124 6 MA%M SSUMMITAVE • C m,AVE _J i S BALLINGER ST li 6THAVE - u S LAKEST CRASH LOCATION • 18% S HENDERSON ST Mid -block z • W Q COLLEGEAVE • Q ® Z co • Q ALSTON ST �j ® Z Z W a 82% Intersection KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Angle 0 Opposite Driver Failed To Yield Crashes Direction Crashes Inattention 1 — Right of Way - A Turning Left HEMPHILLST • GRAINGER Sr i S IENNINGS AVE SAINTLOIASAVE • S MAIN ST , C SBtlA 0 q 12.25D ► C SIGNALS SIDEWALK SPEED VEHKIEi &LANES LIMIT PER DAY L ZEN1 60 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FROM S MAIN STREETTO 8TH AVENUE (1.04 MILES) .i: Instal high -visibility Install new high -visibility crosswalks, prohibit crosswalks, install median right turn on red crossing island, and sidewalk Upgrade RRFB and provide an accessible oedestrian route Install new high -visibility crosswalks, install mid -block crossing, and sidewalk Implement UPI, Install curb I ramps,;, implement or repair existing curb extensions, widen sidewalk, mps, implement LPI, install curb radius construct new curb ramps reduction, buffered bike lane Install new high -visibility Install curb extensions, widen crosswalks, install sidewalks, install buffered bike buffered bike lanes lane, consolidate driveways Implement LPI, install curb Install RRFB, extensions, widen sidewalk, high -visibility crosswalks, construct new curb ramps and curb extensions Foar'IWoa- 2050 Install UPI, remark existing crosswalk with high -visibility markings Install new high -visibility crosswalks, curb ramps, install curb extensions CONTEXT This is a major arterial with residential uses and key destinations such TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE as Rosemont Middle School, Rosemont Park, and Southwestern Baptist (2019-2023) INJURYCRASHES Theological Seminary on its eastern end. An at -grade railroad crossing is located between William Fleming Court and Frazier Avenue. The 176 11 roadway has four travel lanes and a center lane that functions as a turn lane or median. Sidewalks are mostly continuous on both sides, and a Trinity Metro bus route serves the corridor. Pavement width, Including medians, ranges from 58 to 70 feet. The corridor is part of the Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN) and Bicycle HIN. TOTALCRASHES 3%................ Other Modes .......... 97% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 9% 18% Pedestrian Bicycle .9% Motorcycle 64%..............: Motor Vehicle CRASH LOCATION 44% Mid -block 56% Intersection KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS W Driver . Same Direction ■ Angle Crashes ++ • wi Speeding Crashes � 0 Inattention Ka NOWKSI CRASHES CRASHES • "AVE ROSEMONT PARK JAMESAVE VAWAMFUWHGC oc 0 r • FRA2IERAVE � z W N W MCCART AVE s. • SANOAGEAVE LUSOMAVE s WAITS AYE RECTORAVE S 1AOOR SIGNALS & LANES 1 13,948► • 12.770► SIDEWALK SPEED VMCIES LIMrr POW ZER9 162 WEST SEMINARY DRIVE FROM 6TH AVENUE TO RECTOR AVENUE (1.18 MILES) Install median crossing Install curb ramps, new island, install RRFB, and high -visibility crosswalks, install upgrade lighting sidewalk, and consolidate driveways Repair sidewalks, and install ADA compliant crossing install curb ramps, new high -visibility Install curb ramps, new high -visibility Install curb ramps, new high -visibility crosswalks, install median crossing crosswalks, install median crossing islands, crosswalks, auto recall pedestrian islands and RRFBs. Upgrade lighting I install sidewalk, and consolidate driveways signal, and implement LPI Foa_ rI,--. 2050 Install curb ramps, new high -visibility crosswalks, and auto recall pedestrian signal pedestrian crossings Install curb ramps, new high -visibility crosswalks, install median crossing island, and sidewalk CONTEXT This is a major arterial primarily lined with industrial uses, including distribution centers for USPS, FedEx Freight, DHL, and Amazon. The TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE roadway consists of four to six lanes with a grass median featuring curb (2019-2023) INJURY CRASHES breaks at major driveways. The median varies in width, with mostly 208 6 unmarked left turn lanes. Sidewalks are limited but present on both sides north of 1-820. Pavement width ranges from 82 to 98 feet, with a right-of-way of approximately 120 to 124 feet. The corridor is part of the MotorVehicle High Injury Network (HIN), Commercial Motor Vehicle HIN, and Motorcycle HIN. TOTALCRASHES 100%............... Motor Vehicle KEY CRASH TYPES 0■ 0 Opposite Direction Crashes FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 17% Pedestrian 17% .... Motor 111co Vehicle 67% Motorcycle 0•(� Same Direction Crashes CRASH LOCATION 19% Mid -block Intersection KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 10 Driver Inattention ,r Failed To Yield Right of Way - Tuming Left • KSI • NON-KSI CRASHES CRASHES CANTRELL SANSOM RD - - + JIM WRIGHT FREEWAY E NE-1- ftf*• NELOOPSEMACERD • NEPARKWAY • 3 11 Y a .. Y PROJIDENCE OR • C a f GREAT SW PARKWAY @• FRANKLIN DR MEACHAM BLVD .r n +,aaon SIGNALS "LANES �0 10.6680, • M'll 11 SIDEWALK SPEED VEHICLES LIMIT PER DAY Z�rp�1 4 RO, 1 64 CORRIDOR -WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ` CorridorAccess AdML MM Crosswalk Visibility Dedicated Left - 1)Lanes Management Enhancements and Right-Tum 4 Walkways MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS W, A ITS BENEFITS COSTLRATIO 18.26 $92,480,000 CONSTRUCTION SHORTTERM MEDIUM TERM COST (0-2 YEARS) (2-5 YEARS) SEGMENT $2,910 $78,095 INTERSECTION $5,764 $32,072 TOTAL $8,674 $110,167 � V 0 W W V Ln z o- p O O MARK IV PARKWAY LIU C} 0 0 Q a W z TOTALCOST $5,063,400 LONG TERM (5+YEARS) $1,406,637 $350,000 $1,556,637 �� O Ln Z J Cr W a Z u 0 500 ft I 1 —� 1 ds CONTEXT This is a residential minor arterial with some commercial use. Hallmark TOTALCRASHES FATAL& SEVERE Park is located midway between the Sycamore Creek bridge and an at- (2019-2023) INJURYCRASHES grade railroad crossing. The roadway has four lanes and is designated as a commercial delivery route. Sidewalks are intermittent, with one on 292 13 the south side extending to the creek and another on the north side from Hemphill Street to W Everman Parkway. Pavement width ranges from 40 to 42 feet. The corridor is part of the Bicycle High Injury Network (HIN), Pedestrian HIN, and Motor Vehicle HIN. TOTAL CRASHES 2%......... Other Modes .......... 97% Motor Vehicle KEY CRASH TYPES ■ Opposite Direction Crashes FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 15% ..... . B% Pedestrian '. Bicycle 0 • .15% Motorcycle 62% .............. i Motor Vehicle G Angle Crashes CRASH LOCATION 46% Mid -block 54% Intersection KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 49 Driver Inattention aSpeeding KSI NON-KSI CRASHES CRASHES SOUTH FREEWAY i SHEWDON RD y r ROCImALE RD � O a NATALIE DR A J O TRIMBLE OR U w 0 NALLMARKIMWc� Q u r i NE.-ILLST i PE9BLEFOflO RD i r. MARLIi0R000H OR NOVELLA OR , ,.,•Tt' ,P 1 tArDR SIGNALS & LANES I SIDEWALK 16,016► 1 SPEED VEHICLES LIMIT PER DAY A ZE R 166 CORRIDOR -WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS Crosswalk Visibility Roadway Reconfiguration SPEEp Speed MIT Management Enhancements Iapi w Walkways 40 Bicycle Lanes MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ce x 0 Ce 00 o O L00J ca Q ua Q 0 q d drainage, install sidewalk FINAL BENEFIT/ BENEFITS TOTALCOST COST RATIO 26• 56 $128,960,000 $4,854,600 CONSTRUCTION SHORTTERM MEDIUM TERM LONGTERM COST (0-2 YEARS) (2-5 YEARS) (S+YEARS) SEGMENT $50,160 $1,424,844 $0 INTERSECTION $29,160 $269,960 $0 TOTAL $79,320 $1,694,&M $0 0 m 1— SYCAMORE SCHOOL ROAD a 500 ft i 67 I t F v- 7 r1R- 404 1 PL 44; it's Ao- L7 WO IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES .i.4i Implementation Strategies outline the key actions Fort Worth will take to achieve Vision Zero, translating recommendations into tangible steps. This section provides a framework for executing safety improvements through demonstration projects, capital investments, policy actions, and community education. By incorporating a mix of short-term, low-cost interventions and long-term infrastructure upgrades, the city can test innovative solutions, address critical safety needs, and build public support. These strategies serve as a roadmap to guide decision -making, prioritize resources, and ensure sustained progress toward safer streets for all. -8 sss DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS CAPITAL PROJECTS POLICYACTIONS AND TOOLS COMMUNITY EDUCATION Quick build projects can be used to demonstrate the potential of roadway improvements in a relatively fast and cost-effective way. While typically limited to temporary'paint and plastic" type projects, these initiatives can still have an immediate impact on roadway user safety. Due to their typicaly low cost, these kinds of projects can be used for communities to experience and explore designs before they become permanent, creating not only an engagement opportunity, but likely a better end design. And by including community members in their design, demonstration projects can also serve as a motivational tool for alternative commuting modes. In Fort Worth, for example, using paint and temporary materials to create bulb -outs (curb extensions) to slow vehicle speeds and shorten pedestrian crossing distances at key intersections could be used to demonstrate how these kinds of safety treatment can be effective at achieving easy wins. These are larger projects that serve the long-term goals of a Safety Action Plan. Therefore, costs are higher, and more design and planning are required. While quick build projects focus on temporary measures, capital projects are permanent changes to the roadway. Capital projects may be former quick build installations that have proved to be effective in improving safety and are ready for long tern implementation. Typical examples include traffic calming, enhanced pedestrian lighting, or bike lane installation. Capital projects can help connect Vision Zero projects with other realms of enhanced transportation like transit Changes to policy require enabling legislation or local ordinance to support the implementation of specific decisions or actions. Policy changes can be used to establish permanent guidelines in which the city will follow as it implements infrastructure improvements. Improving policies for VRUs (vulnerable road users) can be as simple as evaluating local codes regarding sidewalks or jaywalking. More expansive policies, such as a citywide Complete Streets Policy, will require the institutionalization of its approach, such as retraining engineers, planners, and project managers. Policy tools can also be used for the prioritization of underinvested and underserved communities, a vital element of any Safety Action Plan or approach to achieving Vision Zero. Toki %4"PR111 "r- 2050 Safe streets in part rely on user behavior, which is influenced by a users understanding of the transportation system in which they are participating. Knowledge of traffic safety issues and their countermeasures equips communities with an awareness of the network around them and allows for more valuable input into the decision -making process. Community education can be provided in the form of education guides, safety campaigns, or neighborhood events. Through the education of users, a culture of safety can be promoted, changing the norms around traffic safety. A ZERO 1 69 FUNDING STRATEGIES FEDERAL FUNDING Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) The SS4A grant is an annual funding opportunity from the Federal Highway Administration that supports improving roadway safety for all users by reducing or eliminating serious -injury and fatal crashes. It requires the development and implementation of a comprehensive safety plan, such as a Safety Action Plan or a Vision Zero Plan. The grant provides funding for planning, demonstration, and implementation grants. This grant requires a local funding match of no less than 20 percent, but North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) may help cover local match for some project using Transportation Development Credits (rDCs). The City of Fort Worth has applied TDCs in the past and may do so in the future to help meet the funding needs for implementing the actions and projects identified in this plan. STATE FUNDING Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Texas's Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP), directed by the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), aims to reduce traffic fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads. It provides a standardized approach for identifying and reviewing specific traffic safety concerns throughout the state. Program funds are eligible to cover up to 90 percent of project construction costs. HSIP funds are only eligible to cover construction costs. Traffic Safety Grant via N HTSA NHTSA awards grants for occupant protection, state traffic safety information systems, impaired driving countermeasures, distracted driving, motorcyclist safety, state graduated driver licensing laws, and non -motorized safety. Funds are awarded to the state and administered through TxDOT. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) TAP provides funds for locally sponsored bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the state. TAP has four different project categories that decide eligibility and funding amounts: community - based, large scale, network enhancements, and non -infrastructure. All require a local match of 20 percent The current call for projects will provide funding for FY2027-FY2029. REGIONAL FUNDING Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) The MTP is a long-range plan that serves as a guide for the projects and programs the region would like to implement over the life of the plan. Projects and programs may only be included in the MTP if funding exists or can be identified for their implementation. The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) lies within the greater MTP. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The NCTCOG and TxDOT, along with local governments and transportation agencies, develop a new TIP every two years. It is a staged, multi -year listing of transportation projects and programs within the Dallas -Fort Worth Metropolitan Area with committed funding from federal, state, and local sources. The TIP outlines fouryears of funded transportation projects within the long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Fort Worth is also eligible to apply for TAP funds through NCTCOG. Approximately $50 million in TA federal funds will be available to award eligible projects which may include Safe Routes to School Planning; Safe Routes to School Infrastructure; Shared -Use Paths (trails} On -street Bikeways; Sidewalks, Crosswalks and Curb Ramps; Sidewalks and Bikeways to Transit; Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Countermeasures and Technology, and Protected intersections, according to the 2025 NCTCOG TA Program Call for Projects. LOCAL FUNDING Tarrant County Transportation Bond Program In 2021, Fort Worth proposed and passed a transportation bond program. Projects identified in the bond have a goal to increase mobirrty, reduce congestion, enhance safety, and improve connectivity General Obligation (GO) Bond A General Obligation (GO) Bond provides cities with a tool to raise funds for capital improvement projects that are otherwise not funded by city revenue. This debt is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the city. The funding source for GO bond payments is property taxes, which are generated each year based on the tax rate adopted by the City Council. GO bonds can only be used to fund the projects authorized in the propositions approved by the voters. These projects W% 2050 can include initiatives such as the construction and improvement of highways, bridges, ports, airports, rail lines, and public transit systems. Pay -As -You -Go (PayGo) Financing Pay -As -You -Go (PayGo) is another alternative to debt financing. It uses cash, not debt to maintain, improve, and reinvest in the city's infrastructure. PayGo financing saves the City from paying interest costs on debt and reduces debt, thereby improving financial flexibility. Improvements can be made in the current fiscal year instead of waiting for the next bond program. Using PayGo to supplement the capital program helps the city meet its capital needs without adding to the total debt outstanding. Transportation Impact Fee A transportation impact fee is a one-time charge charged by the city to new development projects to help raise revenue for transportation projects. Impact fees are based on the anticipated demand for infrastructure that the new development creates. The general purpose of impact fees is to help fund transportation improvements that are needed as development occurs and to help pay for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate new development or re -development. 170 TRANSPARENCY / MEASURING PROGRESS METRIC OF SUCCESS Measuring progress toward Vision Zero is crucial for maintaining a data -driven approach to road safety. Regular monitoring and reporting enhance transparency, accountability, and decision -making, helping to identify which strategies are most effective. Analyzing trends allows the city to refine its approach —expanding successful initiatives and adjusting or discontinuing those that fall short Achieving Vision Zero requires sustained commitment over time. Monitoring efforts should track both outcomes —such as reductions in traffic crashes, particularly fatal and severe injuries —and outputs, including the number and percentage of safety projects implemented, especially along the High -Injury Network (HIN). These insights ensure resources are directed toward the most impactfvl safety improvements. BE TRANSPARENTABOUTTHE CITY'S STATE OF SAFETY The City will publish the State of Safety Report developed as part of this safety Action Plan (SAP) and update it every 2-3 years as new data becomes available. Regular updates will help the public understand local safety trends and enable the City to monitor and track crash patterns over time. To enhance accessibility, key safety data should be presented through an online dashboard, providing the public with an easy -to -use platform for reviewing and analyzing safety trends. MAINTAIN AND UPDATE ONLINE SAFETY RESOURCES The City will publish this Safety Action Plan on its Vision Zero (VZ) webpage and the Safety Action Plan website. As safety strategies are implemented and progress is made toward Vision Zero, the City will continue sharing important updates, such as the annual safety report, on these platforms. These online resources will be actively maintained and incorporated into safety campaigns to establish them as the primary sources for transportation safety information. ZERe THE FOLLOWING METRICS WILL BE TRACKED ANNUALLYTO GAUGE PROGRESS TOWARDS VISION ZERO: • Number of traffic fatalities and severe injuries within the region, in total and by mode. . Number of crashes on and off the High Injury Network (HIN). . Number of crashes occurring on roadways adjacent to schools, parks, and transit stops within vulnerable areas of the community. • Percentage of roadways on the High Injury Network with new street safety improvements. . Number of safety or street reconstruction projects with multimodal facilities, especially along the HIN. . Number of safety projects on roadways adjacent to vulnerable communities. • Number of traffic fatalities and severe injuries within the region, in total and by mode. • Number of crashes on and off the High Injury Network (HIN). • Number of crashes occurring on roadways adjacent to schools, parks, and transit stops within vulnerable communities. RrurN4�RTK �r 2050 • Number of safety or street reconstruction projects with multimodal facilities, especially along the HIN. . Number of safety projects on roadways adjacent to vulnerable communities. • Miles of sidewalk and bikeways constructed and maintained along the HIN or priority roadways. • Percentage of the HIN covered by Road Safety Audits within the past 5 years. • Average travel speeds within the region by roadway functional classification and median speeds on the High Injury Network or priority roadways. • Commute mode shares for the region. • Number of people reached through road safety outreach, education campaigns, and Vision Zero engagement activities. • Number of agencies and representatives participating in Vision Zero working groups. 1 71 o V y x E x CL CL I � EO Appendix A-1 Fort Worth ADA Transition Plan City of Fort i�orth, Texas Mayor and Council Communication DATE 07/21/92 1 REFERENCE NUMBER G-9743 LOG NAME 14ADA PAGE I of I SUBJECT I CITY OF FORT WORTH ADA TRANSITION PLAN RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached ADA Transition Plan. The Plan was presented to City Council on July 7, 1992 in Informal Report #7626. DISCUSSION: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires the development of a Transition Plan to make public buildings and facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plan has been developed and must be adopted by the City Council by July 26, 1992. Implementation of the plan is to take place over a three-year period. One million dollars is estimated to be required for the first year's expenses associated with implementation of the City's plan. Almost half of the $1,000,000.00 is required for curb cuts and ramps for entrance to governmental facilities. Improvements will be made at approximately 245 facility locations in the first year. One hundred and forty-five of the locations will require provisions for handicapped parking areas and appropriate signage. Corrections are also required in restrooms, elevators and special use areas. CB:a OFW REWr c r Wr►M TA Submitted for City Manager's FUND ( ACCOUNT CENTER AMOUNT ( CITY SECRETARY Office by: (to) Charles Boswell 8500 Originating Department Head: Charlie Shapard 77691 (from) For Additional Information Contact: Charlie Shapard 77691 pnnted an recyUed paper CITY OF FORT WORTH ADA TRANSITION PLAN Submitted to the City Council July 21, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS • TRANSITION PLAN NARRATIVE • ATTACHMENT A CITY OF FORT WORTH FACILITY SURVEY • ATTACHMENT B ADA TRANSITION PLAN SUMMARY YEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE • ATTACHMENT C SAMPLE STREET SURVEY FORM • ATTACHMENT D PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUALSIORGANIZATIONS IN ACCESS COMMITTEE UFRUL RECuFx . 4 I •'yiY ter, �,,,. FT, ft-VM TX Page 1 of 5 CITY OF FORT WORTH TRANSITION PLAN JULY 139 1992 summarv. This plan was formulated in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requirement that local governments develop a Transition Plan by July 26, 1992. The Transition Plan outlines the structural changes to facilities required to make programs accessible to persons with disabilities including mobility, visual, hearing, and mental impairments. This Informal Report provides the City Council with staff's recommended plan for action and a suggested time frame to adopt the City's Transition Plan. The Transition Plan focuses on alterations to facilities. It identifies physical obstacles; describes in detail methods to make facilities accessible; specifies a schedule for making the necessary alterations; indicates the official responsible for implementing the plan. All structural changes should be accom- plished as soon as possible, but no longer than three (3) years. As it will take longer than one year to make the facilities accessible, the City is required to develop an annual plan for each of the three years, identifying which alterations will be made in each plan year. The -Transition Plan also includes a schedule for the provision of curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrian walks cross curbs. Additionally, there must be an opportunity for interested citizens, including persons with disabilities and organizations which represent them, to comment on the transition plan. Finally, the Transition Plan must be retained and made available for public inspection for three years. Process Used to Produce Transition Plan. The Transition Plan was developed after surveying over 700 City facilities. City facili- ties were first prioritized into "A", "B", and "C" categories: "A" facilities are those with a large volume of public traffic, e.g. City Hall, Recreation Centers, Multipurpose Centers, Public safety Building, Police Department, etc.; "B" facilities are primarily worksites with little public traffic, e.g. service centers, water plants, storage warehouse, etc.; "C" facilities are remote facilities, occasionally visited by staff, e.g. paint sheds, some storage areas, records holding areas, etc. All "A" and "B" priority facilities were inspected in March and April by nine teams assembled from a pool of 24 City employees loaned by several departments. The teams were trained on facility Page 2 of 5 accessibility concepts and how to survey a facility by Scott Haynes, R.E.A.C.H. Independent Living Center, who developed the facility accessibility survey instrument and who is a board member of the Mayor's Committee on Employment of Persons with Disabili- ties. The Access Sub -Committee of the Mayor's Committee, chaired by R. A. Wade, also assisted in the training and accompanied the City survey teams to important or representative structures. Each survey team was provided a kit which included a camera, angle finder, fish scale, and a 12' tape measure. The 67-point check list (Attachment A) required comments and measurements on every- thing from slopes of curbs, ramps, parking spaces, number of pounds of pressure to open doors, widths of sidewalks, doors and toilets. The "accessible path of travel" approach dictated that each of the following by surveyed at each facility as applicable: parking, curb ramps, pathways, accessible circulation routes, ramps, doors and gates, stairs, building lobbies and corridors, elevators, water closets, lavatories, assembly areas and drinking fountains. The Transition Plan attached is based on an analysis of what facility changes need to be made to the "A" buildings over three years in order to achieve the goal of program accessibility. The plan will not require nor is it required to bring the buildings up to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) which will be required for new construction and renovation. The draft plan has been reviewed by the Access Committee for the Mayor's Committee for Employment of Persons with Disabilities and met with general approval except for concerns regarding the old Public Safety Building. The draft plan was amended to reflect these concerns. Identification of Barriers. Attachment B, titled "ADA Transition Plan" lays out needed corrections in several categories. In general: • Parking - provision of accessible parking including van accessible parking • Curb - curb ramps and general ramps • Signage - denoting accessible and inaccessible entrances, exits and routes • Pathways - exterior and interior routes that limit accessibil- ity of programs to people with mobility and visual impair- ments. • Doors - widening, adjusting pounds per pressure, correcting threshold problems, replacing door hardware • Restrooms - Corrections range from the few (lowering a dispenser or mirror, changing out lavatory knobs for levers) to the many (where major renovations are required). It also includes accessible port -a -potties in parks where port -a - potties are currently placed. • Fountains - Cup dispensers are being added to inaccessible fountains. --- Page 3 of 5 • Elevators - adding braille and audible signals, plus a few lifts. • Other - for public assembly areas adding assistive listening devices and wheelchair seating, and in libraries adding accessible computer and catalog tables. Every "A" building has been analyzed by the above categories for correction. A facility that needs work in that category will be denoted with a 1,2, or 3. These refer to each of the three years work will take place in, as the ADA requires that all changes be accomplished by January 26, 1995. The list of all structural modifications to be made and their locations may be found in Attachment B. Schedule for Removina Barriers. You will note that first year work is in parking, curb cuts/ramps, and signage. This is in line with the Department of Justice's first priority to be able to enter a building. Pathways and door corrections enable circulation to where services are offered and are a second priority to be corrected in Year Two. The third priority is for accessible restrooms which will be accomplished in Year Three with certain exceptions. City Hall will have one accessible restroom per floor for each sex in Year one as will the Municipal Courts. Year Two restrooms include libraries and multi -purpose centers. As required, the Transition Plan outlines changes by ADA year One, Two, and Three since it will take more than one year to accomplish the changes. While the City of Fort Worth Transition Plan is a three year plan, it should be recognized that some changes will occur over time given the great number of facilities involved. Existing facilities change usage and new facilities come into the City's inventory. There is also the possibility of administrative error. Therefore, the City of Fort Worth reserves the right to update and correct the Transition Plan as appropriate. Insta4 lation of Curb RamDs. Another required portion of the Transition Plan is the schedule for provision of curb ramps where pedestrian walks cross intersections. In order to prepare this plan it was necessary to inventory the existing infrastructure. Using an existing Fire Department database of all 16,o00 intersections in the City, a survey instrument was designed which could be used to easily check every corner of each intersection (Sample Attachment C). A two -person team was assembled and trained by Scott Haynes of R.E.A.C.H. Independent Living Center to physically conduct the survey. As of June 14, 1992 the surveyors had completed surveys of 1,275 intersections of approximately 20% of the entire City. Given the short time frame, the initial emphasis was placed on areas of the City which are most traveled and visited by the general public. Also, priorities were assigned in accordance with Page 4 of 5 the ADA and staff concentrated efforts on Priority 1 (State, Local, Federal, County government buildings). Areas of the City which have been surveyed include the Central Business District, the Cultural District, the Hospital District, the Stockyards, intersec- tions adjacent to all public schools, Texas Christian University area, Texas Wesleyan area, and the Southwestern Baptist Seminary area. The surveyors will continue to work and it is our plan to complete the entire City. Staff proposes to have under contract Priority 1 improvements by January 26, 1993. Based upon the sample survey of intersections completed to date we estimate that an expenditure in the range of $500,000 will be necessary to complete Priority 1. Priority 2, Access to Transportation such as the "T" bus stops, and Priority 3, Places of Public Accommodation such as retail stores, restaurants, and hotels are to be completed during ADA Year Two by January 26, 1994. Priority 4 includes Employers and Commercial Facilities. These intersections would be completed in Year 3 by January 26, 1995. Staff plans to address Priority 5 (Residential) whenever street renovation or reconstruction occurs or upon request. The main thrust of our bond programs are the reconstruction of neighborhood and inner city streets. Priority 6 ("Other" - parking lots/open fields) needs will also be addressed upon request or if development occurs. The Transporta- tion and Public Works Department has developed the attached "Policy Regarding Installation of Curb Ramps". Upon approval this policy will regulate the installation of curb ramps on all Transportation and Public Works projects. New curb cuts will feature three (3) narrow parallel grooves to provide detectable warnings to the visually impaired. Telephones: The Information Systems and Services Department is surveying all public phone locations. Among other requirements, one public telephone per floor must be accessible in terms of height and hearing volume control. All improvements to telephones will be accomplished in ADA Year One. Financina: One million dollars ($1,000,000) is being put in an ADA Special Projects Fund to pay for Year One improvements. official Responsible for Implementation: Charles Boswell, Assistant City Manager; Libby Lanzara, ADA Coordinator Page 5 of 5 Onnortunities for Public snout: As mentioned earlier, the Access Committee, a subcommittee of the Mayor's Committee on Employment of Persons with Disabilities, participated with City staff throughout this project. Project phases included training of staff, representative site visitation and analysis of needs. The names and organizations of committee members is attached as Attachment D. July 7, 1992 This item was discussed at the City Council work session. A number of members of the Access commit- tee were present. The Informal Report and Transition Plan were made available in the Central Library and branches. Alternate formats were made available. July 8, 1992 A public meeting was held in the City Council Chambers at 6:00 PM to explain the ADA Transition Plan and to take public comment. It was carried on City Cable Channel Mac 5. July 21, 1992 The Transition Plan will be on the City Council Agenda for action and as such may be commented upon by the public and people with disabilities. It must be adopted at this time as the Federal dead- line, by law, is July 26, 1997. Formats Available. The earlier Informal Report to Council and the Transition Plan are available in print format and on disk. Due to the technological problems of printing columns in Braille, the Transition Plan is unavailable in Braille. However, the Informal Report will be available in Braille. For information regarding disk or Braille formats, please call Libby Lanzara at 871-8552. Printed copies of the Transition Plan and Informal Report are available for inspection in Ms. LanzaraIs office and in all Public Library facilities. ATTACHMENT A CITY OF FORT WORTH FACILITY, SURVEY C �� M�UCi1"ly. 77C CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS CITY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES SURVEY FOR ACCESS SURVEY DATE: SURVEY TEAM: CITY OWNED LEASED DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY: DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE: PUBLIC USE: Heavy Moderate PUBLIC PROGRAMS (LIST OR ATTACH): HISTORIC REGISTER: STATE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED: YES NO 1 Light NATIONAL Negligible CITY OF FORT NORTH, TEXAS CITY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES SURVEY FOR ACCESS DOES THIS BUILDING/FACILITY HAVE THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEET HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS? ITEM 1. PARKING — parking diagram — Figures 9 AS YES NO N/A i a. Are the required number of parking spaces provided (bee j Chart I)? b. Is one space van accessible? c. Are the spaces on level (less than or equal to 1:50 or 2% slope? (CURB RAMP MUST NOT PROJECT INTO ACCESS AISLE) d. Are the spaces at the closest (required) level point to the building's accessible entrance? e. Is there 1 van space (96" plus 96" aisle) for every 8 accessible spaces? (overhead clearance of 98") f. Are universal symbol of accessibility signs posted? g. Is the parkinq surface stable, firm, and slip resistant? COMMENTS I .� 2. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES — see Fiqure 10 YES NO N/A a. Is there a passenger loading zone? b. Is there a passenger loading zone Which is Posted? c. Is the zone 20' length and an access aisle of 60"? COMMENTS Taal Parkinj Required Minimum SURVEY FORM 1 • PARKING in Lot Number of Accessib►e Spaces Facility Name: 1$5 1 26 to 50 2 51 ►o 75 3 Parking Lot Location: 76to100 s 101 10 150 S 151 to 200 6 0 of Spaces provided: 201 to30D 7 301 to 400 1 401 to 500 9 0 Required to be accessible: 301101000 • 1001 and over •• •2 pereeru or total ••20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1000 - 2 w Ocuwae MAI � • ...u.... r-......... nn...wrH.......M.M.n $w .H.w....N/n...w..pw. cr-9 oror o o $ 4a 0 Q Y mo go 0_ � o oQe o o or for VANS 96r+,"t 60 min 96 min +u lilt 2448 T� Fig. 9 Dimensions of Parking Spaces comments on Parking: (include rough diagram or relate elements to Figures 9, 10 or A-5) 240 n,tn f slog w Mg. 10 Accvs Alsle at Passenger Loading Zones arccesaW* Newt* eel • o._ ..o .........�.. .v D p 0 p 0 O 0 10��' D °a o 1 all •,p I� t&"I" a o 96 "an 60 nNr24" I 112% r 252 mom s+.+ 96 Fru" 34" (a) Van Accessible Space at End Row ............................0............................ o C a C C o VIA 0PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r�!. 132 nu �,ren 122 132 ff" f 324.//n asn ' 4M NnilYrwd YirA.n� `�yiCe �CJ� Fig. AS Parking Space Aitctutivts 3. CURB RAMPS (Fig. 15, Fig. 12 6 13, Fig. 16) a. Maximum slope of 1:10 (1:12 preferred). b. Textured nonslip surface. c. Smooth transitional surface at top and bottom of ramp. d. Ramps with minimum width of 36". COMMENTS: ALLOWABLE RAMP DIMENSIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN EXISTING SITES, BUILDINGS, AND FACILITIES Mazinin Rise Oa+imum Run I SLOPES YES NO N/A Slope' In Ft I RATIO MEASURE ' Steeper than 1:10 but 3 2 I 1:5 (1.1/2" per ft.) ■ 3" in 2 ft. 12.5' no Steeper than 1:8 Steeper than 1:12 but 6 5 1:10 (1.3/16" per ft.) ■ 2-3/8" in 2 ft. 10.0' io steeper than 1:10 r A slope steeper then 1:8 not allowed 1:12 0 " per ft.) • 2" in 2 it. 3.3' 1:20 (5/8" per ft.) " 1-3/16" in 2 ft. 5.D' 1 6' IY (s) then vK slop. d"&rid SM& "no( a— M L 1:50 (1/4" per ft.) a 1/2" in 2 ft. 2.0' Fig. 12 Sides d Cwb Ramps M ^+ FAVZrAd `Wb lttrei "dMy '.,. sw+.c• d eu"y La.•t Larw" j ftwfldwAsi PK4# $— tit yy�yw•rra 1t+s" Itat•ui•tw llwtetewul /►vpxene wepr is ,am ):12 as -C 1.16 )0 tw 34 ! 1.16 as t J40 )p aaa 40 t! Fig. 16 Cornponents of a Single Ramp Run and Samptc Ramp Otmenalorns PLw4 v OF other non-wa" swrlac• i 4 ,age- • 1$2O . Mkt W qt" CLWP , , :. 16 r (C) Fig. 15 Curb Ramps at Marked Crossings 5 I Fig. 13 Buik•()p Curb Ramp 4. PATHWAYS - Figures 1 and 8(a) a. Is there at least 80" clear .headroom along the path? (or a cane detectable barrier within 27" of the grcund? b. Are protruding objects 4" or less? (or With bottoms below 27"?) c. Do grates have openings of less than 1/2"? d. Are transitions from curb ramps to walkways, streets and gutters flush and free of abrupt changes? e. Is there a minimum of 48" clear space within the crosswalk lines at the bottom of a diagonal curb ramp? f. Are there any cross slopes of over 2:50 (2%)? g. Are signs clearly posted indicating accessible route to entry? h. Are all inaccessible entries posted with a sign directing wheelchair users to an accessible entrance. COMMENT ( 5. ACCESSIBLE CIRCULATION ROUTE (Fig. 7 6 Fig. 2) a. A continuous unobstructed path of travel that connects all accessible elements and spaces in a building or facility. b. Sidewalk clear width of 36 inches (44 to 60 inches pre- ferred). c. Hall and corridor clear width of 36 inches if less than 30 feet long, 44 inches if greater than 30 feet long. Room pathways generally 32 inches clear width. d. A 60 inch by 60 inch passing space at reasonable intervals (200'). e. Level, smooth, firm, stables non -slip surface. COMMENTS: to !9'TWn 3� fc! Qan(.wQ fn Y.at YES NO YES NO Nvr[. p.....'.... n. v+.— Oes+r .+..w • •e .s 1.11 a0 "V"). Irt T...ns rrw-wrr a .0, 0easvc64- r1g. 7 ACC&SSW[ aOY:I N/A 6 3fi MIM i1S Fig. I Nnlmum Clear Width for Single Wheelchair I ._�N Lobby � a..... . c•o Additional Comments: tftir IDIOM i Fa• • tat W&LIC9ne Pranar So a Warl 7 6. RAMPS - See Figs. 27, 25, 12, 13 6 16 a. Each inch of rise requires -one foot of run (e.g.. a 6 inch step requires a 6-foot long ramp.) b. Clear Width of 36 inches if less than 30 feet long, 48 J inches if over 30 feet long. c. Handrails on both sides (if ramp is longer than 6 feet) mounted at 30 to 36 inches above ramp surface with returned ends extending parallel 12 inches at top and bottom landings. d. Are landings and top and bottom approaches level and at least 600 long and as wide as the ramp? e. If the ramp is more than 6' lonq is there a handrail? COMMENTS: 12 cos LJuL__Jr cvo N V I aau a I I� orml. vertical tuard fail f.t 11" drat am a ' FIB. 17 Examples of Edge Protection and Handrsll Extensions YES NO N/A 6 7. DOORS AND GATES - Fig. 25 and Fig. 26 a. clear width of at least 32 inches. b. Level change at doorway thresholds not to exceed .5 inch beveled (ramped if > .5). c. Door handles easy to grasp and easy to open or close (lever or U-shaped handles preferred). d. Interior hinged doors maximum 5 lb. exterior (Regulation reserved) between 5-12 lb preferred. e. Do all gates including ticket gates meet the same standards for doors or provide an accessible entry? ►us swag CfT. > 1. .IS wA& 24 Arelesww/ !rL S.dg t'NOM ws 30 Yt (915 rrrn) mwnW_M r y 60 In (132.3 nwM). a — 42 1n (1065 nVN rn fdm%wm f y .• S4 Mn (1370 MMJ6 x ow sM 2Q w ............... •Y 3bMr a in I J70 nrnl mrewvn I eev ho YES I NO N/A l I •I x 1P..w Swe NOM, at 12 In CX5 MwP4 if doer his poet a eM" and 1rrL 54 max t .awe , ' �_• ............ V PI M Y AS in t1250 mm) r++itirrarm 1 dam ho bN+ a Ind► and Clogs. tars 51k Ac�+� _ Shy Dan POM Al •aan in ekon *W wr..rwr w k-i ri dorm w 10 raga aacrvpe. 9 CO g w Front APPmac i- StIfte Doors SS& Side AW ch StShcnp Doors and Folding Doors and Fotdtng Doors X .24 j 610 (f) Latch Sidi Approach — St L-1 Door and FbkUng Doors MVT't'+ Al doors In &!c� shad ccm&i oath Ow dewwKcs for front aoDrosdxa Fig. 25 Maneuvering Clearances at Doors (Continued) _ •..ter Fig. 26 Two Hinged Doors in Series 10 i i 8. STAIRS - See Fig. 18, 17 i 8(C-1) ` a. Uniform riser heights, 7 inches maximum. b. Uniform tread depths, 11 inches minimum. c. No open risers. d. No abrupt nosings. e. Handrails mounted at 33 to 36 inches. f. Returned ends extending parallel 12 inches at top and bottom landings (extensions not required if hazardous). COMMENTS FIG. 18 FOR A,B,C,D - P. 31 FIG. 17 FOR E - P. 31 (1) N. I $ Flush Neer Usable Tread Width and Examples of Acceptable nosings prvkct JJudad aradam _ CID&$-Ua}(C 1 0 �n S, rT�y Fig. f (aJ) 0whad Nusnds YES N O I I MW Ic1 RounQe� flosin� LK 11 9. BUILIDNG LOBBIES AND CORRIDORS a. If more than one means of egress is required by building code, is more than one accessible? OR b. If only one means of egress in a multi -story building is accessible, are safe areas of refuge provided on each floor? c. If there is less than 80" clear head room in an area adjoining an accessible route, is there a barrier (Within 27" of the ground) to warn visually -impaired people? COMMENTS 110. ELEVATORS a. Is there an elevator? f b. Are there audible siqnals? What are they? c. Does the floor area allow maneuvering room for wheelchair users to enter, reach the controls, and exit? SIZE X d. Are the elevator controls brailled and designated by raised standard alphabet charcters to the left of the controls? e. Are hoistway entrances designated by braille and raised characters? COMMENTS 2 JP i� C 70 aO 20 so BO ....�.� ._, O Q O I PAJa) Detail A:%4mat4 Locations of P.r+el vAth Clontar Optftlog Doer Fig. 29 Car Controls YES NO N/A YES NO N/A (b). Car Control Ke/ght t. A,ltc !p Lacs laons of Aan+3 wntn1 lae Qp&nfnp Door 12 NOM T1►e avwmauc Ooor reopcninp Eevlce K acvva4d r an Objea pours Vmogh etJw Ik+e A or tns & Una A and Ikw D rerese++l Ow %TMCfJ 4ocat,ons or We door reoperwn9 device na requiring conLWL Fig. 20 Holsln+ay and Elevatoe Entrances 'BO ML, jai* fRI , �l �36 MAN I�-----� i s►s p to L at Flo. 22 Mwrnum Dimensions d I evaler tars 13 11. WATER CLOSETS (FIG. 28 - 29/STALLS FIG. 30) a. 36 inch by 69 inch water closet floor space (60" by 60" preferred). b. Clear width of 32 inches for water closet door. c. Toilet seat heiqht at 17 to 19 inches. d. Grab bars mounted at 33 to 36 inches on both sides of toilet. e. Grab bar clearnance at 1 1/12 inches. Comments 36 own 16 Y Y • • v IRV I io liar �O 4 48 min t in+ 36 ftn 435- � ! 12 n+cn , 12 3a3 =p M f d �+ a 6a,4* Watt 36 rMa "' 18 18 win E x ; N ewr ..ice...... .... . ........ t 48 min U" N. 28 Clear Floor Space at Water Closet3 YES NO N/A 42 MM 18 city i N 1 �oCt 60 S4 fmr, . 12 42 a�R 305 - IOU lath p J 010�RPM Aw0 c O E Vft w e? Waa swe Fig. 29 &ab 8*r4_at.W.V&X Cogets 14 +1 �Iterms$@ 'emu- 12 LL Joa R f^ m Sa�j�� tt wrq,f�O,MiL�S 4 On JJ6 Flan , fM CKNF[rC w[_ P,Ocr Appnwhn tKR)A 4,6 n%m atandlyd StaO 4 2 ,.,.rt � 1 1 54 T� life 42 6%,.. /o R i 1♦ 12 +*. r — — ja$ toe c•) wall mounted wc. 6gv ON fir ntounl.d WC. real 1 _ I EL I 1 N Is f r' 1 � fa rl 42 nim Latch i &FprwcA cnlj&48 Omer APPMOM40 54 I3to (b) AJUMate Stalls fi 35 MA i r chose 1 - -- 1 �i 1 some. 56MLA .r e111 1�1M t HA!U • ng- p f11 wWnl/�j (a,!) 31-ndard Statt (end of irmW 1 1 1 + 1 fa. �s �•►♦♦♦♦►►♦♦y Rear wall or Standard S UA —��IIfr�RIR 12 n+as 401421 +o+M I we 1 1015110651 Q 36 • Is vas ^ I 1 I —i- •— c fd. Ma rf. e �'• R f (d) Fig. 30 $ do watt• Toilet Stalls 15 12. LAVATORIES a. Under sink clearance from floor to bottom edge of 29 inches. b. Insulated or covered hot water and drain pipe under sink. No sharp protrusions. c. Reach not to exceed 20 inches front or 24 inches side approach. d. Lever faucet handles preferred. e. Clear floor maneuvering space in front of lavatory 30 x 48. f. Operating components of dispensers mounted at 48 inches for front or 54 inches for side approach. g. 40 inches maximum Height from floor to bottom of mirror, or tilted mirror available. COMMENTS 13. ASSEMBLY AREAS/CONFERENCE ROOMS/AUDITORIUMS a. Level seating areas 33 to 44 inches wide by 48 inches long for frontal approach (or 60 inches long for side apprcach). b. Clear sight line. c. If over 300 seats, is wheelchair seating integrated and offered in more than one location. COMMENTS 14. DRINKING FOUNTAINS a. 36 inch maximum height from floor to water spout opening., b. Easy to operate with push -bar or lever handle preferred with parallel spout at front/water flow 4" high. c. Clear floor space in front of the drinking fountain (30 x 48). YES NO YES NO N/A YES NO N/A COMMENTS ` 15. OTHER YES NO N/A 1 a. Does the facility have a TDD? b. Is the emergency warning system both audible and visual? COMMENTS Survey Form Prepared by: Scott Haynes, REACH, Independent Living Center in conjunction with the City of Fort Worth personnel Department, 3/92 DISCLAIMER: This survey form is intended for use for City of fort Korth owned/leased properties only. The City is not responsible for use of this survey form by other entities. 16 off ��•. a R,. Mg. 31 Laval, ory Clearanccs 17miry , e30 1 .............. . ...... � f clear K space p .............. ....t ' 19 may 4Bf 48 Fig. 32 Clear Floor Space at Lavatorie3 17 LIBRJX.P.Y YES NO h fA 1. Do all public areas of a library (including reading and study areas, stacks, reference rooms, reserve areas, and special facilities or collections) comply with ADA specifications. �2. Are clearances between fixed accessible tables and between study carrels 36" minimum? 3. Does at least one lane at each check-out area have a portion of the counter which is at least 36" in length with a maximum height of 36" above the floor. �4. Does the clear aisle width equal 36" minimum with a minimum reach height of 18" around magazine displays and card catalogs. S. Is the clear aisle width between stacks a 36" minimum. COKKENTS : 36 nc% Fig. sS and stake r 36 nth � 915 ftm sBC 16 COMMENTS: 19 ATTACHMENT B ADA TRANSITION PLAN SUMMARY YEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 1 P C S P D R F S E a u i a o e o t 1 r r g t o s u r e h k b n h r t n s v r �AV Administration Building 1 1 2 2 3 2 ,AV FAA Automated Flight Service Sta. 1 2 I 3 1 AV FBo offices and Hangar AV Page Avjet-FW Meacham 39N I1 i t 2 2 3 �AV Sandpiper Inn +1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 �AV Staci's Jet 1 l( 2 2 3 ,AV TCJC - Aeronautics Bldg. 1 1 1 2 3 2 AV Texas Jet 11 1 2 3 FIRE Fire & Police Training Academy 1 1 1 2 12 3 3 FIRE Fire Station #14 (old) 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 (FIRE Fire Station 025 (old) 1 1 1 I 2 3 IHEALT Public Health Clinic 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 HHS Fellowship Corner (former fire st 1 1 I 1 2 3 3 1 HHS Kennedale/Mansfield Community Ctr 1 1 2 3 HHS Martin Luther King MPC 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 l HHS Multi -Purpose Center (Como) 1 1 I 1 2 2 3 2 ,HHS Multi -Purpose Center - Riverside 1 1 2 jHHS Multi -Purpose Center - Worth Heig �1 ,HHS Multi -Purpose Cntr./Northside Par I1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 HHS Multi -Purpose Ctr.-Southside 11 l 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 HHS North Tri-Ethnic MPC 11 1 2 3 HHS Polytechnic United Center (Eastbr �1 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 HHS Sansom Park Community Ctr 1 2 13 IHHS UDAG Prkg Garage/Hyatt/Cvrg by Hu 1 1 1 2 I 1 `LIB Central Library 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 f 1 I 1 !LIB Diamond Hill Jarvis Library 1 ( 2 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 2 P C S P D R F S E O a u i a o e o t 1 t r r g t o s u r e h k b n h r t n s v r ILIB East Berry Branch Library 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 LIB Meadowbrook Library 1 1 I 2( 2 2 1 LIB Northside Library I1 I l I 1 2 12 12 1 LIB Ridglea Branch Library I I 1 1 2 12 12 2 1 ILIB Riverside Library I1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 ILIB Seminary South Library 1 1 I 1 2 2 2 1 ILIB Southwest Regional Library 1 2 2 1 ILIB Wedgwood Branch Library 1 1 2 2 2 2 I 1 IPOLIC Auto Pound 1 2 13 2 IPOLIC Police Adm. Bldg. 1 1 2 13 F 1 (POLIO Police Admin Parking Garage 1 1 IPOLIC Police East Division Headquarters 1 ( 1 I"OLIC Police North Division (Houston) 11 ( 1 1 [rOLIC Police South Division (W. Bolt) 1 1 1 2 POLIO Police Storefront (Bluff) 1 1 , POLIC Police Storefront (Decatur) 11 1 IPOLIC Police Storefront (Houston) 1 1 POLIC Police Storefront (Kearney) 1 1 I IPOLIC Police Storefront (Stephenson) 1 1 IPOLIC Police Traffic Division (Old Bank 1 1 1 IPOLIC Police West Division 1 1 1 IPR Arcadia Trail I1 I 1 I IPR Arneson I 1 IPR Arnold 1 PR Arrow S. 1 PR B1ueBonnet Circle 1 I 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 I 3 2 13 1 2 3 3 2 2I 2I 2I I2I 3 1 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 3 P C S P D R F S E Q. a u i a o e o t 1 r r g t o s u r e k b n h r t n s v r PR Bot Gdn oval Rose Grd/Shelter Hou 1 2 PR Bot Gdn Perennial Garden 1 12 IPR Bot Gdn Rose Garden Arbor Gate So I 1 �PR Bot Gdn Rose Garden Arbor Gate We 13. 1 IPR Bot Gdn Shelter House -Rose Ramp 1 IPR Bot. Gdn. Rock Springs Gdn. Rest. 1 1 2 I IPR Bot. Gdn./Gazebo/Trial Garden 1 1 1 I I PR Botanic Garden Conservatory Ctr.0 1 1 I 1 1 2 2 13 2 I 3 PR Camp Joy 1 1 12 3 IPR Carter 1 ( 1 12 IPR Chamberlin 1 1 ( 2 I IPR Cobb 11 1 2 �PR Cobblestone Trail 11 2 IPR Collett, Ed K. I1 I ' 3 IPR Creekside 1 ( 2 PR . Crestwood 2 I PR Daggett 1 2 3 PR Eastbrook 1 1 2 � I PR Eastern Hills l l 1 2 I I I PR Eastover 1 2 PR Englewood 2 PR Fairfax I 2 1 PR Federal Plaza 2 PR Forest Park Bath House 1 1 I 2 3 1 PR Foster Il 1 I 2 PR Fragrance Garden it 2 I I ' 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 4 P C S P D R F S E 0 a u i a o e o t 1 t r r g t o s u r e h k b n h r t n s v r PR Ft Worth Zoo (Ranch house gift sh 12 2 3 3 PR Ft Worth Zoo (Sheep Mountain Goat PR Ft Worth Zoo (Zootique) Gift Shop ( I 2 I I I IPR Ft. Worth Zoo - Aquarium I I 1 2 13 12 IPR Ft. Worth Zoo Parking Lot IPR Ft. Worth Zoo Pathways I 1 IPR Ft. Worth Zoo -Aviary Bldg. I I 1 I PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Asian Rhino Exhibit I 12 3 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Cat & Bear Exhibit ( 1 2 I I I I IPR Ft. Worth Zoo/Child. Zoo/Nurs. Co I 1 2 I 3 IPR Ft. Worth Zoo/Education Info. Cnt I ( 2 2 3 1 �PR Ft. Worth,Zoo/Flamingo Cafe I I 1 1 2 2 3 1 Ft. Worth Zoo/Flamingo Pathway I 1 1 2 I I 1 IPR Ft. Worth Zoo/Herpetarium-Reptile I 1 1 2 3 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Kiddie Ride ( I 2 I PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Primate House I ( 2 IPR Ft. Worth Zoo/Tex. Diorama/Sch. H ' 2 2 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Texas Boardwalk 1 2 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Texas Diorama M.P.R 1 2 12 I I 1 PR Ft.Worth Zoo/Tex. Diorama/Barn 1 2 2 PR Gateway Park 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 PR General Worth Square I 1 1 2 IPR George Markos ,1 1 2 IPR Greenway I1 2 1PR Hallmark Park 11 1 2 3 IPR Harmon Field ,1 I 2 3 I 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: S P C S P D R F S E 0 a u i a o e o t 1 t r r g t o s u r e k b n h r t n s v IPR IPR IPR PR PR PR PR PR IPR PR PR IPR PR PR IPR IPR IPR PR PR PR PR PR PR �PR IPR IPR Harrold 1 1 12 Harvey Street 1 1 2 Haynes Triangle 1 2 Heritage Plaza & Jogging Trail 1 1 1 2 Hyde Park 2 Jan Grdn (Parking) Meditation Are 1 2 Jap. Garden Summer Hse. (octagona 1 Japanese Garden Hill Shelter I Japanese Garden Lake Shelter 1 Japanese Garden Restrooms Japanese Garden Walks 1 2 Japanese Garden/Exit Gate 1 2 Japanese Gdn. Gift Shop (Bot. Gdn 1 2 I Japanese Gdn./Curved Root Greenhs 1 1 I I Japanese Gdn./Tea House Comp w/ki 1 Japansese Garden/Memorial Tea Hou 2 Jefferson Davis 1 1 2 Kellis Park 1 1 12 Lake Arlington 1 1 I Lake Worth Park Services 1 1 ( 2 Linwood 1 12 Little John 12 Log Cabin Village (Foster Cabin) 1 1 I 1 2 I Log Cabin Village (Howard Cabin) I l Log Cabin Village (Parker Cabin) 1 I Log Cabin Village (Pickard Cabin) ( 1 3 3 13 ( 3 2I 13 3 I 2 1 1 I l 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: E P C S P D R F S E 0 a u i a o e o t 1 t r r g t o s u r e h k b n h r t n s v r IPR Log Cabin Village (Seela Cabin) 1 IPR Log Cabin Village (Shaw Cabin) I I l I 2 IPR Log Cabin Village (Thompkins Cabi 1 2 2 PR Marie F. Pate 2 PR Marine Bath House I 1 ! 2 ' 13 IPR Marine Creek Lake Park 1 1 IPR Marine Creek Linear Pk. 1 2 I IPR McLeland Center/Pro Shop 1 1 12 13 2 PR McLeland Tennis Courts 1 1 2 ( 2 PR Meadowbrook Golf Course Park 2 PR Meadowbrook Golf Course Pro Shop 11 1 ( 2 , PR Meadowwood Park 1 ' 2 3 1_',� Mississippi Park (Morningside Mid 1 I 1 2 -PR Monticello 11 1 i 2 PR Morris E. Berney Park I 1 2 ' I PR Nature Center I1 1 1 2 12 3 12 12 PR Newby I I 1 2 I 12 JPR Normandy Place 1 2 I I IPR Oakhurst 1 2 I IPR Overton Park ( 1 2 I PR Pecan Valley ProShop/Club House 1 1 2 3 2 3 PR Pecan Valley Restroom 12 1 2 IPR Pecan Valley Soccer Building Il I 1 IPR Prairie Dog 13. I 1 1 2 IPR Quail Ridge I I 2 IPR Rec. Center (Bertha Collins) 11 ! 1 ( 1 ( 2 2 3 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 7 P C S P D R F S E 0 a u i a o e o t 1 t r r g t o s u r e k b n h r t n s v PR Rec. Center (Charles Haws) 1 1 ( 2 3 PR Rec. Center (Diamond Hills) 1 1 1 I 3 PR Rec. Center (Fire Station) (1 1 PR Rec. Center (Greenbriar) ,1 1 1 2 2 3 PR Rec. Center (Handley-Meadowbrook) ,1 ( 1 2 3 PR Rec. Center (Highland Hills) 11 1 i 3 PR Rec. Center (Hillside) 1 1 1 2 12 3 PR Rec. Center (R. D. Evans) 1 1 1 , 2 3 1 PR Rec. Center (Riverside) 1 1 1 1 2 3 PR Rec. Center (Southwest) 1 1 1 2 3 PR Rec. Center (Thomas P1.) 1 ` ` 3 2 PR Ridglea Hills (J. M. Leonard) 1 1 1 2 PR Riverside 1 , 2 3 PR Rockwood Ball Diamond Bath House 1 2 , 3 I I PR Rockwood Pro Shop & Restrooms 1 I 1 2, 2 l 3 l 2 PR Rockwood Rest Rm - Red - 9 2 PR Rockwood Rest Rm - White - 9 3 I PR Rodeo Trail Park (Rodeo Park Shel 1 2 i 3 I PR Ryan Place I 1 PR Safari Village (under cbnstructio 2 PR Sagamore Hills I 1 2 PR Sandy Lane 1 1 2 3 PR Sandybrook I 2 PR Saunders 1 2 I I !PR Seminary Hills 1 1 2 I PR Shelter (Bonnie Brae Park) 1 1 2 i i I j 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 8 �PR Shelter (Suck Sansom) PR Shelter (Candleridge Park) PR Shelter (Capps Park) PR Shelter (Como) PR Shelter (Delga Park) PR Shelter (Diamond Hills Park) IPR Shelter (Fire Station Park) PR Shelter (Forest Park) PR Shelter (GHD Hooper Park) IPR Shelter (Glenwood Park) IPR Shelter (Handley) IPR Shelter (Highland Hills Park) 11R Shelter (House/Rose Ramp) IrR Shelter (Krauss Baker Park) PR Shelter (Leblanc Park) +PR Shelter (Lincoln Park) IPR Shelter (Little People Park) PR Shelter (Maddox Park) PR Shelter (Marine) IPR Shelter (Marion Shelter Park) PR Shelter (Mosque Point Park) PR Shelter (Oakland) PR Shelter (Rockwood) PR Shelter (Rosedale Plaza Park) PR Shelter (Rosemont) PR Shelter (Rosen Park) P C S P D R F S E O a u i a o e o t 1 t r r g t o s u r e h k b n h r t n s v r 1 2 ] I 2 l 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 I 2 I 1 1 2 I , 1 1 2 II I 3 1 1 1 2 , 2 3 1 I 1 2 I 1 1 1 I I 1 2 I I 3 1 2 12 I1 2 11 f 1 I 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 I 2 3 i 1 I 1 1 1 2 l 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 9 PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR IPR IPR IPR IPR IPR IPR PR PR IPR IPR �PR P C S P D R F S E O a u i a o e o t 1 t r r g t o s u r e k b n h r t n s v Shelter (Rosenthal Park) 1 I 1 1 2 Shelter (Sylvania Park) 1 I 2 I Shelter (Thorny Ridge Park) 1 I I , Shelter (Traildrivers) I1 1 2 I I I Shelter (Trinity) I1 1 1 2 3 3 , Shelter (Van Zandt-Guinn Park) I 1 2 Shelter (Village Creek) I1 2 Shelter (West Wind Park) I I 1 2 Shelter (Westcreek Park) 1 2 Shelter (William McDonald Park) 1 Shelter(Casino Park & Restrooms) 1 ' 1 I 2 13 Silver Sage I I I 2 13 Southcreek , , 12 Springdale I 12 Stephens Park I 12 Summerbrook 1 Summerfields I 1 12 Sunset Hills i 12 Sunset Restrooms i 12 3 Sycamore Bath House 1 I 1 2 Sycamore Park Tennis Courts I 2 Sycamore Recreation Center 1 1 12 12 12 I Sycamore Shelter 1 I I I Sycamore Tennis Court Shelter 1 2 I I Sylvania Bath House/Pool I 1 1 Tadlock Park/Bradley Rec Area 11 � 1 2 13 1 I ( I 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 10 P C S P D R F S E 0 a u i a o e o t 1 t r r g t o s u r e h k b n h r t n s v r IPR Tandy Hills 1 2 PR Terry 1 PR Traders Oak 2 PR Van Zandt Cottage I I I 1 1 IPR Water Gardens 1 1 l 2 I IPR Wedgwood 1 2 ' IPR Western Hills 1 2 APR Wildwood Park 1 , 2 PR Worth Heights Ballfield I 1 12 IPR Worth Hills I 1 2 I IPR Wright Tarlton 1 2 IDR Z-Boaz (South) 1 1 1 2 3 V-R Z-Boaz Pro. Shop 1 1 1 3 2 i IPUBEV Casa Manana 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 I 2 IPUBEV Cowtown Coliseum (Northside Colis 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 PUBEV Cowtown Ticket Sales Building 2 PUBEV Exhibit Bldg. -Underground Parking 1 1 I PUBEV Ft. Worth Museum of Modern Art 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 11 PUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Ceriter/Bldg. 1 I 1 1 2 2 13 2 PUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Center/Bldg. I I 1 3 2 3 IPUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Ctr/Pkg.Garag 1 I 1 IPUBEV Ft.Worth Museum Science & History 1 1 1 2 13 2 1 2 PUBEV WRMC Amon J. Carter Exhibit Bldg. 2 2 13 3 1 PUBEV WRMC Auction Show Arena 1 1 2 2 PUBEV WRMC Auditorium and Balcony I 1 2 2 3 3 I^UBEV WRMC Back Stage Club 2 13 1 07/15/92 21:49:11 ADA TRANSITION PLAN Page: 11 P C a u r r k b PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 1 1 PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 2 ( 1 PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 3 1 I 1 PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 4 PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 5 1 PUBEV WRMC East Side Parking 1 PUBEV WRMC Exhibit Hall Parking 1 PUBEV WRMC First Aid Station PUBEV WRMC Sheep Barn PUBEV WRMC Small Exhibit �1 1 PUBEV WRMC Swine Barn 1 PUBEV WRMC Tower Drive Parking 1 1 PUBEV WRMC-Parking Lot N. of Richardson 1 TPW Medical Office Building (Risk Mgt 1 1 TPW Municipal Parking Garage 1 TPW Municipal Parking Garage (Army) TPW Municipal Parking Garage (Hertz) TPW Municipal Parking Garage (Navy) S i 9 n 1 1 1 1 P a t h 2 2 2 D R F 0 e O 0 s u r t n 3 3 3 1 2 r� 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 ( 12 1 12 1 I 2 3 I2 2 3 2 2 2 S t r s 2 3 TPW Municipal Parking Garage(Air Forc I 2 TPW New City Hall 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 TPW Public Safety Bldg. 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 WATER Rolling Hills Admin. Building 1 1 1 2 3 12 WATER WWT, Village Creek Adm. (Inc. Lab 1 1 , 2 I ( , 1 Water SCADA Bldg. S. Holly Water Pl. I ' I 1 3 I (Totals Number of Buildings: 284 1391165111311971 6311081 421 311 141 31 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE Page: P C S E R O a u i 1 e t r r g e s e k b n v t r AV Administration Building 1 1 AV FAA Automated Flight Service Sta. I 1 1 AV FBO Offices and Hangar I 1 1 AV Page Avjet-FW Meacham 39N 1 1 AV Sandpiper Inn 11 1 1 1 AV Staci's Jet ( 1 ( 1 AV TCJC - Aeronautics Bldg. I 1 1 1 AV Texas Jet I 1 , 1 FIRE Fire & Police Training Academy I 1 1 1 FIRE Fire Station #14 (old) I 1 1 FIRE Fire Station #25 (old) I 1 1 1 "-'ALT Public Health Clinic 1 1 1 IHHS Fellowship Corner (former fire sta 1 1 1 1 HHS Kennedale/Mansfield Co=unity Ctr ( 1 + 1 HHS Martin Luther King MPC 1 1 1 HHS Multi -Purpose Center (Como) 1 1 1 HHS Multi -Purpose Center - Riverside 1 1 HHS Multi -Purpose Center - worth Heigh 1 HHS Multi -Purpose Cntr./Northside Park 1 1 1 1 IHHS Multi -Purpose Ctr.-Southside 1 1 1 1 HHS North Tri-Ethnic MPC 1 1 IHHS Polytechnic United Center (Eastbrk 1 1 1 IHHS Sansom Park Community Ctr I 1 IHHS UDAG Prkg Garage/Hyatt/Cvrg by Hun LIB Central Library 11 1 1 I 1 IB Diamond Hill Jarvis Library 1 1 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE Page: 2 P a r k LIB East Berry Branch Library 1 LIB Meadowbrook Library 1 LIB Northside Library 1 LIB Ridglea Branch Library LIB Riverside Library 1 LIB seminary South Library i LIB Southwest Regional Library ( 1 LIB Wedgwood Branch Library 1 1 ' POLIC Auto Pound 1 IPOLIC Police Adm. Bldg. + 1 IPOLIC Police Admin Parking Garage I 1 I IPOLIC Police East Division Headquarters 13 POLIC Police North Division (Houston) 1 1 POLIC Police South Division (W. Bolt) I 1 1 (POLIC Police Storefront (Bluff) 1 POLIC Police Storefront (Decatur) 1 1 �POLIC Police Storefront (Houston) 1 �POLIC Police Storefront (Kearney) POLIO Police Storefront (Stephenson) 1 1 POLIC Police Traffic Division (Old Bank I 1 1 �POLIC Police West Division 1 1 PR Arcadia Trail 1 1 PR Arneson 1 PR Arnold 1 PR Arrow S. 1 PR i Bot Gdn Oval Rose Grd/Shelter Hous 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E R 0 1 e t e s e v t r I1 I1 I1 1 1 1 I 1 07/15/92 21:51:40 PR PR PR PR PR PR IPR PR PR IPR PR nR t VK PR PR PR PR i PR IPR IPR IPR PR PR PR IPR 'R YEAR ONE Page: 3 P C S E R O a u i 1 e t r r g e s e k b n v t r Bot Gdn Rose Garden Arbor Gate So. I 1 Bot Gdn Rose Garden Arbor Gate Wes 1 Bot Gdn Shelter House -Rose Ramp I 1 Bot. Gdn. Rock Springs Gdn. Rest. 1 I 1 Bot. Gdn./Gazebo/Trial Garden 1 1 1 Botanic Garden Conservatory Ctr.Co 1 1 1 Camp Joy 1 Carter I 1 Chamberlin 1 1 Cobb 1 1 Cobblestone Trail 1 I Collett, Ed K. I Creekside 1 Daggett 1 Eastbrook 1 1 Eastern Hills 1 1 Eastover 1 Forest Park Bath House 1 I Foster 1 1 Fragrance Garden 1 Ft Worth Zoo (Sheep Mountain Goat 1 Ft. Worth Zoo - Aquarium 1 Ft. Worth Zoo Parking Lot 1 1 Ft. Worth Zoo Pathways 1 Ft. Worth Zoo -Aviary Bldg. 1 Ft. Worth Zoo/Cat & Bear Exhibit 1 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE Page: 4 P C S E R 0 a u i 1 e t r r g e s e k b n v t r PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Child. Zoo/Nuts. Com 1 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Flamingo Cafe 1 1 1 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Flamingo Pathway 1 1 1 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Herpetarium-Reptile i 1 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Texas Boardwalk 1 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Texas Diorama M.P.Rm 1 1 PR Ft.Worth Zoo/Tex. Diorama/Barn 1 PR Gateway Park 1 1 1 PR General Worth Square 1 1 PR George Markos 1 1 PR Greenway 1 I PR Hallmark Park 1 1 PR Harmon Field 1 PR Harrold 1 1 PR Harvey Street 1 1 PR Haynes Triangle 1 I PR Heritage Plaza & Jogging Trail 1 1 1 I } PR Jap Grdn (Parking) Meditation Area 1 I PR Jap. Garden Summer Hse. (octagonal 1 PR Japanese Garden Lake Shelter 1 PR Japanese Garden Walks 1 PR Japanese Garden/Exit Gate 1 PR Japanese Gdn. Gift Shop (Bot. Gdn. 1 PR Japanese Gdn./Curved Root Greenhse 1 1 PR Japanese Gdn./Tea House Comp w/kit 1 PR Jefferson Davis 1 , 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE Page: 5 P C S E R O a u i 1 e t r r g e s e k b n v t r IPR Kellis Park 1 1 IPR Lake Arlington 1 1 �PR Lake Worth Park Services 1 1 I IPR Linwood I 1 PR Log Cabin Village (Foster Cabin) 1 I 1 1 APR Log Cabin Village (Howard Cabin) ( 1 PR Log Cabin Village (Parker Cabin) ( ( ( 1 IPR Log Cabin Village (Pickard Cabin) I I 1 IPR Log Cabin Village (Seela Cabin) I I 1 IPR Log Cabin Village (Shaw Cabin) I I 1 PR Log Cabin Village (Thompkins Cabin I I 1 l PR Marine Bath House I 1 R Marine Creek Lake Park I 1 1 IPR Marine Creek Linear Pk. 1 (PR McLeland Center/Pro Shop 1 1 PR McLeland Tennis Courts 1 1 IPR Meadowbrook Golf Course Pro Shop 1 1 PR Meadowwood Park 1 PR Mississippi Park (Morningside Mid. 1 1 IPR Monticello 1 IPR Morris E. Berney Park 1 IPR Nature Center 1 1 1 PR Newby 1 IPR Normandy Place 1 IPR Oakhurst 1 IPR Overton Park 1 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE Page: 6 P C S E R O a u i 1 e t r r g e s e k b n v t r PR Pecan Valley ProShop/Club House 1 1 PR Pecan Valley Restroom 12 1 IPR Pecan Valley Soccer Building 1 1 IPR Prairie Dog 1 1 IPR Rec. Center (Bertha Collins) 1 1 1 I PR Rec. Center (Charles Haws) 1 1 PR Rec. Center (Diamond Hills) 1 1 IPR Rec. Center (Fire Station) 1 1 PR Rec. Center (Greenbriar) 1 1 1 PR Rec. Center (Handley-Meadowbrook) 1 1 PR Rec. Center (Highland Hills) 1 1 PR Rec. Center (Hillside) 1 1 1 PR Rec. Center (R. D. Evans) 1 1 1 1 PR Rec. Center (Riverside) ( 1 1 1 I PR Rec. Center (Southwest) 1 1 1 1 PR Rec. Center (Thomas P1.) 1 PR Ridglea Hills (J. M. Leonard) 1 1 1 �PR Riverside I 1 PR Rockwood Ball Diamond Bath House I 1 PR Rockwood Pro Shop & Restrooms I 1 1 !PR Rodeo Trail Park (Rodeo Park Shelt ( 1 I �PR Ryan Place PR Sagamore Hills I 1 PR Sandy Lane ( 1 1 I PR Saunders 1 PR Seminary Hills 1 1 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE Page: 7 P C S E R O a u i 1 e t r r g e s e k b n v t r IPR Shelter (Bonnie Brae Park) 1 PR Shelter (Buck Sansom) 1 PR Shelter (Capps Park) 1 PR Shelter (Como) 1 1 PR Shelter (Diamond Hills Park) 1 PR Shelter (Fire Station Park) 1 1 PR Shelter (Forest Park) 1 1 PR Shelter (Glenwood Park) 1 1 1 �PR Shelter (Highland Hills Park) 1 1 IPR Shelter (House/Rose Ramp) 1 1 1 PR Shelter (Krauss Baker Park) 1 PR Shelter (Leblanc Park) 1 1 ."R Shelter (Lincoln Park) 1 PR Shelter (Maddox Park) 1 IPR Shelter (Marine) 1 1 IPR Shelter (Marion Shelter Park) 1 JPR Shelter (Mosque Point Park) 1 1 ,PR Shelter (Oakland) 1 1 IPR Shelter (Rockwood) 1 1 PR Shelter (Rosedale Plaza Park) 1 PR Shelter (Rosen Park) 1 1 1 IPR Shelter (Rosenthal Park) 1 1 1 IPR Shelter (Sylvania Park) 1 PR Shelter (Thorny Ridge Park) 1 PR Shelter (Traildrivers) 1 1 PR Shelter (Trinity) 1 1 1 t i 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE page: 8 PR Shelter (Van Zandt-Guinn Park) PR Shelter (Village Creek) PR Shelter (West Wind Park) IPR Shelter (Westcreek Park) IPR Shelter (William McDonald Park) PR Shelter(Casino Park & Restrooms) PR Summerbrook IPR Summerfields PR Sycamore Bath House PR Sycamore Recreation Center IPR Sycamore Shelter ,PR Sycamore Tennis Court Shelter IPR Sylvania Bath House/Pool PR Tadlock Park/Bradley Rec Area PR Tandy Hills IPR Terry 1PR Van Zandt Cottage IPR Water Gardens IPR Wedgwood PR Western Hills PR Wildwood Park PR Worth Heights Ballfield PR Worth Hills PR Wright Tarlton (PR Z-Boaz (South) IPR Z-Boaz Pro. Shop i P C S E R 0 a u i 1 e t r r g e s e k b n v t r 1 1 1 1 I1 I 1 1 I1 1 ( 1 1 I1 1 I 1 I Fl 1 , 1 1 1I 1 1 I1I1 I I 11 111 I1 I 1 11 1 1 1I1 1 1111 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE P C a u r r k b PUBEV Casa Manana 1 1 PUBEV Cowtown Coliseum (Northside Colis. 1 1 PUBEV Exhibit Bldg. -Underground Parking I 1 PUBEV Ft. Worth Museum of Modern Art I 1 1 PUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Center/Bldg. A 1 1 PUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Center/Bldg. B IPUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Ctr/Pkg.Garage 1 IPUBEV Ft.Worth Museum Science & History 1 1 IPUBEV WRMC Amon J. Carter Exhibit Bldg. I �PUBEV WRMC Auction Show Arena II I 1 IPUBEV WRMC Auditorium and Balcony IPUBEV WRMC Back Stage Club UBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 1 1 IPUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 2 1 IPUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 3 I 1 1 'PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 4 1 IPUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 5 1 IPUBEV WRMC East Side Parking I 1 IPUBEV WRMC Exhibit Hall Parking 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 IPUBEV WRMC Sheep Barn 1 Page: E R O 1 e t e s e v t ! r I_ 1 IPUBEV WRMC Small Exhibit 1 1 PUBEV WRMC Swine Barn 1 I 1 PUBEV WRMC Tower Drive Parking 1 1 I 1 PUBEV WRMC-Parking Lot N. of Richardson 1 1 TPW Medical Office Building (Risk Mgt. 11 l l 1 I `TPW Municipal Parking Garage I 1 � 1 i7 9 07/15/92 21:51:40 YEAR ONE Page: 10 TPW New City Hall TPW Public Safety Bldg. WATER Rolling Hills Admin. Building WATER WWT, Village Creek Adm. (Inc. Lab ITotals Number of Buildings: 238 P C S E R O a u i 1 e t r r g e s e k b n v t r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l I l 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 � 1 1139116511131 141 31 22 07/15/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: 1 P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r AV Administration Building 12 2 2 AV FAA Automated Flight Service Sta. 12 AV Page Avjet-FW Meacham 39N 2 2 AV Sandpiper Inn 2 AV Staci's Jet 12 12 AV TCJC - Aeronautics Bldg. I 12 2 AV Texas Jet , 2 FIRE Fire & Police Training Academy 12 , 2 I FIRE Fire Station #14 (old) 12 2 ( 2 (FIRE Fire Station #25 (old) I 2 I HEALT Public Health Clinic 2 12 HHS Fellowship Corner (former fire sta 2 ES Kennedale/Mansfield Community Ctr 2 HHS Martin Luther King MPC l 2 2 2 HHS Multi -Purpose Center (Como) 12 12 2 HHS Multi -Purpose Center - Riverside 12 HHS Multi -Purpose Cntr./Northside Park 2 2 12 2 HHS Multi -Purpose Ctr.-Southside 12 12 I 2 HHS North Tri-Ethnic MPC ( 2 HHS Polytechnic United Center (Eastbrk 2 12 2 HHS Sansom Park Community Ctr 12 HHS UDAG Prkg Garage/Hyatt/Cvrg by Hun 12 I LIB Central Library 2 12 2 2 LIB Diamond Hill Jarvis Library I I 12 LIB East Berry Branch Library 2 12 I i I I I 07/15/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: 2 P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r ILIB Meadowbrook Library 2 12 2 LIB Northside Library 2 12 I 12 LIB Ridglea Branch Library 2 12 12 12 LIB Riverside Library 2 12 12 LIB Seminary South Library 2 2 I J 2 LIB Southwest Regional Library 2 , 2 LIB Wedgwood Branch Library 2 2 ( 2 2 POLIC Auto Pound 2 12 POLIC Police Adm. Bldg. 12 POLIC Police East Division Headquarters 2 POLIC Police North Division (Houston) 1-2 , POLIC Police South Division (W. Bolt) 2 2 12 POLIC Police Storefront (Bluff) 2 POLIC Police Storefront (Decatur) 12 POLIC Police Storefront (Stephenson) I 2 POLIC Police Traffic Division (Old Bank 2 POLIC Police West Division i , 2 lPR Arcadia Trail 2 PR Arnold 2 PR Arrow S. 12 PR B1ueBonnet Circle 2 PR Bot Gdn Oval Rose Grd/Shelter Hous 12 fPR Bot Gdn Perennial Garden 2 IPR Bot. Gdn. Rock Springs Gdn. Rest. y 2 I �PR Botanic Garden Conservatory Ctr.Co 12 12 2 07/15/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: 3 P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r PR Camp Joy 2 PR Carter 2 PR Chamberlin 2 PR Cobb 2 PR Cobblestone Trail 2 PR Creekside 2 PR Crestwood 2 PR Daggett 2 PR Eastbrook 2 PR Eastern'Hills 2 PR Eastover 2 PR Englewood 2 1 Fairfax 12 , PR Federal Plaza , 2 PR Forest Park Bath House 2 I I �PR Foster 2 PR Fragrance Garden 12 PR Ft Worth Zoo (Ranch house gift sho 2 2 I PR Ft Worth Zoo (Zootique) Gift Shop 2 PR Ft. Worth Zoo - Aquarium 2 2 , 'PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Asian Rhino Exhibit 2 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Cat & Bear Exhibit 12 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Child. Zoo/Nurs. Com 2 I 1 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Education Info. Cntr 2 12 IPR Ft. Worth Zoo/Flamingo Cafe 12 12 I 07/15/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: 4 P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Flamingo Pathway 12 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Herpetarium-Reptile I 2 I PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Kiddie Ride 12 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Primate House 2 I PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Tex. Diorama/Sch. Hs 2 f 2 f I PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Texas Boardwalk 12 I l PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Texas Diorama M.P.Rm I ( 2 2 PR Ft.Worth Zoo/TeX. Diorama/Barn 2 2 PR Gateway Park 2 2 12 PR General Worth Square 2 l PR George Markos 2 I I PR Greenway 2 PR Hallmark Park 2 PR Harmon Field 2 PR Harrold 2 PR Harvey Street 2 I PR Haynes Triangle 2 PR Heritage Plaza & Jogging Trail 2 I PR Hyde Park 2 PR Jap Grdn (Parking) Meditation Area 2 I , PR Japanese Garden Walks 2 I PR Japanese Garden/Exit Gate 12 + I PR Japanese Gdn. Gift Shop (Bot. Gdn. 2 I PR Japansese Garden/Memorial Tea Hous 2 I PR Jefferson Davis 2 I I 07/15/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: 5 P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r PR Kellis Park 2 PR Lake Arlington 2 PR Lake Worth Park Services 12 PR Linwood 2 PR Little John 12 I PR Log Cabin Village (Foster Cabin) 2 , , i 2 PR Log Cabin Village (Shaw Cabin) I I 12 PR Log Cabin Village (Thompkins Cabin 2 1 2 PR Marie F. Pate 12 PR Marine Bath House 2 l I PR Marine Creek Linear Pk. 2 "R McLeland Center/Pro Shop 2 ' 2 jrR McLeland Tennis Courts 12 I 2 IPR Meadowbrook Golf Course Park 2 IPR Meadowbrook Golf Course Pro Shop 2 IPR Meadowwood Park 2 �PR Mississippi Park (Morningside Mid. ( 2 PR Monticello 2 I PR Morris E. Berney Park 2 I PR Nature Center 2 2 2 2 PR Newby 2 2 PR Normandy Place 2 I PR Oakhurst 12 I PR Overton Park 12 I PR Pecan Valley ProShop/Club House 12 I 2 I 07/15/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: 6 PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r Pecan Valley Restroom 12 I 12 Prairie Dog 2 1 ( 1 Quail Ridge 2 I Rec. Center (Bertha Collins) 2 ( 2 I Rec. Center (Charles Haws) 12 , Rec. Center (Greenbriar) 12 ( 2 I Rec. Center (Handley-Meadowbrook) , 2 , Rec. Center (Hillside) 2 12 Rec. Center (R. D. Evans) 12 Rec. Center (Riverside) I 12 Rec. Center (Southwest) 12 I Rec. Center (Thomas P1.) 2 Ridglea Hills (J. M. Leonard) 2 , I Riverside 2 I Rockwood Ball Diamond Bath House 12 Rockwood Pro Shop & Restrooms 12 12 2 I Rockwood Rest Rm - Red - 9 , 2 I Rodeo Trail Park (Rodeo Park Shelt 1 2 Safari Village (under construction ' 2 Sagamore Hills 12 , I Sandy Lane 12 I ( I Sandybrook 12 ' Saunders 12 Seminary Hills 2 Shelter (Bonnie Brae Park) 12 07/15�92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: 7 P D F R O a o O e t t o u s e h r n t r PR Shelter (Buck Sansom) 12 PR Shelter (Candleridge Park) 2 PR Shelter (Capps Park) 2 + I I PR Shelter (Como) 12 I l PR Shelter (Delga Park) 2 I I I PR Shelter (Diamond Hills Park) 2 PR Shelter (Fire Station Park) 2 I I PR Shelter (Forest Park) 2 PR Shelter (Glenwood Park) 2 PR Shelter (Handley) 2 PR Shelter (Highland Hills Park) 2 PR Shelter (Krauss Baker Park) 2 Shelter (Lincoln Park) 2 I ' PR Shelter (Little People Park) 2 I , PR Shelter (Maddox Park) 2 PR Shelter (Marine) 2 I PR Shelter (Mosque Point Park) 2 I PR Shelter,(Oakland) 2 , PR Shelter (Rockwood) , 2 I PR Shelter (Rosedale Plaza Park) 12 �PR Shelter (Rosen Park) 2 �PR Shelter (Rosenthal Park) 2 PR Shelter (Sylvania Park) 2 I PR Shelter (Traildrivers) 2 IPR Shelter (Trinity) 12 I 07/25/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r IPR Shelter (Van Zandt-Guinn Park) 2 IPR Shelter (Village Creek) 12 PR Shelter (West Wind Park) 12 PR Shelter (Westcreek Park) 12 PR Shelter(Casino Park & Restrooms) 12 IPR Silver Sage 2 IPR Southcreek , 2 I IPR Springdale 12 I IPR Stephens Park 2 1 I PR Summerfields 2 PR Sunset Hills 2 I I PR Sunset Restrooms 12 I I PR Sycamore Bath House 12 I �PR Sycamore Park Tennis Courts 12 IPR Sycamore Recreation Center 2 2 ( 2 IPR Sycamore Tennis Court Shelter 2 PR Tadlock Park/Bradley Rec Area 2 I f PR Tandy Hills 2 I I IPR Traders Oak 2 IPR Water Gardens 2 I IPR Wedgwood 2 I l IPR Western Hills 2 I PR Wildwood Park 12 PR Worth Heights Ballf ield 12 PR r Worth Hills 12 i f 8 07/15/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r IPR Wright Tarlton 2 ,PR Z-Boaz (South) 2 IPR Z-Boaz Pro. Shop 2 IPUBEV Casa Manana 2 2 2 I 12 IPUBEV Cowtown Coliseum (Northside Colis. 12 2 I IPUBEV Cowtown Ticket Sales Building 2 IPUBEV Ft. Worth Museum of Modern Art 2 2 2 PUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Center/Bldg. A 2 2 2 I I PUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Center/Bldg. B I 2 IPUBEV Ft.Worth Museum Science & History 2 2 2 PUBEV WRMC Amon J. Carter Exhibit Bldg. 2 2 PUBEV WRMC Auction Show Arena 2 I 12 1BEV WRMC Auditorium and Balcony 2 2 IPUBEV WRMC Back Stage Club 2 , IPUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 2 2 I PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 3 + 2 PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 4 12 , IPUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 5 2 I IPUBEV WRMC First Aid Station 2 IPUBEV WRMC Sheep Barn 2 1 PUBEV WRMC Tower Drive Parking I + 2 PUBEV WRMC-Parking Lot N. of Richardson 2 TPW Medical Office Building (Risk Mgt. 2 TPW Municipal Parking Garage 2 2 2 TPW Municipal Parking Garage (Army) 2 I 9 07/15/92 21:53:33 YEAR TWO Page: P D F R O a o o e t t o u s e h r n t r TPW Municipal Parking Garage (Hertz) 2 1 TPW Municipal Parking Garage (Navy) 2 TPW Municipal Parking Garage(Air Force 2 TPW New City Hall 2 12 2 I TPW Public Safety Bldg. 2 2 2 , WATER Rolling Hills Admin. Building 2 2 I WATER WWT, Village Creek Adm. (Inc. Lab 2 I I Totals Number of Buildings: 232 11971 631 421 131 61 10 07/15/92 21:55:31 YEAR THREE Page No. 1 S R O t e t a s e r t r AV Administration Building 3 AV FAA Automated Flight Service Sta. I 3 IAV Page Avjet-FW Meacham 39N 3 (.-7 IAV Sandpiper Inn 3 3 AV Staci's Jet 3 AV TCJC - Aeronautics Bldg. ( 3 fAV Texas Jet , 3 AFIRE Fire & Police Training Academy 3 3 FIRE Fire Station 114 (old) 3 3 FIRE Fire Station 125 (old) 3 HEALT Public Health Clinic 3 3 HHS Fellowship Corner (former fire sta 3 3 -! 1S Kennedale/Mansfield Community Ctr l 3 IHHS Martin Luther King MPC 3 IHHS Multi -Purpose Center (Como) 3 IHHS Multi -Purpose Cntr./Northside Park 3 I IHHS Multi -Purpose Ctr.-Southside 3 IHHS North Tri-Ethnic MPC 3 IHHS Polytechnic United Center (Eastbrk 3 3 HHS Sansom Park Community Ctr 3 I LIB Central Library 3 LIB East Berry Branch Library 3 ILIB Riverside Library 3 IPOLIC Auto Pound 3 IPOLIC Police Adm. Bldg. 3 I 1POLIC Police North Division (Houston) 3 07/15/92 21:55:31 YEAR THREE page No. 2 S R O t e t a s e r t r POLIC Police South Division (W. Bolt) 3 POLIO Police Storefront (Houston) 3 POLIO Police Storefront (Stephenson) 3 POLIO Police Traffic Division (Old Bank 3 POLIO Police West Division 3 PR Arrow S. 3 PR Botanic Garden Conservatory Ctr.Co 3 37 PR Camp Joy 3 PR Collett, Ed K. 3 7 PR Daggett 3 1PR Forest Park Bath House 3 PR Ft Worth Zoo (Ranch house gift sho 3 3 PR Ft. Worth Zoo - Aquarium 3 �PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Asian Rhino Exhibit 3 IPR Ft. Worth Zoo/Child. Zoo/Nurs. Com 3 �PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Education Info. Cntr 3 IPR Ft. Worth Zoo/Flamingo Cafe 3 PR Ft. Worth Zoo/Herpetarium-Reptile 3 f PR Gateway Park 3 3 { �PR Hallmark Park 3 I PR Harmon Field 3 PR Japanese Garden Hill Shelter I 3 I PR Japanese Garden Restrooms ' 3 �PR Japanese Gdn./Tea House Comp w/kit 3 �PR Kellis Park 3 IPR Lake Worth Park Services 3 f 07/15/92 21:55:31 YEAR THREE Page No. S R O t e t a s e r t r IPR Log Cabin Village (Foster Cabin) 3 PR Marine Bath House 3 PR McLeland Center/Pro Shop 3 PR Meadowwood Park 3 PR Nature Center 3 IPR Pecan Valley ProShop/Club House 3 3 IPR Rec. Center (Bertha Collins) 3 IPR Rec. Center (Charles Haws) 3 IPR Rec. Center (Diamond Hills) 3 �PR Rec. Center (Greenbriar) 3 PR Rec. Center (Handley-Meadowbrook) 3 PR Rec. Center (Highland Hills) 3 Rec. Center (Hillside) 3 IPR Rec. Center (R. D. Evans) 3 IPR Rec. Center (Riverside) 3 IPR Rec. Center (Southwest) 3 IPR Rec. Center (Thomas P1.) 3 PR Riverside 3 PR Rockwood Ball Diamond Bath House 3 IPR Rockwood Pro Shop & Restrooms 3 I PR Rockwood Rest Rm - White - 9 3 I APR Rodeo Trail Park (Rodeo Park Shelt 3 {PR Sandy Lane 3 I IPR Shelter (Como) 3 IPR Shelter (GHD Hooper Park) 3 IPR Shelter (Handley) 3 07/15/92 21:55:31 YEAR THREE Page No. 4 S R O t e t a s e r t r PR Shelter (Krauss Baker Park) ( 3 PR Shelter (Oakland) 3 PR Shelter (Rosemont) I 3 PR Shelter (Trinity) 3 3 PR Shelter(Casino Park & Restrooms) 3 PR Silver Sage 3 IPR Sunset Restrooms 3 ,PR Tadlock Park/Bradley Rec Area I 13 IPR Z-Boaz (South) ' 3 PR Z-Boaz Pro. Shop 3 PUBEV Casa Manana 3 PUBEV Cowtown Coliseum (Northside Colis. 3 3 IPUBEV Ft. Worth Museum of Modern Art 3 3 IPUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Center/Bldg. A 3 IPUBEV Ft.Worth Equestrian Center/Bldg. B 3 3 PUBEV Ft.Worth Museum Science & History 3 PUBEV WRMC Amon J. Carter Exhibit Bldg. 13 3 IPUBEV WRMC Auditorium and Balcony I 3 3 IPUBEV WRMC Back Stage Club I 3 IPUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 1 I 3 IPUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 2 ' 13 I IPUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 3 , , 3 PUBEV WRMC Cattle Barn 4 3 PUBEV WRMC First Aid Station I 3 IPUBEV WRMC Sheep Barn 13 IPUBEV WRMC Swine Barn 3 I 07/15/92 21:55:31 YEAR THREE Page No. 5 S R O t e t a s e r t r �TPW Medical Office Building (Risk Mgt. 3 fTPW Municipal Parking Garage 3 3 ITPW New City Hall 3 WATER Rolling Hills Admin. Building 3 Water i SCADA Bldg. S. Holly Water P1. 3 Totals Number of Buildings: 109 1311 921 31 ATTACHMENT C SAMPLE STREET SURVEY FORM DATE: ------------------------ LOCATION: --------------------- I PRIORITY ® I I f f PRIORITY f I I I ----------------�% I---------------- --------------- 1 1 i PRIORITY Oil 1 ! 1 �--------------- I I rl ! �'J PR IOR ITY I 1 EXISTING IMIXIMECTION EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 093TRUCTION atsnNG SIDEWALKS Co"OfT10N CORNERS RArrS (YES/NO) RAIIr SLOrt(x) "Mr WIDTH (YES/MO) SM"ALKS ' 093/No) 0000-1 rAQ-2 rOOR-3 1 _ g IS RAMP FLUSH TRArroc SIGNAL WITH STREET (YES/ND) (YES/NO) POLICY REGARDING INSTALLATION OF CURB RAMPS It will be the policy of the Transportation and Public Works Department regarding the installation of curb ramps that: * In existing developed areas whenever a street is reconst- ructed curb ramps will be installed where there are existing sidewalks or where new sidewalks are planned. * In newly developing areas if sidewalks are planned a curb ramp must be installed at each corner adjacent to the sidewalk so that a clear path of travel is provided. Curb ramps will be installed upon request from citizens if there is an existing paved sidewalk or a new sidewalk planned. * If there is no existing paved sidewalk or no new sidewalk planned, ramps will only be installed if there is a demonstrated need that will be addressed by the construc- tion of the ramp. Curb ramps will be installed to the maximum extent possible so that a clear path of travel is provided. This path of travel, including the curb ramp, should be free of all obstructions or barriers to accessibility. This would include such obstructions as signs, signal light poles, fire plugs, trees, etc. jab, 6/10/92 ATTACHMENT 2 PRIORITIES FOR ADA 1. State, Local, Federal, County government buildings or services. Examples: City Hall, Federal Building, Schools, County Courthouse 2. Access to Transportation Example: "T" bus stops 3. Places of public accommodation Examples: K-Mart, Worthington Hotel 4. Employers/Commercial Facilities Examples: Insurance building, office building 5. Residential 6. Parking Lots/Open Fields ATTACHMENT D PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUALS/ ORGANIZATIONS IN ACCESS COMMITTEE Xr. R. A. Wade, Regional Project IAM CARES 1930 Hinton Dr. Irving, TX 75061 (224) 445-3324 ACCESS COMITTEE Chair Dr. Helen Ferguson Director Educational Psychologist Advocacy, Inc. 1308 Madeline P1. Ft. Worth, TX 76107-3320 732-2220 (214) 263-5884 lie. Carol Sennett Rehabilitation Consultant Rehabilitation Services Associates 2112 Coral Drive ,Axlington, TX 76010 262-3098 Mr. Paul Davis, Owner Private Consultant N Compliance, Inc. 308 Cotillion Rd. Ft. Worth, TX 76234 (817) 572-0278 Hs. Sandra Goodman Short Executive Director United Cabral Palsy 1555 Merrimac Cir. 0202 Ft. Worth, TX 76207 332-7211 Mr. Scott Haynes Outreach/Advocacy Coordinator REACH 617 7th Ave. Ft. Worth, TX 76104 870-9082 Ms. Marsha HcCleen Audiologist Easter Seal Society for Children and Adults of Tarrant County 627 7th Ave. Ft. Worth, TX 76204 667-0774 lie. Chris Sparks Interpreter Coordinator Goodrich Center for the Deaf Self Help for Hard of Bearing 2500 Lipscomb St. Ft. Worth, TX 76220 926-5305 Ks. Betty Torres Marketing Tmploywont Specialist Texas Rehabilitation Commission Return to Work Program 1309 Washington Ave. Ft. Worth, TX 76104-4546 468-3591 Ks. Kathryn Craven 33801 Hulen, Suite 627 Ft. Worth, TX 76107 737-7797 Mr. Jim Cray Executive Director National Paraplegia 3400 Hulen Ft. Worth, TX 76107 737-6661 Ks. Pat Icing Executive Director Fxpanco, Inc. 3005 Wichita Ct. Ft. Worth, TX 76140 282-5544 293-9486 Ms. Joan Boyer Goodwill Industries 1702 E. Lancaster Ft. Worth, TX 76202 488-5907 332-7866 Foundation of Fort Worth Me. Dorothy Surratt Regional Director Texas Commission for the Blind Torn Center Tower 4200 S. I-35, Suite 307 Ft. Worth, TX 76225 (817) 292-4585 926-4646 Mr. Gene Vestal Executive Director The ARC of Greater Tarrant County 2559 Gravel Road Ft. Worth, TX 76107 877-2474 Mr. Dan White Public Relations Coordinator Goodrich Center for Deaf Self Help for Hard of Hearing 2.500 Lipscomb St. Ft. Worth, TX 76120 926-5305 City of Port Worth, Texas Mayor and CounctiZ -C,ommunication DATE REFERENCE NUMBER LOG NAME PAGE 07/2I/92 � 6-9742 � 1:�ACT � 1 of 1 SUBJECT TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM CAPITAL PROJECTS RESERVE FUND FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE I AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the transfer of $1,000,000.00 from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund to the Specially Funded Capital Projects Fund to pay for expenses associated with the implementation of the City of Fort Worth's ADA transition plan. DISCUSSION: The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requires the development of a transition plan to make public buildings and facilities accessible to the disabled population. The plan has been developed and must be adopted by the City Council by July 26, 1992. Implementation of the plan is to take place over a three year period. One million dollars is estimated to be required for the first year's expenses associated with implementation of the City's plan. Almost half of the $I,000,000.00 is required for curb cuts and ramps for entrance to governmental facilities. Improvements will be made at approximately 245 facility locations in the first year. One hundred and forty-five of the locations will require provision of handicapped parking areas and appropriate signage. Corrections are also required in restrooms, elevators, and special use areas. FISCAL INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION: Funding for the Capital Projects Reserve Fund is provided annually primarily through payment from the sale of Greater Southwest International Airport, reimbursement for the land given for DFW Airport, and from time to time when the City sells a capital asset. The balance in the Capital Projects Reserve Fund after this transfer will be $1,151,909.00. The Director of Fiscal Services certifies that upon the approval of the fund transfer, money required for this expenditure will be available in the current budget of the Specially Funded Capital Projects Fund. CB:j Submitted for City Manager's FUND j ACCOUNT CENTER j AMOUNT CITY SECRETARY Office by: (to) GC35 539120 I $1,000,000.00 Charles Boswell 8500 Originating Department Head: Judson Bailiff 81851 (from) j far Additional Information GCIO 539I20 013010001001 $1,060,000.0 � i Contact: Judson Bailiff 81851 1 4P16 Prtntea on rmcw paper City of Fort Worth, Texas Mayor and Council Communication DATE: 06/24/25 M&C FILE NUMBER: M&C 25-0568 LOG NAME: 08SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL GRANT APPLICATION SUBJECT (ALL) Authorize Application for and Acceptance of Federal Funds and, if Awarded, Authorize Execution of the Safe Streets and Roads for All Planning and Demonstration Grant from the United States Department of Transportation in an Amount Up to $1,200,000.00 for the Development of an Updated Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan, Authorize Execution of Related Grant Agreement, and Adopt Appropriation Ordinances RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Authorize application for and acceptance of federal funds and, if awarded, acceptance of the Federal Grant Agreement with the United States Department of Transportation for the Safe Streets and Roads for All Planning and Demonstration Grant in an amount up to $1,200,000.00; 2. Authorize the execution of a grant agreement with the United States Department of Transportation for the Safe Streets and Roads for All Planning and Demonstration Grant; 3. Adopt the attached appropriation ordinance increasing estimated receipts and appropriations in the Grants Operating Federal Fund, subject to the receipt of the grant, in an amount up to $1,200,000.00 for the purposes of updating the City's Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan project; and 4. Adopt the attached appropriation ordinance reallocating appropriations in the General Fund by decreasing the Non -Departmental budget by $300,000.00 and increasing Diversity and Inclusion General Fund budget in the same amount for a grant match, as a transfer from the non - departmental budget that are included in the Fiscal Year 2025 budget. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this Mayor & Council Communication (M&C) is to: 1. Authorize application for and acceptance of federal funds and, if awarded, authorize acceptance of the Federal Grant Agreement with the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) for the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Planning and Demonstration Grant in the amount up to $1,200,000.00; 2. Authorize the execution of a grant agreement with US DOT; and 3. Authorize the adoption of the appropriation ordinances to accept federal grant funds for the project. The Diversity & Inclusion (DVIN) Department plans to apply for the SS4A Grant through the US DOT on or about June 26, 2025. The SS4A is a reimbursement -based program requiring a 20% local match. The City match will come from Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 funds. The SS4A Grant is part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and funds Planning and Demonstration Grants to local government agencies to develop, enhance, or update a comprehensive safety action plan. The City needs to update its 1992 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. This ADA Plan meets the definition of a comprehensive safety plan under the Grant, and the application will request funding to update the plan. The SS4A matching grant, if awarded, will allow the City to complete the following next steps after the acceptance of the ADA Compliance Plan towards an updated City of Fort Worth ADA Transition Plan: 1. Finalize the prioritized list of programs, services, activities, and facilities to be evaluated in the first phase of the Self -Evaluation. Phase 1 will begin in fiscal year 2026 with a $1.5M budget to begin evaluations and develop a Transition Plan. 2. Complete a Self -Evaluation for all City programs, services, activities, and facilities. Facility evaluations should include the following: (a) facility reports with the compliance status of each element evaluated based on the applicable ADA Standards and Public Right -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG); (b) possible solutions to remove any barriers and bring the element into compliance; (c) conceptual budget estimates to implement each possible solution; and (d) prioritization of the individual facility or element, independent of other facilities or elements of the same type, so that severity of non-compliance can be compared. 3. Develop an Implementation Plan, including a schedule for completing the recommended facility improvements and funding sources to be used. 4. Update the City's Accessibility & Accommodations webpage (https:/twww.fortworthtexas.gov/departments/diversity-inclusion/accessibility- accommodations) to clearly document the City's efforts toward ADA compliance. 5. Complete the remaining Self -Evaluation phases and update the City's ADA Transition Plan after each additional phase. 6. Continue to update the City's ADA Transition Plan as projects are implemented and citizen requests/complaints are received and addressed. At a minimum, the ADA Transition Plan will be updated every three to four years. 7. Determine the best approach for receiving public input on the Self -Evaluation and ADA Transition Plan. Appropriations for the Grants Operating Federal Fund are depicted below: Fund _ J Amount 21001-Grants Operating Federal $1,200,000.001 Funding will be budgeted in the Grants Operating Federal Fund, subject to the receipt of the grant, for the purposes of funding the US DOT SS4A Planning and Demonstration Grant project. Funds will be available in the Fiscal Year 2025 operating budget, as appropriated for the City match. If the US DOT SS4A grant funds are not received, DVIN will be responsible for all costs incurred. Since City salaries will be charged, indirect cost recovery does apply. Should match funding not be identified, the grant award would not be accepted. Since no City salaries will be charged, indirect cost recovery does not apply. The Grant Application Repository number is GRNT-APPL-0000000139. DVIN Department staff will initiate the procurement of contractor services to complete the SS4A Grant Project. The SS4A Grant Project is expected to begin in Quarter 12026 and be completed by Quarter 1 2027. The project impacts all COUNCIL DISTRICTS. A Form 1295 is not required because: This contract will be with a governmental entity, state agency or public institution of higher education: United States Department of Transportation FISCAL INFORMATION / CERTIFICATION: The Director of Finance certifies that upon approval of the above recommendations and adoption of the attached appropriation ordinance, funds will be available in the current operating budget, as appropriated, in the Grants Operating Federal Fund. The Diversity and Inclusion Department (and Financial Management Services) will be responsible for the collection and deposit of funds due to the City. Prior to an expenditure being incurred, Diversity and Inclusion has the responsibility to validate the availability of funds. This is a reimbursement grant. Submitted for Citv Manager's Office bv: Dana Burghdoff 8018 Oriainatina Business Unit Head: Christina A. Brooks 8988 Additional Information Contact: Sharon Burkley 6155 Expedited