Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 6172-09-2025 (4)
A Resolution NO. 6172-09-2025 ADOPTING THE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, the preservation of life and the health of all persons livin g and traveling within th e City of Fort Worth is paramount; and WHEREAS, from 2019 to 2023, 68,936 crashes occurred in Fort Worth, and 2,589 of those crashes involved fatalities or se riou s injuries; and WHEREAS, Vision Zero is a holistic strategy aimed at eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injurie s s uffered by all road users while increas in g safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for a ll ; and WHEREAS, streets and transportation systems have traditionally been de s igned primarily to move cars efficiently, and Vision Zero s upports a paradigm shift by designing stre ets and transportation systems to move all people safe ly , includin g people of all ages and abilities, pede str ian s, bicyclists, public transit users, and motorcyclists, as well as drivers and passengers of motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, on November 19 , 2019, Fort Worth City Council adopted Resolution No. 5149-11- 2019, supporting the Vision Zero goal of e liminating fatalities and severe injuries from traffic crashes by supporting the development of a Vision Zero-based strategy and related performance measures to achieve the goal; and WHEREAS , on October 17, 2023, Fort Worth City Council ratified application for and acceptance of a Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant from the United States Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration in the amount up to $524,381.60 for a Vision Zero Safety Action Plan which included city participation in the amount of $104,876.00; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth has completed development of its Vision Zero Safety Action Plan in accordance with the SS4A grant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, THAT: The City Council hereby adopts the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto , with the goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2050. Adopted this 30th day of September 2025. ATTEST: By:~A ~ Jannette S. Goodall, City Secretary FORT WORTH VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN e e August2025 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 Internationa l Airport) Jeff Neal, North Centra l Texas COG John Polster, Denton County Ke lly Johnson, NTTA Mary-Margaret Lemons, Fort Worth Hous ing So lutions Matt Larseingue, BNSF Russell Laughlin, Developer (Hillwood) Myron Wilson, Fort Worth ISD Richard Gonzalez, TxDOT Russell Laughlin, Deve loper (Hillwood) Scott Hall, Tarrant County Tara Crawford, Trinity Metro Tim Huya, BNSF Travis Clegg, Developer (Pe loton) Victor Vande rgriff, Tarrant Regional Transportation Coa lition VISI I I- ~ 0 ~ I- ~ 0 LL Community Advisory Committee Mendes David, District 2 Isaac Manning, District 3 Rusty Full er, District 4 Nakia Cole, Dist rict 5 Haylee Carr, District 6 Ryan Smith, District 7 Dr. Sharla H orton, District 8 Au sti n 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, A ICP, TPW Assistant Director Ch elsea St. Louis, A ICP, Sr. Capital Projects Officer Rajnish Gupta, P.E ., PTOE. City Traffic Engineer Rashad Jackson, School Crossing Guard Program Manager Marisa Con lin, P.E., Engineering Manager Namoo Han, P.E., Sr. Professional Engineer Consultants 11-&AI A:COM B\Y1l!~ .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS VISl®N~ ZEiH I 1: Why Does Fort Worth Need a Safety Action Plan? 6 Understanding the urgent need for safer streets in Fort Worth and the Safe System appproach 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 Community Voices Matter 17 Exp laining how stakeho lder and pub lic input was gathered and incorporated into the plan 4: Focus Areas & Actions 23 Estab lishing goals and outlining recommended strategies to improve safety throughout the city 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 1111 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 Append ix H-Additional Action Strategies lnformauon contained in this document 1s for planni ng purposes and should not be used for final des ign of any fl(Ofect. All result s. recommendations. concept draw ings. cost opinions. and commentary contained herem are based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change. Further analysis and engineering design are necessary prior to implementing any of the recommendations contained herein. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and econom ic condit ions at the time of construction. --------------------------------------------------------- OUR GOAL traffic fataltes and severe injuries on City of Fort Worth roadways by 20500 . are■ aw. 1 INTRODUCTION WHY DOES FORT WORTH NEED A SAFETY ACTION PLAN? Over 500 people are killed or severely injured on Fort Worth roadways each year. to00a0f*QO46 W00*04011 *40400 ••••••••••••••!••••.r Or 0002'-1f, 010000 • It••0• •00000 • 9••• *got*** •••!•• ••••• - •••••�� •.••�•�rii•••••i•••• ► THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH This Safety Action Plan is Fort Worth's road ma p t o redu ci ng roadway deaths and sev ere injuries. It is grounded in the Safe System Approach , which aims to eliminate deaths and severe injuries by anticipating human mis takes and minimizing impacts on the human body when cras hes do occur. T he Safe Sy stem Approach is built around six principles and is backed by five elements. SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH PRINCIPLES SAFE SYSTEM ELEMENTS ~ 2050 1. Death & severe injury is unacceptable: While minor incid ents are almost inevitable, this plan focu ses on preve nting crashes that resu lt in fata lities an d severe injuries . 2. Humans make mistakes: Even the best drivers wi ll inevitably make mistakes that can lead to a crash . How we design an d o perate o ur t ranspo rtation system can ensure these mi stakes don't have life-a lte ring impacts. 3. Humans are vulnerable : Huma n bodies can on ly w it hstand so much impact f rom a cras h before death or severe inj uries occur. }105il~ 1. Safe Road Users: 4. Responsibility is shared: Everyone involved in t ransportation, from elected officials to street des igners to everyday peo pl e trave ling around Fo rt W orth, has a role to play in crea ting saf er roads. 5. Safety is proactive: Rather than waiting for crashes t o occur, t ra nsportation age ncies sho uld seek to p roac tive ly identify and add ress da nge rous situations. 6. Redundancy is crucial: Redunda ncy mea ns usin g a laye red approac h where multiple design treatments are used t o re inforce safe behaviors. This way, if one part fails , peop le are still protected. 4. Safe Roads: W orking towa rd s a cul tu re of safety requires safe Safer roa d s co me from providing physical separation responsible driving and behavior by people who use the (like separated bi ke la nes and sidewa lks) as well as tra nsportation system, as well as a network of City and civic designing to accomm odate needs. partners w ho work toget her to address sa fety concerns. o~~~~'u 2. Safe Vehicles: Making ve h icl es safe r ca n be done through adva nced d river assista nce systems and by ensuring future technology prioritizes vulnerab le roadway us ers . 3. Safe Speeds: Slower ve hicl e speeds increase visibility and reactio n times for drivers and reduce impa ct forces w hen a crash occ urs. Moving towards safe speeds can be don e through speed limit red uction, traffic cal ming, and roa dway design. ~Dq c.Q!!,c 5. Post Crash Safety: A system-wide app roach mea ns working towards safety even after a cras h has occurred . Thi s co mes from improving emergency response, t ra ffic incident reporting, and traffic ma nagem ent. 8 1 ► 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 Vis ion Zero Resolution , Active Transportation Plan , Complete Streets Policy, and Master Thoroughfare Plan . The i mpl ementation of this Plan w ill not be the responsibility of just one City department or division, rather it w ill be a co llaborative process involving many different parties . Th e City wi ll 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 Pl an identifies the state of road safety in Fort Worth by reviewing past efforts and analyzing crash data from the past five years. Th is review allows us to identify areas of concern and to focus ou r efforts on the areas with greatest need. To comp lement this review, the City has worked closely with the Technical and Community Advisory Committees , which are composed of commu nity members, local agency staff, and neighborhood elected officials. These individuals provided their unique perspectives as users of the Fort Worth roadway system to high li ght 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 ana lysis and community engagement, four goals were identified for the Safety Action Plan (Visio n Zero: Paradigm Shift, Safe Speeds , Reduce Conflicts, Policies and Programs). Supporting these four goa ls, we have identified 34 safety action strategies that w ill help the City improve traffic safety. Th ese action strategies address the most important issues identified. Fo r each safety action ~- strategy, the Pl an highlights the time line, cost, leading party, and supporting party. 2050 In addition to these Citywide goals and action strategies, we have identified specific Priority Projects for the impleme ntation. These projects contain specific cha nges to corridors that have critica l safety needs. Th ese 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 accou ntab le. Fort Worth needs your help in implementing the Safety Action Plan. Read this Safety Action Plan an d keep in formed 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. ► IMPORTANTTERMS 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 seve re injuries and deaths. VULNERABLE ROAD USERS (VRU) Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) are those at most risk in a traffic crash by not being inside an enclosed ve hicle. When they are involved in crashes , V RUs are more likely to be severe ly injured or killed . HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN) A data-driven map identifying streets and intersections with the highest concentration of fata l and severe cras hes used to identify pri ority safety improvements. TRAFFIC CRASH [NOT ACCIDENT!] SOCIAL VULNERABILITY Th e word 'accident" imp li es that these harmful and Socia l vu ln erability refers to the potentially negative life-changing events are not preventable or avoidable. effects that external stressors have on communities. Traffic-related severe injuries and deaths are often The Centers for Di sease Control and Prevention preventable events for which there are proven sol utions. (CDC) has developed a tool to help identify and map As such, the Safety Action Pl an refers to them as co mmu nities t hat are most like ly to need support "crashes ,' not "accidents." before , during, and after hazardous events. It measures the relative vulne rab ili ty of each U.S. census tract KILLED AND SEVERELY INJURED (KSI) Killed and Severe ly Injured (KSI) stands for the highest level of severity resulting from a traffic crash with at least one person involved in the cras h either dead or suffering incapacitating inj ury. by ranking them on 16 social factors, including unemployment, racial and ethni c minority status, and disability status. These facto rs are group ed into four related themes, providing each census tract with a ranking for the individual variab les , the four themes, and an overall ranking. This tool was used to identify the most socially vulnerable communities in Fort Worth. ROAD SAFETY IN FORT WORTH TODAY ► 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 for active transportation infrastructure priorities and a comprehensive framework for implementation. The ATP prioritizes infrastructure investments and emphasizes local , short trips and connections to transit. It includes prioritized project lists, cost opinions, and performance measures to guide investments and accountability. 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). POLICIES Vision Zero Resolution The City of Fort Worth adopted its Vision Zero Policy Resolution in 2019. Th e reso lution supports a Vi sion Zero strategy to elim inate traffic fatalities and severe injuries in the City of Fort Worth. While Fort Worth's Vision Zero resolu tion outlines key commitments, there are areas for enhancement. Although V ision Zero policies vary amo ng different cities, key elements often include the safe system approach , commu nity e ngageme nt, designing and maintaining roads to prioritize the safety of all road users, using data analysis to understand trends, managing speed for safe travel, and setti ng a clear timeline to ach ieve zero traffic deaths an d seve re injuries. Complete Streets Policy The City of Fort Worth adopted its Complete Streets Policy in 2016, together with the MTP. This policy is app licable to all development and redevelopment in the public domain in Fort Worth. To impleme nt the policy, the City is working to incorporate Complete Streets principles into all existing plans , manua ls, checklists, decision-trees, rules , regu lations, and programs as app ropriate. The design guidelines and stan dard s will be updated to effectively implement Complete Streets . St aff trainings, project se lection criteria , and project guides are recommended for im plementation. Fort Worth City Ordinances The City of Fort Worth Ord inance , Chapter 22 cove rs the regulations related to motor vehicles and traffic. It highlights genera l traffic rules; truck traffic; operation of vehicles; crashes ; stopping, standing, and parking; bicycle and pedestrian rules ; and other aspects of traffic that have implica tions for the overall safety of all users of the city roads . Relating to bicycles, the ordinanc es mandate the use of reflectors from 7pm to Sam , require the use of a proper seat and helmet, and prohibit cyclists from attaching themse lves to vehicles or riding in a reckless manner. Th e ordinances also establish minimum se paration distances when motorized vehicles are pa ssing bicyclists or pedestrians. Relating to pedestr ians , the ordinance s support pedestrian safety by establ ishing the right-of-way for pedestrians and vehicles, including that drivers must y ield to ped es trians in crosswalks and pedestrians must y ield to vehicles outside crosswa lks. An update was made to the ordinances in 2001, addi ng provis ions prohibiting solicitation on or near roadways. Relating to truck traffic, the ordinances include provisions for designated truck and commercia l delivery routes, restrictions on hazardous materials, and limits on vehicle dimensions and weight. These elements align with common regu lations found in many truck traffic ordinances. Th is ordinance can support Vision Zero by having desig nated truck routes that avoid re sid ential areas to limit the exposure of vulnerable road users to large trucks, enforcing weight and size res trictions 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 Tran sportation and Public W orks Depa rtment is responsib le for traffic operations and safe ty ini tiatives in Fort Worth. Th e division performs citywide maintenance of streetlights, traffic signa ls, and signs, fu lfills utility relocation requests , performs signal retiming and signal design review for private development, and operates the Traffic Management Center. Additionally, the division adm ini sters the Sid ewalk Program , School Crossing Guard Program, Parking M anage ment and Operations, Right-of-Way Management, and receives all customer traffic safety requests fo r the city. Transportation M anagement has key performance indicators for every service request type. Transportation Management's integration of Vi sion Zero-specific measures such as crash reduction targets into key performance indicators wi ll be key to quantifying the divis ion 's success in improving traffic safety outcomes. SAFETY IN NUMBERS Crashes by Year 4.2% 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 -Total Crashes -KSI Crashes % Crashes re sulted in KSI VULNERABLE ROAD USERS Crashes involving bicycles, pedestrians , and motorcycles are much more likely to result in death or severe injury. These crashes ac counted for only 4% of all crashes, but 34% of KSI crashes. 0.4% 'fi 1.9% % Share of Tota l Cra sh 96 .0% ■ Bicycle ■ Pedestrian 65 .2% ■ Motorcycle FIVE-YEAR TRENDS Between 2019 and 2023, 68,936 crashes occu rred in Fort Worth. Out of these, 533 res ulted in a person dying and 2,056 resulted in severe injury. Crashes remained fa irly stea dy from 2019 to 2023, w ith severe and deadly crashes comprising about 4% of total crashes per year. A fu ll roadway safety analysis can be found in Appendix B. 1.9% I ; I', % Share of KSI Crash Motor Vehicl e TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES Crashes involving large trucks and com mercia l motor vehicles made up a higher percentage of all crashes in Fort Worth, compared to the sta t ewide ave rage and other large Texas cities. F(1RT WORIH -,- 2050 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Major factors t hat contributed to crashes , deaths, and severe injuries in Fort W orth included: speeding, driving under the influence (DUI), lack of safety restraints (such as seat belts), and distracted driving. Th e figures on the left show the percentage of all crashes and KSI crashes caused by t hese factors. Commercial Vehicle and Large Truck Crashes State-w id e Fort Worth Au stin Dall as El Paso Hou sto n San Antonio Average ■%of CMV Crashes ■%of Large Tru ck Crashes I 14 HIGH INJURY NETWORK Th e High Injury Network (HIN) high li ghts corrido rs in Fort Worth with the highest concentration and seve r- ity of cras hes, enabling the City to prioritize safety improvements where they are most needed. In devel - oping the HIN, crashes are weighted by severity-fata l and severe injury crashes receive the highest we ight. Although the all-modes H IN cove rs just 6% of the city's streets, it accounts for 54% of all fatal and severe injury cras hes. Separate High Injury Networks that focus specifica ll y o n 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. DOWNTOWN INSET ~- 2050 O 1 2 mi 1-+-t-+-1 I 15 SOCIALLY VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES Addressing roadway safety in Fort Worth cannot be fully addressed without focusing on communities that face disproportionate roadway safety impacts. The roadway network in Fort Worth must work for every- one. For that reason, vulnerable groups are a focus throughout the Safety Action Plan. The Safety Action Pl an focuses its ana lysis on areas that score high on the Socia l Vulnerab ili ty Index (SV I), which is a tool developed by t he Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to help public health officials and emergency response planners identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events. It measures the relative vulnerability of each U.S . census tract by ranking them on 16 social factors . These factors are grouped into four re lated themes, provid- ing each census tract wit h a ranking for the individual variab les , the four themes, and an overa ll ranking. These meas u res of socia l v ul ne rabi li ty were analyzed and compared with cras h data to assess the level of disproportionate impact of crashes on vu lnerable communities. Over 34% of total crashes and 36% of severe and fata l cras he s occurred in area s w ith hi gh soci al vulnerability. Many of the corridors In t he HIN are contained within areas of medium and high social vulne ra bility. Focusing on the corridors in these communities will hel p Fort Worth to address roadway safety in an equ itab le man ner. DOW NTOW N INSET r; ... L.' r. c;j)l--'0_ ' ,. ~ ALEOO ROAD nr ·~ ' , (" ,-1 I L~(i I -High Injury Network Socia l Vulnerabili ty In dex -Low -Low- Medium-High High ~- 2050 ..,,._ , S7'-4 --, '1 ~ 0 u.,.. 0: ,-- LJJ _J ' I 16 OUR COMMUNITY VOICES MATTER ► WHATWEDID 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 commun ity deserves. Engagement events and activities ranged from district open houses, steering committee meetings, community festiva l 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 busi ness cards with QR codes. Find .. Loarion Nt1rYov ! COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES Fort Worth communities are comprised of many voices, from residents to elected officials, busin esses, community advocates, and se rvice age ncies. Two advi sory 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. Th ey were tasked with: • developing the plan's v ision and purpose • reviewing initial findings and ana lysis • participating in discussion s regarding me ssagi ng for engagement • guiding the development of action strategies reviewing ongoing plan efforts. Open Hou se 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 onYouTube. Open house events consisted of engagement activities for community input, including activities to prioritize goals, objectives, and measurable actions, countenneasure themes, participatory mapping of trips, hotspots, and network gaps, comment cards, and surveys. In total , there were 23 open house events wi th participation by more than 300 participants generating 273 comments for the SAP. COMMUNITY EVENTS Outreach was co nducted at 26 community events to gain inpu t for the Vision Zero SA P and the parallel Moving A Million planning effort. Faci litators distributed traffic sa fety surveys, project information, and links to the Vi sion Zero website at eac h event. Com munity events were chosen to engage w ith a diverse cross sectio n of Fort W o rth's population, emphasizing reaching underrepresented segments of t he population. Many community events engaged large proportions of young people, people of co lor, those who are transit-dependent, do not speak En gli sh as a first language, and those who li ve in South /East Fort W orth. The events varied in participation levels. The largest events were the Ta rrant County Back to School Round-Up , Tarrant County Harambee Fes tival, and ArtsGoggle, eac h of which was attended by well over 1,000 people eac h. DATE • Aug.2 • Aug.17 • Aug.24 • Aug.29 • Sept.12 • Sept.17 • Sept.19 • Sept.23 • Sept. 25 • Sept. 26 • Oct.1 • Oct.1 • Oct.5 • Oct.14 • Oct.14 • Oct.16 • Oct.17 • Oct.19 • Oct.19 OPPORTUNITY/EVENT Tarrant County Back to School Round-Up Shine With Loving Kindness Festival SteerFW Civic Summit Fort Worth Report: Future of Transportation in Tarrant County panel District 10 Town Hall Booth at Texas Wesleyan University Booth at Texas Wesleyan University Polytechnic Neighborhood Association Booth at Tarrant County College South Campus Booth at Tarrant County College South Campus National Night Out -Historic Southside: Neighborhood Association National Night Out -Ventana HOA Tarrant County Harambee Festival Trinity Metro -Sierra Vista Trinity Metro -La Gran Plaza Trinity Metro -Central Station Trinity Metro -Dr. Dennis Dunkins Harvest Community Fair ArtsGoggle LOCATION Tarrant County College South Campus HttO'ng O~o Buddhist Temple Amphibian Stage Texas Wesleyan University Texas Motor Speedway Texas Wesleyan University Texas Wesleyan University Ridglea Hills Elementary School Tarrant County College South Campus Tarrant County College South Campus Glenwood Park Ventana Amenity Center William M . McDonald YMCA Sierra Vista Transfer Center La Gran Plaza Transfer Center Fort Worth Central Station Dr. Dennis Dun kins Transit Center Turning Point Church Near Southside (Magnolia Avenue) ~ 2050 I 20 SURVEYS An electron ic survey was admi nistered onli ne and distributed via the newsletter, social medi a, and proj ect website. Participants at the community eve nts were provided the opportunity to take a short paper survey. In total, 1100 online survey responses and 273 comment cards we re received from the public. TRAFFIC SAF ETY SURVEY "I~· ,..L... 20 50 _____ ,..... .. ____ .. ,......., ... ,. -.._w .. _....,...., __ _ ,_,,_, .. _\ ____ , ______ ~ .... -~"t.."""'..i ..... ~ ......... _ SPANISH TRANSLATED SURVEY ~----,...._ .. , ... ---•-olo:1.--... J-' ,,__,__....,.. __ .... ,_., _______ ,_ .. , .. ...,, .. ____ .. -.. --.. 1.1.-........... _,,,_ ..... _ .. Trinity Metro Transfer Station Outreach Tarrant County Harambee Festival ArtsGoggle National Night Out ~- 2050 I 21 ► WHATWEHEARD COMMUNITY PRIORITIES Base d on ex t ensi v e comm unit y engageme nt , t he overarchin g priorities that w e hea rd w ere: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY MOBILITY + PROTECTED BIKE FACILITIES + MANAGING CONGESTION GOALS & ACTION STRATEGIES ► SAFETY ACTION STRATEGIES OVERVIEW & ORGANIZATION The Fort Worth Vision Zero Action Strategies are 34 detailed ways to address specific safety cha ll enges through a holistic approach to reducing fatal and severe injury crashes. These actions are prioritized based on the city's safety needs , crash analysis , and input from the Community and Technical Advisory Committee, as well as city staff. They are intended to supplement and support location-based project recommendations designed to address acute design and infrastructure needs for higher risk roadways. ACTION ST RATEGY SELECTION AND PRIOR ITIZATION The basis for the Recommended Action Strategies and additional actions is drawn from best practices in safety planning and a thorough review of safety actions from a variety of regions across Texas and the U.S. Specific attention was given to actions based on FHWA's Proven Safety Cou ntermeasures, which research has shown are particularly effective in reducing fatal and severe crashes. A list of potential action strategies was developed using detai led 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 t he Fort Worth V is ion Zero Safety Action Plan . To further develop the draft Action Strategies list, the project team reviewed recent planning documents, including Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDon Fort W orth District Safety Plan 2024 and draft find ings from concurrent Fort Worth 2050-Moving a Million project deliverables. These introduced specific findings related to freight and commercia l 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 stakeho lders reviewed and prioritized the draft action strategies. RECOMMENDED ACTION STRATEGIES The foll owing tables represent the 34 Safety Action Strategies that were prioritized during the December Stakeholder W orkshop, which included city staff as well as members of the Technica l Advisory Committee and Community Advisory Committee. An additional 20 st rategies that w ere not indicated as priorities but which may warrant further consideration can be found in Appendix H. The Safety Action Strategies are organized under the Plan's four safety goals: Vis ion Zero: Paradigm Shift; Safe Speeds; Reduce Confl icts; and Policies and Programs. They are further categorized under 18 focus areas: • • ACCESS MANAGE M ENT • DEMAN D M ANAGEMENT • CO MMERCIAL MOTOR •EDUCAT ION VEH ICLE S (CMV) & FREIGHT • GUIDELI N ES • COMMUNICATIONS • INTERSECTIONS • COORDINATION • MAINT ENANCE •CROSSINGS •NETWORKS • DATAANALYSIS Each strategy includes stakeholder input on implementation roles, partnerships, and considerations, including a high-level summary of the following factors: C) TIIMELINE • COST IMMEDIATE: Less Than 1 Year $ SHO RT: 1 To 3Years $$ MEDIUM : 3 To 5 Years $$$ LONG : Over 5Years $$$$ $$$$$ ~- 2050 • REPORTING • ROAD SAF ETY AUDITS • SAFETY COMMITTEE • SAFE ROUTES TO SC HOOL (S RTS) • SPEED •TRANSIT Under $100,000 $100,000 TO $250,000 $250,000 To $1 Million $1 Million To $5 Million Over $5 Million I 24 ► GOAL1 VISION ZERO PARADIGM SHIFT Vision Zero represents a fundamental change in how we approach transportation safety. Traffic deaths are not inevitable; they are preventable. This goal rejects the status quo and demands a bold commitment: human life must come first in every transportation decision. I 25 ~- 2050 GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO -PARADIGM SHIFT ► ►► ►►► 1.1 Evaluate and consider amending Fort Worth Code of Ordinances Chapter 22, Article • FOCUSAREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY IV: Truck Traffic to better ali gn with the city's evolving goa ls of protecting health, CMV/Freight $ TxDOT,City TRUCK TRAFFIC safety, and welfare and strengthen freight transportation safety and efficiency. Truck Commercial Vehicle ORDINANCE route designations could be updated to reflect current freight needs and consider Enforcement (CVE) future freight volume growth. Additional regul ations of truck parking (e.g., prohibiting • NEEDS commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas during certain hours), loading C) TIMEFRAME C, LEAD zones (designated curb space for loading and unloading with appropriate signs Short TPW . Data Tools, Staff and enforcement), and driver rest periods (mandatory rest break for truck drivers, Capacity referencing practices in peer cities) could be incorporated into the ordinance. ► ►► ►►► 1.2 Incorporate specific freight transportation performance measures into safety and • FOCUS AREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY mobility reporting and dashboards. Key metrics may include vehicle classification CMV/Freight $$ NCTCOG, Texas A FREIGHT counts, facility inventory updates, reduction in annual number of crashes, travel & M Transportation TRANSPORTATION speeds for truck and non-truck traffic, improved Truck Travel TI me 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 C) TIMEFRAME C, LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS current lack of a citywide vehicle cou nt. Additionally, coordination with NCTCOG Short to Mid TPW Data Tools, Staff will be essentia l to align on travel time reliability performance measures. Capacity ► ►► ~►► 1.3 Analyze the geographic distribution of freight facilities, origins, and destinations • FOCUSAREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY for long-haul , through, and local truck trips, and commercial vehicles volumes CMV/Freight $ NCTCOG, TxDOT INTEGRATE and speeds to directly inform planning decisions, including reserving right-of-way FREIGHT, for future freight corridors. Id entify and designate truck routes that align with TRANSPORTATION, C) TIME C, LEAD • NEEDS Fort Worth's land-us e plans, strategically cluster freight siting an d investments, ANDLANDUSE and ensure surrounding land uses and transportation corridors are compatible. Short to Mid TPW, Planning, Plan /Study PlANNING Prioritize Complete Streets-informed des igns that incorporate freight needs and Economic Development incl ude context-sensitive design ap proaches tailored specifically to freight. Focus on facilitating freight transportation on key corridors and zones to divert truck traffic from resi dential areas , school zones, and ped estria n districts. i ~ ZEBH I I 26 GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO -PARADIGM SHIFT ► 1.4 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN ►► Develop a comprehensive multimedia public communications safety campaign to educate the community and promote transportation safety for all roadway users and all modes. Key considerations and tactics should include: • Aligning with existing communication efforts to ensure consistency and effectiveness, while incorporating relevant data to support messaging and measure impact. • Focusing on storytelling, such as stories of the personal and social impacts of traffic violence, neighborhood and project success stories, and messaging from trusted community leaders. • Content tailored to specific audiences and platforms, including short-form video, earned media , and social media content, targeted print media , radio, television, and streaming seivices. • 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. ►►► • FOCUSAREA Communications C) TIME Mid to Long ~· 2050 e COST G SUPPORT AGENCY $$-$$$ NCTCOG C, LEAD • NEEDS TPW, Partnerships; Plan/ Communication Study, Staff Capacity I 27 ~ 2050 GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO -PARADIGM SHIFT ► ►► ►►► 1.5 Embed transportation safety into existing community engagement efforts and • FOCUS AREA e COST ct SUPPORT AGENCY increase staff capacity for outreach related to safety-focused programs , policies, Communications $$ TxDOT, SAFETY PROJECTS and infrastructure projects. Develop standard language regarding Vision Zero and Communications AND PROGRAM roa dway safety that is informed by and reflects the values and perspectives of ENGAGEMENT the community. Conduct training for city agencies , staff, and partners to promote G TIMEFRAME & LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS consistent messag ing when interacting with media, community partners, and the Short to Mid TPW 0 Partnerships; Plan/ public. Specific tactics may include: Study, Staff Capacity • Maintaining communications tools • Routinely Incorporating that aid staff in sharing traffic safety-community input -specifically from related information when doing underrepresented communities engagement on street projects. -throughout the planning and • Developing processes and funding to implementation of transportation support community-based organization safety projects . participation in the development and • Hosting Vision Zero / Complete delivery of safety efforts. Streets design trainings and workshops • Piloting follow-up engagement at for local government staff, elected officials, TxDOT project managers, select locations where traffic safety consultants, and other stakeholders in improvements were installed as part of project delivery. project evaluation. ► ►► ►~► 1.6 Create an upper-management level office Vision Zero coordinator posi tion within • FOCUSAREA e COST • SUPPORT AGENCY City government tasked with promoting collaboration, managing implementation, Coordination $$ City Council VISION ZERO and evaluating transportation safety progress across agencies and organ izations. COORDINATOR This position should be supported by cross-departmental staff assigned to the collaborative implementation of this plan and should ensure the City can proactively G TIMEFRAME & LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS address safety efforts. The coordinator may also provide additional support in regional Immediate TPW Staff Capacity and state-level planning and implementation processes. Additionally, assess and consider increasing departmental capacity by redesignating or creating new positions dedicated to planning, designing, and implementing Vision Zero and safety projects. ZE~H I I 28 ~ 2050 GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO -PARADIGM SHIFT ► ►► ►►► 1.7 Work with planning and funding partners, including TxDOT, NCTCOG, counties, • FOCUSAREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY neighboring jurisdictions, and representatives from developers to coordinate safety Coordination $$ NCTCOG, TxDOT, STATEAND plans, strategies, projects, and campaigns. Strengthen partnerships to identify sh ared Toll Authorization REGIONAL goals and objectives and promote consistent safety strategies across local and PARTNERSHIPS regional boundaries, prioritizing data sharing and collaboration. Some examples of C) TIMEFRAME G LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS potential collaborations include: Ongoing Partnerships, Plan/ TPW . • Aligning thoroughfare plans with • Meeting routinely with TxDOT to Study neighboring cities and the state to share data, identify streets of concern , improve consistent design and safety develop consistent policies, and on major regional corridors. advance joint projects. • Advocating for local priorities in state projects and policies, such as safe speed limit setting and design/ infrastructure treatments for traffic calming paired with speed studies and education efforts. ► ►► ►►► 1.8 Develop a suite of educational tools to reach community members at various • FOCUSAREA • COST • SUPPORT AGENCY stages of learning, from early childhood through post-secondary education and Education $$ TPW, 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 C) TIMEFRAME G LEADAGENCY • NEEDS LEARNING approaches include: Immediate TPW, All School Partnerships, Plan/ • Elementary and middle school-age children and parent organizations. Districts Private and Study Charter Schools • 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 Leadersh ip Fort Worth. • Employers and office campuses . ZEBHI I 29 ~ 2050 GOAL 1 I VISION ZERO -PARADIGM SHIFT ► ►► ►►► 1.9 Dev elop a citywide Transportation Safety Dashboard to track progress toward • FOCUSAREA • COST • SUPPORT AGENCY Fort Worth's Vision Zero goa ls, share summary safety data, highlight key safety Reporting $$ Information Technology, TRANSPORTATION projects, and communicate successes and lessons learned through implementation Communications SAFETY and evaluation. Publi sh an annua l report to document implementation status of DASHBOARD the Action Plan . C) TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS Short TPW . Data Tool s, Staff Capacity ► ►► ►► 1.10 Form a permanent advisory body to advise an d support Vision Zero implementation, • FOCUSAREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY incorporating diverse perspectives from city departments and key stakehold ers. Safety Committee $ Police, Fire, TxDOT, VISION ZERO TASK This group should include representatives from Communications, Police, Fire, and NCTCOG, NGOs, FORCE/ROAD Public Works and be tasked with rev iewing crash reports and safety data, making Advocates SAFETY ADVISORY recommendations for site-specific and systemic ch anges to eliminate future risk, COMMITTEE and conducting activities like Road Safety Aud its (RSAs). Th e committee's work C) TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS should also include ride, bike, or walk-along assessments of streets with input from Immediate TPW Data Tools, Legislative Neighborhood Associations and Neighborhood Patrols to better und erstand local Action, Staff Capacity safety concerns . Staff should provide the group with regular updates on traffic safety data, training in accessing and understanding t raffic sa f ety data , and support for tracking Vision Zero performance and determining strategies for improvements. ► ►► ► 1.11 Establish a citywide or district-wide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program and • FOCUSAREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY develop a schedule for compl eting sc hool travel and safety action plans. Plans Safe Routes To $$ NCTCOG, Adjacent SAFE ROUTES TO should identify both infrastructure an d programming recommendations to increase School (SRTS) Municipalities, School SCHOOL safety, comfort, and convenience of walking, bicycling, or rolling t o schools. Install Districts, Charter and safety projects nea r schoo ls, including installing high visi bili ty crosswalks and Private Schools mid block crossings , walkways and bikeways, and enforcement measures. C) TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS Mid City,TxDOT Data Tools, legislative Action, Staff Capacity s i ZE~H i I 30 ► GOAL2 SAFE SPEEDS DESIGNING FOR LIFE Speed kills and driving slower saves lives. This go~I combines street design, policy, education, and behavioral change to ensure speeds are safe for all. By shaping both infrastructure and culture, we create streets that prevent deadly consequences and prioritize human life. I 31 ~- 2050 GOAL 21 SAFE SPEEDS -DESIGNING FOR LIFE ►►► 2.1 Create localized speed zones, similar to schoo l zones, to address locations with higher • FOCUSAREA • COST SUPPORT AG ENCY multimodal needs an d high crash risks , including areas around schools, parks, and Speed $$ Libraries, Parks and LOCALSPEED transit facilities. These zones shou ld incorporate appropriate speed management Recre ation ZONES treatments (e.g., signs, markings, speed tables) and con nectivity improvements paired with lower posted speed limits. Co ll aborate with the Police Department to ensu re () TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGE NCY • NEEDS effective enforcement of speed limits and compliance within these zones. Short t o M id TPW . Partnershi ps, Plan / St udy, Project Funding ► 2.2 Evaluate and update t he City's policy for setting posted speed limits on local roadways • FOCUS AREA • COST • SUPPORT AGENCY to de-emphasize the 85th percentile approach and use a more contextual approach to Speed $-$$ NCTCOG, Tx DOT SPEED LIMIT speed limit setting (SLS). The City's SLS policy should re ly on the latest best practice SETTING in understanding the i mpact of speeds on roadway safety and be paired with design () TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS and infrastructure improvements to set and enforce safe speeds. Additional factors for SLS should include traffic volumes, road geometry, traffic control devices, mu ltimodal Immed ia t e TPW None access needs, and su r rounding land use and development density. ► 2.3 Eva luate posted speed limits and speeding-re lated crashes along the HI N and major • FOCUSAREA • COST • SUPPORT AG ENCY t ho roughfares; using the updated speed limit setting (S LS) policy recommended in Sp eed $$ TxDOT, Counties, SPEED this plan , identify corridors for speed studies and propose design, signalization, and NCTCOG MANAGEMENT infrastructu re improvements to accompany reduced speed limits. Implement speed management o n local roadways and seek agreement from TxDOT to reduce speed () TIMEFRA ME 0 LEADAGENCY • NEEDS limits and manage speeds along on-system roadways . Short t o M id T PW Pl an/Stu dy, Project Fundi ng I 32 GOAL 2 I SAFE SPEEDS -DESIGNING FOR LIFE 2.4 EVALUATE LOCAL NETWORK INTERSECTIONS WITH STATE HIGHWAYS AND INTERSTATES 2.5 PRIORITIZE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ONTWO-LANE ROADWAYS 2.6 FOSTER PARTNERSHIPS WITH PRIVATE- SECTOR EMPLOYERS AND VEHICLE FLEET MANAGERS ISi 5 ZERH i Assess intersections between the local network an d state highways or interstates, including all interst ate off-ramps, to identify design and infrastructure opportunities that reduce speeding during transitions to city st reets. This evaluation should also consider improvements to signage for motorists to enhance clarity and promote safer driving behavior at these critica l transition points. Id entify and prioritize high-risk two-lane corridors and intersections for design improvements, infrastructure enha nc ements, and appropriate speed limit reductions, as over 40% of total crashes and 35.4% of KS ls-including 31% of VRU KSls-occur on two-lane roadways that are often under local control for speed management. As a short-term, high-im pa ct opportunity, focus on locations where immediate action is feasible. Develop and implement a data-driven prioritization plan to systematica lly assess crash history and risk factors, ensuring targeted safety interventions at the most critical locations. Collaborate with private-sector employers and fleet managers to implement safety actions aimed at promoting safe driving and reducing the negative impacts of large commercial vehicles. Begin by engaging with the private industry to understand existing practices and initiatives addressing these issues. Safety strategies could include: • Installation of speed governors/regulators on trucks and other CMVs. • Safety education and training fo r fleet drivers. • Diversifying fleets with smaller vehicles for service or delivery in speci fic context zones, particularly for the 31 % of trips that are under 10 minutes. • Collaboration on truck size restriction and truck route setting policies. ►► • C) • • C) • C) FOCUS AREA Speed TIMEFRAME Short to Mid FOCUS AREA Speed TIMEFRAME Short to Mid FOCUS AREA CMV/FREIGHT TIMEFRAME Short to Mid ~ 2050 • COST • SUPPORT AGENCY $ TxDOT C, LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS Plan/Study, TPW 0 Partnerships • COST e SUPPORTAGENCY 0 $$$ C, LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS TPW Plan/Study, Project Fundi ng • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY $$ None C, LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS NCTCOG, Reg ional 0 Partnerships Freight Advisory Committee (RFAC) I 33 ► GOAL3 REDUCE CONFLICTS PREVENTING CRASHES BEFORE THEY HAPPEN The more seamlessly different modes of travel interact, the safer our streets become. This goal focuses on street design that minimizes conflicts- through smart infrastructure, clear separation where needed, and intuitive spaces that protect all road users. I 34 GOAL 3 I REDUCE CONFLICTS 3.1 ACCESS MANAGEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3.2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY 3.3 COORDINATE WITH REGIONAL PARTNERS Conduct a detailed ana lysis of traffic conditions and crashes related to vehicle turning movements and commercia l vehicles access on thoroughfares and other applicab le roadways citywide (begi nn ing with the HIN) to identify locations where access managem ent improvements can be used to improve safety for all modes. Update the City's 2018 Access Management Policy based on the findings of the Master Transportation Plan, Safety Action Plan , and related plans (Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Master Thoroughfare Plan , etc.) and recommended Access Management Needs Assessment to strengthen sta ndard s and prioritize access management projects, in particular hardened centerline and median installations, in the City's capita l improvements. Collaborate with NCTCOG and TxDOT to align Fort W orth's truck routes with regiona l freight corridors. This coordi nation will promote a cohesive and efficient regiona l network that minimizes unexpected detours and bottlenecks. • Update truck route street designations to reflect cu rrent freight need s, f uture freight volume growth, and vehicle weight capacity, ensuring roads are rated appropriately for the vehicles using them. • Incorporate enforcement and communication strategies to ensure compliance and improve awareness among freight operators. • Analyze crash data to identify the percentage of crashes occuning on freight conidors and connect these findings with regional freight conidors to target safety improvements. • Differentiate between sma ll er commercial vehicles and 18-wheelers when updating route designations and planning infrastructure to meet the specific needs of each vehicle type. • G • • G FOCUS AREA • Access M ana gement TIMEFRAME C, Short FOCUSAREA • Access Management TIMEFRAME Short to Mid C, FOCUS AREA CMV/Freight • TIMEFRAME Short C, COST $$-$$$ • LEAD AGENCY TPW • COST $ G LEAD AGENCY TPW, Development • . Services COST $ LEAD AGENCY TPW, Planning ~ 2050 SUPPORT AGENCY NCTCOG, Counties, TxDOT NEEDS Plan /Study SUPPORT AGENCY None NEEDS Plan/Study SUPPORT AGENCY NCTCOG, TxDOT NEEDS Data Tools, Partnerships, Staff Capacity I 35 ~ 2050 GOAL 3 I REDUCE CONFLICTS 3.4 • Real-Time Monitoring: Track traffic volumes, crash data, and congestion trends • FOCUS AREA • COST G) SUPPORT AGENCY on key freight corridors to quickly identify and address problem areas, leveraging CMV/Freight $$$-$$$$ 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. C) TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS MANAGEMENT Mid to Long TPW,NCTCOG 0 Data Tools, Project ON KEY FREIGHT • Adaptive Signal Control: Equip key intersections with adaptive signa ls that adjust Funding, Staff Capacity CORRIDORS timing based on real-time conditions to reduce delays and congestion-related 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. • 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 signals, and enhanced data collection. Consider implementing systems to adjust 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 • FOCUSAREA • COST G) SUPPORT AGENCY at safe speeds , reducing crash risks and conflicts with other modes. Intersection designs CMV/Freight $ 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 mutually exclusive. Design so lutions shou ld address the needs of both modes, C) TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS SAFETY recognizing that certain design choices must balance the safety of all users as the top Short TPW, Planning 0 Data Tools, priority. Incorporate these design considerations into the transportation engineering Partnerships, Staff manual to standardize best practices across future projects. Capacity I 36 ~ 2050 GOAL 3 I REDUCE CONFLICTS 3.6 The City has identified app roximat ely 400 roadway locations requiring flood mitigation • FOCUS AREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY or improved sa f ety and flood warning measures, presenting a vital opportunity to CMV/Freight $-$$ TxDOT INTEGRATE HIGH-integrate transportation safety with broader hazard and disaster preparedness. WATER WARNING Implement high-water warning flashing beacons, enhanced lighting, barriers, and SYSTEM (HWWS) robust emergency co mmuni cation systems to sig nificantly reduce risks to both G TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS motorists and pedestrians during flooding events . Consider installing automated Short TPW 0 Legislative Action, Plan/ crossing arms to physically restrict access to hazardous areas du ring hig h-water Study incidents, providing an added layer of safety and protection . Integrate flood wa rnin g notifications with app s (such as 511DFW and WAZE ) and assisted driving within vehicles, and integrate the HWWS with externa l traffic management signals , e-s igns, and roadside signage to better warn and navigate drivers around flooded roadways. 3.7 Evaluate warrant requirements and gu id ance and update city policies according to best • FOCUSAREA • COST SUPPORT AGENCY practice for the placement, design, and insta llation of high-visibility crossing trea tm ents, Crossings $-$$ TxDOT ACTIVE mid-block crossi ngs, flashing or hybrid beacons , pedestrian refuge islands , grade TRANSPORTATION separated active transportation crossings , and safety-focused signa l enhancements. CROSSINGS G TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS Evaluate existing signal timing , crossi ng distances, and crosswalk spacing to prioritize Short TPW Legislative Action , Plan / 0 pedestrian crossing improvements including leading pedestrian intervals , median refuge Study is lands , hi gh-vis ibility mid-block crossings, rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB), pedestria n hybrid beacons (PHB), and pedestrian friendly cycle lengths based on a maximum of 3 feet per second of walking speed. 3.8 Id entify and prioritize locations for "daylighting" at intersections, focusing on removing • FOCUSAREA • :OST e SUPPORT AGENCY obstacles that impair sight lines and forma lizing on-street parking restrictions to maximize Intersections NCTCOG, TxDOT IDENTIFY visibility and crossing safety. Initial efforts shou ld begin along the High Injury Network (H IN}, PRIORITY in downtown centers, and in high -volume pedestrian areas. In corporate considerations for LOCATIONS FOR accessibility in all intersection treatments, including addressing challenges associated with G TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS "DAYLIGHTING" AT roundabouts for people in wheelchairs. Partner with ADA specialists to ensure compliance Short TPW Data Tools ,Partnerships, INTERSECTIONS and proactively address accessibility concerns, as roundabouts are a frequent source of Staff Capacity complaints. Leverage existi ng internal city communications, such as training articles, to educate the public and city staff on effective use of roundabouts and other safety measures. VISI t-'~ ZERHi I 37 GOAL 3 I REDUCE CONFLICTS 3.9 IMPLEMENT LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPIS) 3.10 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CROSSINGS Deploy leading pedestrian interva ls (LPls) at sig nalized intersections, focusing o n applicab le High Injury Network (HIN) corridors and urban villages such as 7th Street, Rosedale, Berry, and North Main Street. Revise sta nd ard roadway project details to make LPls the default condition at all intersections and signa l rep lacements. Expand LPI implementation based on the positive impact already observed in improving pedestrian experiences in downtown Fort Worth, ensuring similar benefits are rea lized in other urban areas with high pedestrian activity. Based on the Ci ty's current Active Transportation Plan and the forthcom ing Moving 1 Million Master Tran sportation Pl an , assess and insta ll bicycle an d pedestrian projects to increase se paration and complete the active transportation network. En sure that co ntext-sensitive designs are used to ensure a more comfortable active transpo rtation environment for people of all ages and abil ities, including: • Grad e-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings of roadways with 55 mph+ vehicle speeds. • Use of 'Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs (vs . 'Share the Road ") and high visibility lane markings for shared bicycle facilities where applicab le (e.g., shared lanes with vehicles that are narrower tha n 14'). • Insta ll side pat hs or separated , raised , or protected bicycle facilities on roadways with speeds exceeding 35 mph , following the guidelines outlined in the FHWA Bi keway Selection Guide. • FOCUS AREA Intersections 0 TIMEFRAME Mid to long • FOCUSAREA Networks 0 TIMEFRAME Short to Mid ~ 2050 • COST G SUPPORT AGENCY $-$$$ TxDOT & LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS TPW Legislative Action, Project Funding • COST • SUPPORT AGENCY $$$-$$$$ None & LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS TPW . Project Funding I 38 ► GOAL4 POLICY AND PROGRAM EMBEDDING SAFETY IN EVERY DECISION Achieve vision zero requires more than design-it takes strong policies and programs that prioritize safety. This goal ensures that laws, funding, and initiatives actively support safer streets, reinforcing a culture where protecting lives is always the first priority. I 39 ~ 2050 GOAL 41 POLICY AND PROGRAM 4.1 Conduct annual or bi -annua l crash ana lysis updates to track progress and changes in • FOCUS AREA @) COST e SUPPORT AGENCY the high injury network and crash risks over time, with a particular focus on: Data Analysis $ NCTCOG, TxDOT ACCESS MANAGEMENT • Sin gle-vehicl e crash locations for • Crash locations near transit stops and NEEDS roadway departure risks, fixed object risks, facilities, parks, and schoo ls G C, • NEEDS or potential risks to Vulnerable Road Users TIMEFRAME LEAD AGENCY ASSESSMENT • Locations near recen t sa f ety Ongoing TPW Data Too ls, Plan /Study, • Large vehicle crashes for implications improvement & other infrastructure Staff Capacity related to commercia l motor vehicles projects • Crash trend s in areas of persistent • Speed re lated crash locations poverty and other soc ially vulnerable communities 4.2 Evalu ate current condition s and consider setting a stated mode shift goal for • FOCUSAREA @) COST SUPPORT AGENCY converting trips from sin gle-occupancy vehicles (SOV) to other mod es. Update, Demand $-$$ NCTCOG TRANSPORTATION adopt, an d implement land use plans, TOM incentives, and street design policies that Management DEMAND increase safety and provid e travel and other benefits for people who travel in ways MANAGEMENT other than driving alon e. G TIMEFRAME C, LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS (TDM) Short TPW Legislative Action, Plan/Study 4.3 Deve lop and enforce requirements, provide guidance, and coordinate with city • FOCUSAREA @) COST e SUPPORT AGENCY engineers, construction companies, an d external stakeholders to ensure that access Gu idelines $ TPW ADOPT for people walking, bicycling, and using transit is maintained during all phases of REQUIREMENTS roadway or site construction , special eve nts, and other temporary closures. Address FOR MAINTAINING chall enges experienced by transit users, such as limited access to busy bus stops G TIMEFRAME C, LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS MULTI MODAL during construction, by co llaborating close ly with transit authorities . Promote Short to Mid TPW, Development Legislative Action, ACCESS DURING successful practices, suc h as the construction of temporary ramps to mai ntain Services Partnerships TEMPORARY access to bus stops, as demonstrat ed du ring bike lan e construction on W 7th Street. CLOSURES In co rporate these best practices into st andard operating procedures to improve consistency and accessibility across projects. v•s " e ZEBHI I 40 ~ 2050 GOAL 41 POLICY AND PROGRAM 4.4 Conduct a comprehensive review and update of all City site and street design • FOCUSAREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY standards to ensure alignment with this plan's recommendations , the Complete Guidelines $$-$$$ NCTCOG REVIEWAND 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)llth SITEAND Edition, AASHTO Bike Guide 5th Edition, FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and C) TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS STREET DESIGN Design Guide, and Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. Incorporate design Short TPW, Planning, . legislative Action, Plan/ STANDARDS guidelines that prioritize speed management, prevent left-angle crashes, and reduce Development Study Services 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. 45 Evaluate pavement and striping conditions along High Injury Networl< (HIN) roadways and • FOCUS AREA • COST e SUPPORT AGENCY identify locations where repaving and restriping can be leveraged to implement safer road Maintenance $$-$$$ None ASSESSAND designs, particularly for vulnerable road users. Coordinate with resurfacing, restriping, and other IMPROVE maintenance programs to prioritize safety improvements at locations with a demonstrated PAVEMENT crash history or high-risk factors. Ensure city streets are maintained to accommodate C) TIMEFRAME 0 LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS AND STRIPING vulnerable road users by integrating safety improvements into ongoing asset management and Short to Mid TPW . Plan/Study, Project CONDmONSALONG maintenance plans. Leverage the City's increased funding for street maintenance to support Funding HIN ROADWAYS these initiatives and develop a long-term funding strategy to sustain these efforts. I 41 ~- 2050 GOAL 41 POLICY AND PROGRAM 4.6 Develop a comprehensive RSA program to evaluate locations with a history of KSI • FOCUSAREA ~ COST e SUPPORT AGENCY crashes, sites of new KSI crashes , and segments or intersections id entified through crash Road Safety Audits $ NCTCOG, TxDOT, ESTABLISH A risk assessments for safety improvements. Build on any prior City or TPW experiences Corridor Stakeholders, ROAD SAFETY with internal reviews of KSI 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, C) TIMEFRAME & LEAD AGENCY Department PROGRAM, EMS, parks, and other relevant departments, to meet regularly to evaluate crash patterns Immediate TPW, FWPD, Admin • NEEDS POLICY,AND and risks , identify programmatic and infrastructure safety interventions, and provide Data Tools, Plan/Study, PROCEDURES annual recommendations for budgets and improvements to address identified issues. Project Funding The RSA program shou ld emphasize actionable fixes, such as infrastructure upgrades, signage, markings, lighting, and other immediate safety measures, in addition to long-term studies. Equip the RSA team with the capacity for technical analyses, high-level strategic thinking, and driving systemic change toward Fort Worth's goal. 4.7 Collaborate with Trinity Metro to align this plan with their ongoing trans it planning and • FOCUSAREA ~ COST G) SUPPORT AGENCY investments, including route and network organization, bus stop replacements , and Transit $-$$$ NCTCOG, TxDOT COORDINATE transit station access. Work with 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 C) TIMEFRAME & LEAD AGENCY • NEEDS TRANSIT high-visibility pedestrian crossings at stops and stations along the transit system . Immediate TPW, Trinity Metro 0 Partnerships, Project PLANNING AND Funding INVESTMENTS Support Trinity Metro in the development of their Strategic Action Plan and upcoming System Plan (expected in FY26), ensuring consistency with City objectives. Continue coordination on bus stop pad installation and exp lore funding opportunities, including grants that require a 20% local match, to support these initiatives. VISI r,.,~ ZERHI I 42 16 5 SAFE SYSTEM PRIORITIES ► FOCUS AREAS Based on the existing safety conditions an alysi s, identified goals and recommended action strategies, the Fort Worth Safety Action Plan identifies four pri orities that align with the Safe System Approach elements . 1 Setting Safe Speeds [Safe Speed] \ l : 2 Managing Truck Traffic [Safe Roads/Safe Vehicles] ~ I# -.m.-Ji 3 ~-_-=_==_==_:--_--/ Prioritizing Specific Projects [Safe Roads] l Implementing a Traffic Safety Campaign [Safe People] ~- 2050 SETTING SAFE SPEEDS On e of the immediate action priorities for the City of Fort Worth is developing a comprehensive policy for setting speed lim its that are safer and help reduce the occurrence of KSI crashes. Following a review of nationa l best practices and standards, the City of Fo r t Worth identified t hree tools it can us e to set safe speeds citywide. A full review of national best practices and standards, and d etailed recommendations can be found in Appendix D. 1 Default Speed Limit 2 Slow Zones 3 Corridor Speed Limits Establish a streamlined framework for setting speed limits based on street classification and context. This process will be suppo rted 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 's low zones ' in select areas with higher concentrations of vulnerable road users, such as ped estria ns an d bicyclists. These zones are typically located near schoo ls, parks, u rban villages, and downtown, where lower speed li mits can help enhance safety and reduce crash severity. Ad opt a more detailed , data-driven approach to setting speed limi ts for se lect corridors , including those on the High Injury Network. Utilizing a Safe Speed Study, assess current speeds, roadway characteristics, and safety data to estab lish appropriate speed limits that enhance safety and reduce crash risk. The City will develop a Safe Spe eds Policy and Methodology that integrates these three key tools to gu ide 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 guida nce for staff and private developers on setting safe speed limits when des igning new roads, expa nding existing roadways , or extending current corridors . I 44 MANAGING TRUCK TRAFFIC Fort Worth, when compared to severa l other larger cities in the state, such as Austin, Dallas , El Paso, Houston and San Antonio, has the highest share of freight trips among all trips and highest share of crashes that involve large trucks. Un surprisingly, 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 eva luation, the foll owing issues were identified and actions are recommended. A full review of truck and commercia l vehicle policies and detailed recommendations can be found in Appendix E. DOWNTOWN INSET ► ISSUES • The City's existing truck routes as designated by the truck traffic ordinance do not capture all high freight volume corridors • Short-distance 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 faci lities 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 truck routes to better ali gn freight movement with industrial growth and safety objectives • Implement no-trucking zones in residential areas and areas sens itive to freight traffic • Introduce additional regulations on truck parking & loading zones • Identify high-need locations for truck parking and utilize public-private partnerships to expand truck parking solutions across the city • Implement technology-driven freight traffic management, such as adaptive signal control and 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 0 1 2mi 1-+++-l ~ 2050 4b ,·ooLE DESIGN I 45 ~II PRIORITIZING SPECIFIC PROJECTS -,IL- The City of Fo rt Worth has developed a prioritization framework to identify high- impact locatio ns 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 eva luates locations and projects based on four key categories : • CRASH HISTORY • ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS • LAND USE CONTEXT • SOCIAL VULNERABILITY A detailed description of the prioritization framework, along with the top 50 roadway segments and t op 30 intersections, is ava ilabl e in Appendix F. Among the top 15 ranked roadways, ten corridors (shown on the map to t h e ri ght) were se lec ted for a more in-depth roadway safety assessment and capital project recommendations. Detailed information on the roadway safety assessments , project recommendation s for each corridor, and how the benefits and costs were calcu lated can be found in AppendixG. ,J I L')(' fr, llJ Comdor ID -COni<lor 0 smiA 1----t--+---+------l W I 46 2 .5 PRIORITIZING SPECIFIC PROJECTS Based on field observations and crash data analysis , both corridor- wide countermeasu res 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 PSCi were recommended where they cou ld provide meaningful safety benefits based on the corridor's crash profile. Each proposed countermeasure includes a suggested implementation timeframe to support project execution. BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS A benefit-cost ana lysis (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 cras hes 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 engineerin g) and ongoing maintenance over 20 years . Cost estimates, based on City bid ta b data , are presented in 2025 dollars . ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ROADWAY Ellis Ave Sharondale St NW 14th St S Beach St Evans Ave NW 26th St Pennsylvania Ave W Seminary Dr Mark Iv Pkwy Sycamore School Rd ,---------, I I • FROM NW 21st St 6th Ave N Main St AveH E Morningside Dr N M ain St/ Stockyards Blvd E Pennsylvania Ave / S Main St 6th Ave Meac ham Blvd South Fwy Sr Nb • TO NW 28th St James Ave Gou ld Ave Mitchell Blvd E Berry St Angle Ave / Refugio Ave 8th Ave Rector Ave Crossover Ramp W Everman Pkwy D-:l! ~ !Ll FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Residential Residential Residential Major Arterial Major Arterial Residential Minor Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Minor Arterial • Jti.iii HIN MODE Pedestrian, Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Motor Veh icle Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Pede strian, Motor Vehicle Bicycle, Pedestrian Motor vehicle, Commercial motor vehicle, Motorcycle Bicycle, Pedestrian, Motor vehicle ~- 2050 ~ BENEFIT COST RATIO 16.29 22.07 48.08 17.04 5.54 6.69 30.90 35.82 18.26 26.56 I 47 CONTEXT This is a minor arterial in the Historic Stockyards District, lined with residential properties and commercial developments. The roadway has 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- 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 5% Other Modes ···95% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 33%· • Pedestrian 33% Motor Vehicle • 33% Bicycle TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 139 CRASH LOCATION 22%·· Mid-block KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • Angle Crashes C, One Motor Vehicle Crashes • • Failed to Yield Right of Way -Stop Sign FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 3 78% Intersection Driver Inattention • KSI • NON -KSI CRAS HES CRASHES NW 28TH STREET NW2nt-lSTR£ET t.fW26TH STREET NW 25TH STREET W EXa-tANGE AVE NW 23RO:STREEl NW 22ND STREET NW21STSTREET ... ::, • z ... -~ V, :::; • .;J >---+--<.,.. ~ SIGNALS &LANES I I I SIDEWALK SPEED LIMIT 2,530 ►• VEHICLES PER DAY I 48 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL BENEFIT/ ~~ :~ C "d A ~W•- COST RATIO , -orri or ccess 9 Crosswalk Visibility CONSTRUCTION -· : , Management Enhancements ~: COST MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS lnst;ill high v1s1h1l1ty crosswc1lks. curb extensions, and inst.,11 a sidewalk on the ea,t side of Ellis Ave I-v, I-v, ...... N ~ z Install h1gh-v1sib1l1ty crosswalks, curb extensions, and median crossing island I-v, 0 z N N ~ z I- Vl 0 0:: M N ~ z Recommend elin1inating parking at intersection if property gets redeveloped, install lighting. ,:md wayfinding signage SEGMENT INTERSECTION TOTAL ~ I- w Vl t:J :I: z I- <( U") J: N u ~ X z w s:: ELLIS AVENUE Install h1gh-v1sib1l1ty crosswalks, curb extensions. Reconstruct wider sidewalks, and install lighting 22.78 BENEFITS PROJECT COST $57 ,280,000 $2,676,600 SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM LONGTERM (0-2YEARS) (2-SYEARS) (S+YEARS) $4,140 $817,108 $0 $31,828 $461,700 $70,000 $35,968 $1,278,808 $70,000 Install high-visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, median crossing island. install curb ra,nps, and w.:iyf111ding signage I-Vl :I: I- '() N ~ z I- ~~ ZI- " Install high-visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, create sidewalk green buffer, insbll lighting, ;ind w;:iyfinding signagc N 0 I- V') J: 1- CX) N ~ z 500 ft CONTEXT This is a residential corridor with a two-lane roadway and unmarked on-street parking on both sides . There are no sidewalks , and no posted 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. The corridor is part of the Bicycle High Injury Network (HIN). TOTAL CRASHES 9% Other Modes ···91% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 50%·· Motor Vehicle ···50% Bicycle TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 22 CRASH LOCATION 36% Mid-block KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • Same Direction Crashes VIS I I~ ZE BHi • Angle Crashes A Driver V Inattention FATAL&SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 2 64% Intersection • KSI • NON·KSI CRASHES CRASHES JAMESAVt. S61HAVE t;; • UJ ex ~ V, UJ ...J <( 0 z 0 E0NEVST ex <( I V, HAMSTEDST . • ,__ ____ --t250fl 6 SIGNALS & LANES -- -- SIDEWALK SPEED LIMIT VEH IC LES PEROAY I so CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ~ W.lkway, -·· 9 Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS IJ.J ~ V'l IJ.J ~ <( ..., • Install curb ramps, install stop bars, install curb extensions and restrict parking in advance of crosswalk Install curb ramps. install stop bars. install curb extensions. reconstruct sidewalks to provide buffer 1- l/l Q IJ.J t:; ~ <( :c FINAL BENEFIT/ 22.07 COST RATIO Bicycle Lanes CONSTRUCTION SHORT TERM COST (0-2YEARS) SEGMENT $0 INTERSECTION $2,100 TOTAL $2,100 Install curb ramps. install stop bars. install curb extensions. restrict parking in advance of crosswa lk. extend sidewalks and add curb ramps t:; >-w z Q UJ SHARONDALE STREET 0 BENEFITS $16 ,880,000 MEDIUM TERM (2-SYEARS) $194,738 $168,000 $362,738 PROJECT COST $764,900 LONGTERM (5+YEARS) $0 $0 $0 Install curb ramps, install stop bars. install curb extensions UJ ~ :::c I-'° V'l 500 ft CONTEXT This corridor is a residential street with some commercial use near its northeastern section. Rufino M endoza Elementary School is located at the southwest end of the corridor. The roadway has two lanes with unmarked on-street parking and a speed limit of 30 mph. Sidewalks are present on both sides but are not continuous along the entire corridor. Pavem ent width ranges from 28 to 34 feet, with a right-of-way of approximately 60 to 80 feet. The corridor is part of the Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN). TOTAL CRASHES 10% Other Modes Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 100%·· Pedestrian TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 21 CRASH LOCATION 14%·· Mid-block KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • Ang le Crashes C, One Motor Vehicle Crash es e Fa iled to Yield Right of Way -Stop Sig n FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 2 Intersection Driver Inattention • KS I • NON·KSI CRASHES CRASHES NMAINST .. ELLIS AVE N 1-IOUSTON ST CLINTON AVE LEE AVE CIRCLE PARK BLVD CIRCLE PARK BLVD LINCOlNAVE GOULOAVf. t:; UJ "' . .... VI J: .... ~ .... VI UJ ~ . ~ 0 z 1----------1''"" ~ SIGNALS & LANES I I SIDEWALK l30I ~ SPEED LIMIT 314 ►• VE HICL ES PE R DAY I 52 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS 8 t Crosswalk Bicycle Pavement Visibility Enhancements Marking ~Yhl"- MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS w ~ 0 ..J :::> 8 Install new high-visibility crossw;ilk. m;irk new stop b;ir, install new sidewalk w ~ z ..J 8 z ::::; 0 0 ~ ~ co m ::i::: ::i::: 0::: c::: ~ ~ w w ..J ..J u u c::: c::: 0 0 FINAL BENEFIT/ COST RATIO Speed CONSTRUCTION Management COST SEGMENT INTERSECTION TOTAL Install new curb ramps, install new sidewalk, install/upgrade lighting w ~ z ~ z ::J u NORTHWEST 14TH STREET lnst;ill new h1gh-visihility crosswalk curb extensions Install school crossing signs l11st.11l new curb r.1mps, high-v1sib1ilty crosswalk, median crossing island, and RRFB w ~ w w ..J 48.08 BENEFITS $66,020,000 SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM (0 ·2YEARS) (2-SYEARS) $6,000 $337,456 $25 ,330 $221,400 $31,330 $558,856 I- Vl z 0 I-V) :::> 0 J: z 0 PROJECT COST $1 ,373,000 LONGTERM (S+YEARS) $0 $0 $0 Install new curb ramps. new h1gh-v1s1bilitv crosswalks, install curb Pxtensions, install lighting I- Vl w z ~ ;a: V) ~ ::::; ..J z w Install new high-visibility crosswalk, curb ramp, curb extensions, sidewalk, and lighting 500 ft CONTEXT This is a major arterial with Sycamore Park and Polytechnic Senior High School located just north of the study area . The roadway has four to five lanes with a median between Avenue I and Mitchell Boulevard. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides, and the corridor is designated as a commercial delivery route. Pavement width ranges from 62 to 83 feet, including the median , with a ri ght-of-way of approximately 92 to 115 feet. T he corridor is part of the Motor Vehicle High Injury Network (HIN). TOTAL CRASHES 100% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 71% .. Motor Vehicle ""29% Motorcycle TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 66 CRASH LOCATION 15% .. Mid-block KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 7 Intersection • Angle Cras hes • Opposite Direction Crashes A Driver w Inattention • Disregard Stop And Go Signal S I • ZERH I • ~~SHES • ~~~~! ~-.st\4V~\-\ • .... .., .., "' .... u, :,: ~ 0) :,: .... :, 0 u, l-----+----<250ft C> SIGNALS &lANES SIDEWALK SPEED LIM IT 10 ,088 ► e VEHICLES PER DAY I 54 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL BENEFIT/ 8 • COST RATIO Median Refuge Roadway Speed CONSTRUCTION Island Reconfiguration Management COST 1ti111 ~~·--t SEGMENT Bicycle Lanes INTERSECTION TOTAL MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Install high-v1sib1lity crosswalks LUI Li ramps, co11sol1dale dnveways, and construct sidewalk lnst;ill h1gh-vis1bility crosswalks cu rb Pxtensions. median crossing island, install RRFB. pedestrian refuge island, curb ramps, and other crossing treatments 0 17.04 BENEFITS PROJECT COST $20,060,000 $1,177,100 SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM LONGTERM (0-2YEARS) (2-SYEARS) (S+YEARS) $400 $205 ,506 $0 $44,918 $128,700 $77,000 $45,318 $334,206 $77,000 500 ft CONTEXT This is a minor arterial lined with residential properties and medium- scale commercial developments. The roadway has continuous sidewalks on both sides throughout the corridor, with a pavement width of 45 to 48 feet and a right-of-way of approximately 80 feet. Morningside 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). TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 94 FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 2 TOTAL CRASHES FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES CRASH LOCATION 2% Other Modes ······98% Motor Vehicle KEY CRASH TYPES • Angle Crashes • Opposite Direction Crashes 20%· .. , Mid-block • KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS A Driver v Inattention ........... 80% Intersection Failed To Yield Right of Way - Turning Lett EAST MORNINGSIDE DR I• JUDO ST EAST CANTEY ST GLEN GARDEN OR . r . LU ::, z LU EA5Tl0\VDEN ST ~ • V\ z -~ LU BAKERST @ wreowiEsr I • VlCKI LN EAST BERRY ST ... SIGNALS &LANES SIDEWALK 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT 5,034 ► e VEHICLES PER DAY I 56 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ~~ :~ Corridor Access 8 Crosswalk Visibility ~, -· Management Enhancements ~: ~¥hi-t Bicycle Lanes MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Consider consolid;it,ng driveways near intersccl:lon Recommend widening the curb ramp to align with crosswalk I- Vl >-0::: 0::: LI.I Cl LI.I High-visibility crosswalk reconstruct/widen sidewalk on eastern side LI.I z ::5 S2 u 5 Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. high visibility crosswalk; Reconstruct/widen sidewalk I- V, LI.I ~ 0 Cl LI.I FINAL BENEFIT/ 5.54 BENEFITS COST RATIO $18 ,840,000 Speed CONSTRUCTION Management COST I-V, 0::: LI.I ~ <! Cl ' SEGMENT INTERSECTION TOTAL Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. mark crosswalks and reconstruct sidewalks I-V, z LI.I Cl ~ 0 ..J LI.I 0:: Cl z LI.I Cl 0:: <! l!) z LI.I ..J l!) EVANS AVENUE Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . mark crosswalks. and reconstruct sidewalks to be wider SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM (0-2YEARS) (2-SYEARS) $0 $731,577 $157,085 $263,790 $157,085 $995,367 Install new high-visibility crosswalks. install new sidewalk; Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps I- V, >-LI.I I-z < u LI.I 0 t:; Cl Cl ::, ...., PROJECT COST $3,401,300 LONGTERM (S+YEARS) $0 $0 $0 0::: Cl LU Cl i7i C) z z 0::: 0 ~ LI.I Install curb extensions. LPI. install traffic calming measures; Reconstruct or repair sidewalk 500 ft CONTEXT This corridor is a residential street with commercial use at its eastern end . It intersects with Ellis Avenue at Rodeo Par k and terminates in the Historic Stoc kyards District. The roadway consists of two lanes in residential areas and expands to four lanes in commercial sections, with unmarked on-street park ing. 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 approx imately 68 feet. This corridor is on the pedestrian HIN due to crash freque ncy-six pedestrian -involved crashes from 2019-2023-even though none were fatal or severe inj ury crash . TOTAL CRASHES 16% Other Modes ······84% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 0% Pedestrian 0% Motor Vehicle 0% Bicycle 0% Motorcycle TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 43 CRASH LOCATION 19%···; Mid-block KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS - • Angle Crashes Same Direction Crashes A Driver V Inattention FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 0 Intersection Speeding REFUGIO AVE PROSPECT AVE . LEE AVE t;; "' c,: ... Ill J: ... ,0 N ROSS AVE ... Ill "' ~ :x: ... c,: 0 z .. O.INTONAVE N HOUSTON ST ELLIS AVE .... NMAINST _____ __,soo11 & SIGNALS & LANES I I I SIDEWALK ~ H SPEED LIMIT NA ►• VEHICLES PEROAV I 58 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Crosswalk t Bicycle Lanes ~ Walkw.,y, Visibility Enhancements MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Install new curb ramp, new high-visibility crosswalks, and new sidewalks I.LI ~ I.LI w ...I lmtall new high-visibility uosswalks, traffic calming elements, and advanced warning signs, repair curb ramps FINAL BENEFIT/ 6.69 COST RATIO CONSTRUCTION SHORT TERM COST (0·2YEARS) SEGMENT $0 INTERSECTION $24,510 TOTAL $24,510 Install new curb ramp, new high-visibility crosswalks.upgrade lighting, traffic calming elements, and advanced warning signs I.LI I.LI NORTHWEST 26TH STREET I- ~ ~ VI z 0 I-w 0 l5 u ~ I-UJ w VI :::::, C. ~ :::::, LL. Vl z 0 w 0 VI ~ ::i::: 0:: 0:: Vl C. 0 z z 0:: :::; u BENEFITS $10,400,000 MEDIUM TERM (2·5YEARS) $93,298 $216,600 $309,898 w ~ VI ::i ...I w D PROJECT COST $1,553,700 LONGTERM (S+YEARS) $335,138 $0 $335,138 Install LPI, reconstruct 01 repair existing curb ramp, install curb extensions 500 ft CONTEXT This is a minor arterial primarily lined with commercial uses , with a large medical campus-including Cook Children's Medical Center and Harris Method ist 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 interm ittent directional bi ke lanes and features continuous sidewalks on both sides . A Tr inity Metro bus route serves the corridor. Pavement w idth 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 3%·· Other Modes Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 67%--· Motor Vehicle TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 124 CRASH LOCATION 18%· Mid-block KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • Angle Crashes • . ' Opposite Direction Crashes A Driver V Inattention FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 6 82% Intersection Failed To Yield Right of Way - Turning left • KSI • NON ·KSI CRASHES CRASHES ... 8THAVE : SSUMMITAVE TTHAVE S BALLINGER ST 6fHAVE S HEN0[RSON ST COLLEGEAVE ALSTON ST HEMPHILL ST GRAINGER ST S JENNINGS AVE SAJNT LOUIS AVE SMAINST . . I . ... SLAKE ST "' :, z . "' ~ • <t z . ~ i':i z z "' a. 0 rril SIGNA LS &.LANES e SIDEWALK 1351 ~ SPEED LIM IT 12,250 ► e VEHICLES PER DAV I 60 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ~~ :~ 8 • ~, Corridor Access Crosswalk Visibility -· Management Enhancements ~: 11111,1 ~~·--· Bicycle Lanes MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS lnstal high-visibility crosswalks, proh1b1t right turn on red LLI ~ :r: I-co Install m,w high-visibility crosswalks, install median crossing island, and sidewalk Upgrade RRFB LLI FINAL BENEFIT/ 30.9 COST RATIO Roadway CONSTRUCTION SHORT TERM Reconfiguration COST (0·2YEARS) SEGMENT $0 INTERSECTION $596,726 TOTAL $596,726 I-I- V) V) -I co ::! ~ :r: 0 Q. u ~ a. LLI :r: lJ.J ~ ~ :::c I- I.I') I- V) PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE tn :r: ~ Consolidate driveways, and provide an accessible pede.,,tnan route LIJ ~ :c to z 0 V) IX LIJ 0 z lJ.J :::c V) Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps, implement LPI. install curb radius reduction, huffered hike l,me LLI ~ w ~ -I -I 0 u 1- Vl z ~ ...J <t w ~ Vl ~ I- Implement LPI install curb extensions, widen sidewalk, LOn~truLl new curb rdmµ'.:t 0:: LLI l:l z ~ l:l lJ.J ~ Vl l:l z z z w ..... V) BENEFITS $109,940,000 MEDIUM TERM (2·5YEARS) $505 ,616 $56,904 $562,520 lJ.J ~ z ~ V) LLI ::i <t I.!) PROJECT COST $3,558,400 LONGTERM (S+YEARS) $0 $231 ,000 $231,000 Install LPL remark existing crosswalk with high-visibility markings I- V) z <i: ~ Install new high-visibi l ity crossw;ilks. curh r;imps, install curb extensions 0 500 ft CONTEXT This is a major arterial with residential uses and key destinations such as Rosemont Middle School , Rosemont Park , and Southwestern Bapti st Theological Seminary on its eastern end . An at-grade railroad crossing is located between William Fleming Court and Frazier Avenue . The 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 Bi cycle HIN . TOTAL CRASHES 3% Other Modes ···97% Motor Veh icle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 9%··: """18% Bicycle Pedestria n :-·9% u Mmo-1, 64% Motor Vehicle TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 176 CRASH LOCATION 44%··· M id-block KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • Same Direction Crashes • Angle Crashes A Driver V Inattention FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 11 Intersection • 6THAVE ROSEMONT PARK • • JAMES AV£ WILUAt,1 FLEMING CT ! FRAZIERAVE MCCART AVE SANDAGE AVE LUBBOCK AVE WAITS AVE RECTORAVC >-----+------<1.000 h ~ SIGNALS &lANES I I SIDEWALK SPEED LIMIT 13,948 ► e 12 ,770 ► e VEHICLES PEROAY I 62 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL BENEFIT/ 8 COST RATIO Crosswalk .. Roadway Speed Visibility CONSTRUCTION Reconfiguration Management Enhancements 1gg1 COST ~ Walkway, -· SEGMENT Bicycle Lanes INTERSECTION TOTAL MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS uJ ~ °' 12 ~ a:: Install curb ramps, new h1gh-vis1b1l1ty crosswalks, install median crossing islands and RRFlls. Upgrade l1ght111g Install curb ramps, new high visibility crossw;ilks, install sidewalk, and consolid.:itc driveways uJ ~ uJ ~ z ;';i Repair sidewalks, and install ADA complbnt crossing WEST SEMINARY DRIVE 35.82 BENEFITS $164,000,000 SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM (0-2YEARS) (2-SYEARS) $223,029 $147,840 $221 ,964 $466,088 $444,993 $613 ,928 PROJECT COST $4,578,300 LONGTERM (S+YEARS) $0 $0 $0 Install curb ramps, new high-visibility crosswalks. and auto recall pedestrian signal CONTEXT This is a major arterial primarily lined with industrial uses , including distribution centers for USPS , FedE x Freight, DHL, and Amazon. The roadway consists of four to six lanes with a grass median featuring curb breaks at major driveways. The median varies in width, with mostly 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 righ t-of-way of approximately 120 to 124 feet. The corridor is part of the Motor Vehicle High Injury Network (HIN), Commercial Motor Vehicle HIN, and Motorcycle HIN. TOTAL CRASHES 100% Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 17% Motor Vehicle · ... ·67% Motorcycle TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 208 CRASH LOCATION FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES ···81% Intersection 6 KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • Opposite Direction Crashes Sarne Direction Crashes Driver Inattention A V Failed To Yi el d Right of Way - Turning Left CANTRELL SANSOM RD • ; NE LOOP820 JIM WRIGHT FREEWAY . ;, ~'I.·•· . NE LOOP SERVICE RD &- PROVIDENCE OR GREAT SW PARKWAY FRANKLIN OR MEACHAM BLVD • • NEPAAKWAV :, . .. .. 1---1----<l,OOO lt (?) SIGNALS & LANES I p I I I SI DEWALK l40I 10,668 ► e ~ SPEED LIMIT VEH ICLES PEROAY I 64 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ~r :~ @ !, Corridor Access 8 CrosswalkVisibility -· Management Enhancements "11111 : ~ Walkway, MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Add turn lane striping and signage Add a stop bar on Franklin Drive 0:: 0 z ::::; :::.::: z Install h1gh-v1sibll1ty crosswalks, curb ramps pedestrian pushbuttons. signals, and new sidewalk 0:: 0 LU u z UJ 0 Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes FINAL BENEFIT/ COST RATIO CONSTRUCTION COST SEGMENT INTERSECTION TOTAL 0 ex: UJ u ~ UJ U') C. 0 9 18.26 BENEFITS $92,480,000 SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM (0·2YEARS) $2,910 $5,764 $8,674 (2-SYEARS) $78 ,095 $32,072 $110,167 Install high-visibility crosswalks, curb ramps, LPI, median crossing island. and wider sidewalk ~ u.. @ MARK IV PARKWAY UJ z Install h1gh-v1s1bil1ty crosswalks, curb ramps. LPI, med1.1n crossing island. and wider sidewalk C. Install S' minimum sidewalk with buffer along bndge, vehicular travel lanes may be shifted 820 • Install new, ADA compli;mt curb ramps ;rnc1 h1gh-v1s1h1lrty crossw;ilks, and new shared-use path 0 N co a. 0 g UJ z PROJECT COST $5 ,063,400 LONGTERM 0 (S+YEARS) $1 ,406,637 $150,000 $1,556,637 ~ 0 Vl z ~ ...10 ...I 0:: UJ 0:: 1-z 5 500 ft CONTEXT This is a residential minor arterial with some commercial use . Hallm ark Par k is located midway between the Sycamore Creek bridge and an at- grade railroad crossing. The roadway has four lanes and is designated as a commercial delivery route . Sidewalks are intermittent, with one on the south side extending to the creek and another on the north side from H em ph ill 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 Motor Vehicle FATAL & SEVERE CRASHES 15% Pedestrian 62% Motor Vehicle ·15% Motorcycle TOTAL CRASHES (2019-2023) 292 CRASH LOCATION 46%·· Mid-block KEY CRASH TYPES KEY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • Opposite Direction Crashes • Mgle Crashes • -Driver Inattention FATAL & SEVERE INJURY CRASHES 13 54% Intersection SOUTH FREEWAY . SHERIDAN RO (i) I I ROCKDALE RD NATAllEOR TRIMBLE DR t HALLMARK PARK I i I 0 < 0 "' ..I 0 0 J: u V1 w "' 0 ~ i3 > V1 {;J MEMPH1LL Sl . • PE80LEFORO RO : . MARLOOROUGfl OR NOVELLA OR ,._ ___ _,1.ooof, 6 SIGNALS & LANES I I SIOEWAl.K 1351 ~ SPEED LI MIT 16.0 16 ► e VEHlctES PER DAY I 66 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Crosswalk • Roadway Visibility Reconfiguration Enhancements 11n11 ~Yh--· Bicycle Lanes MAP OF INTERSECTION SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Install curb ramps , new h1gh-visib11ity crosswalks, increase pedestrian crossing time, install sidewalk, and consolidate driveways c::: a ::5 -' UJ ~ z Install stop bar, Improve drainage, install sidewalk Install curb ramps, new high-visibility crosswalks auto recall pedestrian signal, install sidewalk, install speed feedback signs, reduce speed limit Cl c::: Cl c::: 0 LL UJ ..J co co UJ C. FINAL BENEFIT/ 26.56 COST RATIO Speed CONSTRUCTION Management COST SEGMENT INTERSECTION TOTAL Install curb ramps, new high-visibility crosswalks, auto recall pedestrian signa l, install sidewalk r: c::: a LU -' c:J :E SHORT TERM (0·2YEARS) $50,160 $29,160 $79,320 In stall curb ramps, new high-visibility crosswalks, install sidewalk c::: a LU ::::; ~ 22 <l'. z I- SYCAMORE SCHOOL ROAD 1- Vl .,J .,J i 0. ~ UJ J: BENEFITS PROJECT COST $128,960,000 $4,854,600 MEDIUM TERM (2·5YEARS) $1,424,844 $269,960 $1,694,804 LONGTERM (S+YEARS) $0 $0 $0 In sta ll curb ramps, new high-visibility crosswalks, auto recall pedestrian signal 0 ~ ~ UJ c::: LL V') 500 ft ► SYSTEMIC RECOMMENDATIONS Systemic safety countermeasures are low-cost, scalable solutions that can be applied broadly across a roadway network. In Fort Worth, these treatments should be implemented citywide with minimal need for site-specific analysis . Rather than relying solely on crash history or focusing only on the High Injury Network (HIN), a systemic approach enables proactive intervention based on recurring design features and risk factors. This effort identifies and deploys systemic countermeasures across Fort Worth's street network, aim in g for strategic, data-driven safety improvements that address both documented hi gh -risk locations and areas with potential for severe cras hes. METHODOLOGY The analysis began by identifying crash profiles linked to the highest share of Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) incidents. insights from Fort Worth's State of Safety Report was integra t ed. Other notabl e crash patterns that pose significa nt risks despite lower severity are also considered . For each profile, appropria te countermeasures were selected primarily from the FHWA's Proven Safety Counterm easures list and supplemented with be st practices from peer cities. These were adapted to Fort W orth's local context, modal priorities, and street typologies. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Pedestrian Refuge Islands RECOMMENDED SYSTEMIC SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES -FHWA PROVEN SAFETY TARGETING CRASH TYPES COUNTERMEASURES ADDITIONAL COUNTERMEASURES PEDESTRIAN Pedestrian Crashes at Dark, Unlighted Locations Pedestr ian Crashes on Roadways with Speed Limits of 35 or 40 mph Pedestrian Crashes on High-Volume Roadways (AA DT • 30,000) Pedestrian Crashes at Transit Stops/Bus Stops left Turn Motor Vehicle vs. Pedestria n Crashes (Signa lized, 2+ lanes per direction) Bicycle Crashes with Motor Vehicles on Roadways with Speed Limits of 35 mph or more • Roadway Lighting • Pede strian Hybrid Bea cons (PHBs) • Crosswalk V isibility Enhancements • Lane Reconfigurations • Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LP ls) • Pedestrian Refuge Islands • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RR FB ) • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) • Pedestrian Refuge Islands • Ro adway Li gh ting • Walkways/Paved Shoulders • Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements/ Enhanced lighting/Illumination Pedestrian Crashes at Transit Stops/ Bus Stop • Separated Bike La nes • Lane Reconfiguration • LB I/LPI at signalized intersections • Intersection Daylighting • Reflective Signage and Pavem ent Markings • Overhead flashing beacons at midblock crossings • Raised crosswa lks • Reduced Speed Limit Zones • Enhanced Enforcement • Curb ex tensions • Ped estrian crossing signage with flashing beacons • Dynamic speed display signs • Grade Separated Crossings (w here AADT ~ 40,000) • Access Management • Dynamic speed display signs • Turn restrictions • Transit stop relocation or consolidation • Raised crosswalks and curb extensions near stops • Tran sit is land platforms with protected access • Raised crosswa lks or pedestrian refuge is lands • Advanced signage • Signal countdown timers • Protected left turn phasing • Bicycle Signa l Heads at intersections • High Visibility Bike lane Markings • Buffered bike lanes • Protected intersections ~- 2050 I 68 In tersection Daylig hting Separated Bike Lanes Back plates with Retroreflective Borders R cuts o r Median Uturn Prot ected Intersectio n Vari able Speed Limit Chevron Sig ns fo r En hanced Delinea tio n RECOMMENDED SYSTEMIC SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES MODE TARGETING CRASH TYPES FHWA PROVEN SAFETY ADDITIONAL COUNTERMEASURES COUNTERMEASURES MOTOR- CYCLE MIXED MODE Motorcycle Crashes at Dark, Un lighted Roadways with AADT a 40,000 Motorcycle Angle Crashes at Intersections Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes on Roadways with Speed Limits i!: 60 mph and AADT a 40,000 Motor Vehicle Single-Vehicle Crashes on Two-Lane Roadways Motor vehicles Run Off Road Crashes on Curved Rura l Two Lane Roads Motor Vehicle Angle/ Left Turn Crashes at Signalized Intersections (2+ approach lanes) Unsigna lized Intersections Involving Motor Vehicle Angle Collisions Crashes at Railroad Cross ings (Vehicle or Pedestrian) • Roadway Lighting/ill umination • Enhanced Delineation and Friction for Horizontal Curves • High Friction Surface Treatments • Motorcycle Specific Warning Signs • Advanced curve warning systems • Centerline and edge line rumble strips • Improved helmet and safety gear awareness signage • Roundabouts • Flashing ye llow arrows for left turns • Backplates with Retroreflective Borders • Intersection Lighting • Variab le Speed Limits (VSLs) • Access Management • Pavement Friction Management • Enhanced curve delineation • W ider Edge Lines • Pavement Friction Management • Enhanced curve delineation • R cuts or Median Uturn • Dedicated l eft Turn lanes • Roundabout • Systemic low Cost Countermeasures combination See FHWA Website for details • R cuts or Median U-turn • Access Management • Enhanced lighting/illumination • High visibility signa l backplates • Intersection advance warning signs • Truck cl imbing lanes • Enhanced signage for commercial vehicles • Ramp metering systems • Runaway truck ramps • Dedicated freight lanes • Shoulder and centerline rumb le strips • Clear zone hazard remova l and roadside barriers • Enhanced lighting/illumination • Sho ulder and centerline rumb le strips • Clear zone hazard remova l and roadside barriers • Enhanced lighting/ill umination • Signa l phasing with protected left turn arrows • Stop control upgrades (e .g-all way stops) • Enhanced sight distance • Flashing warning beacons or intersection rumble strips • Install Traffic Signa l (if warrants are met) • Anti-Trespass Panels • Gates, flashing lights, bells per FRA standards • Fencing to direct safe crossings • Enhanced signage and pavement markings ~- 2050 I 69 SYSTEMIC VERSATILITY OF COUNTERMEASURES To maximize citywide impact, each countermeasure was also assessed for its broader ap plicability beyond its associated crash profile. Th is enab les Fort Worth to add ress current sa fety issues while anticipating future risks as roadway conditions, trave l behav iors, and crash tren ds evolve. The table o n the right summarizes these v ersa tile applications, supporting a proactive, sca lab le , and resilient safety strategy for the city. Tran sit Island Dynamic Speed Sign Motorcycle W arning Sign Crosswa lk Visibility Enhancement Anti Trespass ing Panel for Rail Road Crossing Tru ck Climb Lane VI SI I ZERH I FHWA COUNTERMEASURES CONSIDERED OTHER CRASH TYPES CAN BE ADDRESS ROADWAY LIGHTING PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACONS (PHBS) CROSSWALK VISI BILITY ENHANCEMENTS LANE RECONF I· GURATIONS LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVA LS (LPIS) PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS SEPARATED BIKE LANES ENHANCED DELINEATION AND FRICTION FOR HORIZONTAL CURVES R CUTS OR MEDIAN UTURN • w Motorcycle crashes at dark. unlighted locations Midblock pedestri an crashes ==--- ♦ *a II I T.f\, ~ II w Crashes involving turning vehicles at crosswalks Rear end crashes from left turning vehicles Turn in g vehicle vs. pedestrian crashes at signa lized intersections Pedestrian crashes on multilane roads Bicycle-motor vehicle sideswipe and overtaking crashes Lane departure crashes on curves Head-on and angle crashes at uncontrolled median openings Pedestrian crashes at signalized intersections Pedestrian crashes on mu ltilane roads Nighttime pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks Angle crashes at driveways and min or streets Crashes where pedestrians are hit in crosswalks by vehicles turning right or left Crashes where pedestrians misjudge gaps in traffic Bicycle crashes at high-speed corridors Nighttime crashes at rural horizontal curves High-speed left-turn crashes on divided highways Vehicle pedestrian crashes during dawn/ dusk hours Crashes involving yielding conflicts at uncontrolled crossi ngs Pedestrian crashes at uncontrolled intersections or midblock locations Speed related crashes in urban settings/ commercial districts Conflicts in high pedestrian activity zones Elderly or slower- moving pedestrian crashes Conflicts at intersections involving right-turning vehicles Wet weather single- vehicle crashes Rear-end crashes from delayed left-turn movements Nighttime rear end and ang le crashes Pedestrian crashes near transit stops Bicycle crashes due to lack of latera l separation Multi-threat crashes involving pedestrians crossing multiple lanes ~- Crashes at intersections with high left-turn volumes and limited gaps 2050 I 70 ► VISION ZERO EDUCATION CAMPAIGN Fort Worth's Vision Zero educational campaign is a multi-faceted initiative aimed at improving safety for everyone on the city's streets. The campaign materials are designed to: • Introduce the Vision Zero concept and raise awareness that Fort Worth is a Vision Zero city • Promote real and perceived safety for people walking and biking • Highlight the most common crash-c ausing behaviors and encourage safer choices • Deliver inclusive messaging that resonates with residents of all ages, abilities, races , and backgrounds CAMPAIGN TOOLKIT CONTENT To ensure residents encounter Vision Zero messaging in their daily lives, the Fort Worth Vision Zero education campaign uses a multifaceted approach . The toolkit includes: • Branding -A consistent visual identity, including the Fort Worth Vision Zero logo and color palettes • Social Media Strategy -Pre -designed graphics, suggested text, and a release schedule to maintai n an active online presence • Campaign Kits -Ready-to-use materials for community pop-up events and neighborhood outreach, usable by City staff, community groups, and neighborhood associations • Radio Resources -Audio messages designed for broadcast to expand audience reach • Vision Zero Safety Video -A concise , engaging video that explains the Vision Zero initiative and promotes key safety messages V $1 I ZERR ! ~- 2050 Exam ple of Vision Zero Edu ca tion Campaign Pamphlet I 71 ► VISION ZERO EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TARGET AUDIENCE This education campaign and toolkit, identified as a priority in the Vis ion Zero Safety Action Plan, is designed to reach a broad and diverse audience, including: • The general public • People walking, biking, driving, or using micromobility • Older adults • K-12 students • Non-English-speaking residents • Residents across different neighborhoods Campaign toolkit materials is t ailored to engage these groups in accessible , relevant settings-such as schools , neighborhoods, community events, and social media-using messages that are clear, appealing, and culturally appropriate. Ex am pl e of Vision Zero Education Campaign Yard Signs -cltyoffortworth 93 ~204 146 Posts Followe rs Followin g City of Fort Wonh Sma lt + might y city of 1M ne ghbors. Working towa rds sa rer streets fo r all. Join us at the Vision Zero link bek>w! https://mov ingam imo n·cfw.hub.arcgis .com/ ZERGl SAF ETY YOU R VOICE . Messag e YOUR VOICE SAFETY e..<.ll!!lli . ' •,ll, GH 645 Likes cityoffortworth No matter t he time of day, you r saf et y matters . Li ght up , speak up , and hel p shape safe r streets for everyon e-w het he r wa lking, roll in g, or ridi ng. Let's bui ld a Fort Worth w here everyo ne ge t s home sa fely. #Vi sio nZeroFW #Yo urVo iceMa tters #Safe Streets ForAII #BeSee nStay Saf e https://movin ga mil lion-cfw.hu b.arcgis .co m / Exa mple of Vision Zero Educ ation Campaign So cia l Media Content ~- 2050 I 72 �MIY'A' .• t*"...s _'.fit fi;. 00 MOVING"" FORWARD ► IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES .1.i, * 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. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS Qu ick bu il d projects can be used to demonst rate t he potentia l of roadway improvements in a re latively fas t an d cost-effective way. While typica ll y lim ited to temporary "paint and plastic" type projects, t hese ini tiatives ca n still have an immediate impact on roadway user sa f ety. Due to th ei r typica ll y low cos t , t hese kinds of pro j ects ca n be used for commu nities to experience and exp lore desig ns before they become pe rm anent, crea ting not on ly an engageme nt opportu nity, but likely a better end design. And by including co mmunity members in their design, de monstration projects can also serve as a motivational tool for alternative commuting modes. In Fort W orth, fo r exam pl e, us i ng paint and temporary materials to create bul b-outs (curb extensio ns) to slo w veh icle speeds and shorten pedestrian crossing dista nces at key intersec ti ons cou ld be use d to demo nstrate how t hese kinds of safety treatment ca n be effective at achi eving easy wins. CAPITAL PROJECTS Th ese are larger proj ects that serve the long-t erm goa ls of a Safety Action Pla n. Therefo re, costs are higher, and more design and planning are requi red. W hile quick build project s focus on temporary measures, capita l projects are permane nt cha nges to the roadway. Cap ita l projects may be forme r q uick build insta llations t hat have proved to be effective in improving safety and are ready for long term implementation. Typica l examp les include traffic calmi ng, enhanced pedestria n li ghting, or bike lane insta ll ation. Capita l projects can he lp con nect Vis ion Zero projects with other rea lms of enhanced trans portation like transit. POLICY ACTIONS AND TOOLS Changes to policy re qu ire enabling legis lation or local ordinance to support the implementation of specific decisions or actions. Policy changes can be used to establi sh perma nent guideli nes in which the city wi ll fo llow as it implements infrastructure improvements. Improving policies forVRUs (vu lne rab le road use rs) can be as simple as eva luating loca l codes regardi ng sidewa lks or jaywa lking. More expansive po licies, such as a citywide Comp lete Street s Policy, will require the institutionalization of its approach , such as retraining engineers, plan ners, and project managers. Policy tools can also be used for the prioritization of underinvested and underserved communities, a vital element of any Safety Action Pl an or approach to achieving Vision Zero. + ~- 2050 COMMUNITY EDUCATION Safe streets in part rely on user behav ior, which is influenced by a user's understanding of the transportation system in which they are participating. Knowledge of traffic safety issues and thei r cou nte rmeasures equips commun ities with an awareness of the network arou nd them and all ows for more va luable 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. I 74 ► FUNDING STRATEGIES FEDERAL FUNDING Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Th e SS4A grant is an annua l funding opportunity from the Federal Highway Administration that supports improv ing roadway sa f ety for all users by reducing or eliminating serious-injury and fata l crashes . It requires the development and implementation of a comprehensive safety plan, such as a Safety Action Pl an or a Vision Zero Plan. The grant provides funding for planning, demonstration, and implementation grant s. 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 so me project using Transportation Development Credits (TDCs). Th e City of Fort Worth has app li ed TDCs in the past and may do so in the future to help meet the fund ing needs for implementing the actions and projects identified in this plan. STATE FUNDING Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Texas 's Highway Safety Improvement Pl an (HS IP), directed by the Strategic Highway Safety Pl an (SHSP), ai ms to red uce traffic fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads. It provides a st andardized approach for ide ntifying and reviewing specific traffic safety concerns throughout the state. Program fu nds are eligible to cover up to 90 percent of project construction costs . HSIP funds are only eli gible to cove r co nstruction costs. Traffic Safety Grant via NHTSA NHTSA awards grants for occupant protection, state traffic safety information systems, impaired driving countermeasu res , distracted driving, motorcyclist safety, sta t e graduated driver licensing laws , and non-motorized safety. Funds are awarded to the state and admi nistered through TxDOT. TxDOT Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) TxDOT TAP provides funds for loca ll y sponsored bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the state. TxDOTTAP has four different project categories that decide eligibility and funding amounts: community-based , large scale, network enhancements, and non-infrastructure. All req uire a loca l 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 wou ld li ke to implement over the life of the plan . Projects and programs may only be included in the MTP if f unding exists or can be id en tified for thei r implementation. The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) lies w ith in the greater MTP. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Th e NCTCOG and TxDOT, along with local governments and transportation agencies , develop a new Tl P 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 four years of funded transportation projects within the long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan. NCTCOGTAP Fort Worth is al so eligible to apply for TAP funds through NCTCOG. Approximately $50 million in TA federal funds will be available to award eligible projects whic h may inclu de Safe Routes to School Planning; Safe Routes to School Infrastructure; Shared-Use Paths (trails); On-street Bikeways; Sidewalks, Crosswalks and Curb Ramps; Sidewa lks and Bikeways to Transit; Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Countenmeasures and Tech nol ogy; and Protected Intersections, according to the 2025 NCTCOG TA Program Ca ll for Proj ects. 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 goa l to increase mobility, 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 capita l 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 sou rce for GO bond payments is property taxes , which are generated eac h year based on the tax rate adopted by the City Counci l. GO bonds can only be used to fund the projects authorized in the ~- 2050 propositions approved by the voters. These projects 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 outstand ing. 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. Th e genera l 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 developmen t or re-deve lopme nt. I 75 ► TRANSPARENCY/ MEASURING PROGRESS METRIC OF SUCCESS Measuring progress toward Vision Zero is cruci al for mainta ining a data-driven approach to road safety. Regular monitoring and reporting enhance transparency, accountability, and decision-making, helping to identify wh ich strategies are most effective. Analyzing trends allows the city to refine its approach-expanding successfu l in itiatives 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 inju ries -and outputs, including the number and percentage of safety projects implemented, especially along the High-Injury Network (HIN). Th ese insights ensu re resources are directed toward the most impactful safety imp rovements. BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE CITY'S STATE OF SAFETY Th e 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 avai lab le. Regular updates will help the public understand local safety trends and enab le the City to mon itor and track crash patterns over time. To enhance access ibili ty, key safety data shou ld be presented through an onllne dashboard, providing the public with an easy-to-use platform for reviewing and ana lyzing safety trends. MAINTAIN AND UPDATE ONLINE SAFETY RESOURCES Th e City wi ll publish this Safety Action Plan on its Vision Zero (VZ) webpage and the Safety Action Plan website. As safety strategies are imp lemented and progress is made toward Vi sion Zero, the City will continue sharing important updates, such as t he annual safety report, on these platforms. These online resources will be actively maintained and incorporated into safety campaigns to estab lish them as the p rimary sources for transportation sa f ety information. THE FOLLOWING METRICS WILL BE TRACKED ANNUALLY TO GAUGE PROGRESS TOWARDS VISION ZERO: • Number of traffic fatalities and severe injuries w ith in the re gion, 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. ~- • Number of safety or street re construction projects with multimodal facilities, especially along the HIN. • Number of safety projects on roadways adjacent to vulnerable commun ities. • Mil es 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 withi n the region by roadway functional classification and med ian 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. 2050 I 76 E O PRZ RTH N O � O x •• APPENDIX A Documentation of Current Policies, Programs, and Regulations fORTWORTH --.....-- 2 050 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Review of Relevant Areas ............................................................................................................ 2 Vision Zero Resolution No. 5149-11-2019 ......................................................................................................... 2 Active Transportation Pl an ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Master Thoroughfare Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Complete Streets Policy ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Fort Worth City Code of Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 9 Tran sportation Managem ent Programs-Maintenance, Safety, and Op erations .................................... 11 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Page ii Introduction The City of Fort Worth's commitment to improving the safety and efficiency of its transportation systems has led to the development of the Safety Action Plan (SAP). The purpose of this review is to identify existing policies, regulations , plans , practices , and programs supporting traffic safety in the City of Fort Worth. In coordination with the city, the project team reviewed relevant documents , including the Vision Zero Resolution, Active Transportation Plan (ATP), Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP), Complete Streets Policy, Fort Worth City Code of Ordinances, and Transportation Management Program Areas. The review focused on the key components relevant to traffic safety, the alignment with Vision Zero , and the identification of potential areas for updates and/or implications for SAP development. This review will help the city better understand traffic safety related policies , planning , and implementation, and will serve as a reference document when developing strategies and actions as part of the SAP or other citywide safety initiatives. Specifically, this policy review focused on the City's current practices in safety planning and implementation. This includes an overview of policy frameworks, identification of potential policy gaps , and areas for improvement in both new policies and the implementation of existing policies. By incorporating the takeaways from the policy review into recommendation development, along with data- informed analysis and public and stakeholder involvement, the SAP will create a holistic effort to identify and develop actionable recommendations. Review Areas • Vision Zero Resolution No. 5149 -11-2019 • ATP • MTP • Complete Streets Policy • Fort Worth City Code of Ordinances , Chapter 22: Motor Vehicles and Traffic {particularly Bicycles, Pedestrians , and Truck Traffic) • Transportation Management Program Areas-Maintenance and Operations f0RTW0RTH ~ 2050 Page 1 Review of Relevant Areas For this section of the report, various documents were reviewed to understand the city 's previous and ongoing safety efforts, identify potential gaps , and highlight are as for improvements to support the development of the SAP. Vision Zero Resolution No. 5149-11-2019 Vision Zero is a strategy to elimin ate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries through policies and regulations that prioritize safe , multimodal streets. Based on the Vision Zero Network, a Vision Zero Community meets the following minimum criteria: • A clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries has been set. • The mayor has publicly, officially committed to Vision Zero . • A Vision Zero plan or strategy is in place , or the mayor has committed to a clear time frame for doing so . • Key departments (including transportation , public health, and the mayo rs' offices) are leading Vision Zero ; this has not been a requirement for receiving SS4A implementation funds , but it is likely to become one in the future . Unlike traditional road safety policies, Vision Zero acknowledges that traffic fatalities and severe injuries are not accidents but preventable events. Its goals are to eliminate traffic fatal ities and serious injuries and increase safe , healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Vision Zero proactively targets and uses a risk-based systematic approach to build a safer road system. Rather than focusing solely on individual behavior-such as enforcing speed limits or driver education-Vision Zero takes a broader, systems -based approach . It acknowledges that the responsibility for safety extends across the entire transportation ecosystem , encompassing ro ad design , policymaking, and enforcement strategies that ensure safe outcomes for all road users. Many states , metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). cities , and counties have adopted Vision Zero. The Te xas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has a "Road to Zero " goal of reducing the number of deaths on Texas roadways to zero by 2050. To track progress towards the statewide transportation goals, TxDOT has established performance measures and targets related to promoting safety, including annual fatalities and fatality rate . At the regional level , the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) supports the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) vision , f 0 RT W0 RTII ---..,--- 2050 Page 2 focusing on eliminating fatalities and serious injuries across all modes of travel. The NCTCOG's regional Roadway Safety Plan sets a goal to eliminate all fatalities on their roadways by 2050. The City of Fort Worth adopted its Vision Zero Policy Resolution 1 in 2019. The resolution supports a Vision Zero strategy to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the City of Fort Worth. City of Fort Worth was designated by the Federal Highway Administration as a Pedestrian Safety Focus City due to its high pedestrian fatality rate . Prior to this designation , the city already made significant efforts to improve safety through the Bike Fort Worth Plan, Safety Passing Ordinance , Walk Fort Worth Plan , Complete Streets Policies , and ATP, but the Vision Zero Resolution represents a formal commitment to support the development of a Vision Zero- based strategy. While Fort Worth 's Vision Zero resolution outlines key commitments, there are areas for enhancement. Although Vision Zero pol icies vary among different cities , some of the key elements include safe system approach, community engagement, designing and maintaining roads to prioritize the safety of all road users , using data analysis to understand trends, managing speed for safe travel , and setting a clear timeline to achieve zero traffic deaths and serious injuries . As part of the Vision Zero SAP process, the following areas have been identified as potential updates to the ordinance : • Setting a clear timeline for achieving the Vision Zero goal; • Prioritizing safe speeds; • Strengthening public engagement, particularly in underserved neighborhoods and the communities most impacted by traffic violence; • Including clear metrics and responsibilities across city departments ; and • Ensuring regular reporting and public transparency . Active Transportation Plan The Fort Worth ATP 2 , adopted in April 2019, serves as an update to the 2010 Bike Fort Worth Plan and the 2014 Walk Fort Worth Plan, and it is Fort Worth's first-ever citywide trails master plan. The ATP provides a shared vision for active transportation priorities and a comprehensive 1 City of Fort Worth, Vision Zero Resolution, accessed May 31, 2024, vision-zero-resolution5149-11-2019.pdf (fortworthtexas.gov). 2 City of Fort Worth. (2020). City of Fort Worth Active Transportation Plan. https://www.fortworthtexas.gov/files/assets/ public /v /1 /tpw /documents /atp /active-tranport-plan.pdf. FORT WORTH ----..-- 2050 Pa ge 3 framework for implementation. It identifies the priority infrastructure network for citywide and regional active transportation travel , emphasizing on local , short trips and connections to transit. It also includes policy recommendations, performance measures to guide investments and accountability, and prioritized project lists with cost opinions. The ATP calls for a connected All Ages and Abilities network for pedestrians, bicyclists, and trail and transit users. It accomplishes this through analysis , network planning , and design guidance. Walking conditions were analyzed using a Pedestrian Experience Index (PEI) developed specifically for the ATP, and bicycling conditions were analyzed using a Level of Traffic Stress analysis based on nationally accepted best practices. The results of these analyses-which identify more and less comfortable blocks and intersections-informed the development of the ATP's recommendations for the network design through project identification and prioritization. The ATP Facility Selection Guide provides procedures for selecting an appropriate bicycle facility for users of All Ages and Abilities based on traffic volumes, lanes , and motor vehicle speeds. The ATP projects were scored and ranked through the ATP prioritization process in the pedestrian , bicycle, and trails networks. Prioritization factors (as seen in Table 1) were derived from project goals and stakeholder input, including social vulnerability, spine trail, connectivity, demand, crash history, comfort, stakeholder input, funding, and feasibility . Tabl e 1. Prioritization Factors for ATP Proj ects Prioritization Factors Social vulnerability Spine trail Crash history Comfort Stakeholder input Description Majority minority area , low-income populations , population of people with disabilities On a spine network alignment Intersection with existing bikeway or trail Population density, employment density, transit stations/stops, trail heads, schools, and households without access to a motor vehicle Available crash record PEI or Level of Traffic Stress Interactive map priority fORTWORTH ~ 2050 Page4 Funding 20% funding from external sources Feasibility Evaluated through 30% design For the pedestrian network, sidewalk gaps in 20 locations were given top priorities, with Cedar Street/Cypress Street/East El Paso Street/East Presidio Street given #1 priority. Out of 20 locations, Rosedale Street from Main Street to Evans Avenue was given top priority for on-street bicycle projects. For trails, ATP recommended approximately 174 miles of trails , 94 river crossings, and 25 railroad crossings for the TEXRail Trail from Trinity River to TEXRail Mercantile Center Station (14,054 feet) as #1. In addition to project prioritization , 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. Specifically, the top policies that are most relevant to the SAP are detailed in the table below. Tabl e 2 . Policy Framework Top Safety Related Policies Subject Coordinated Connected Safe and Comfortable Policy Implement the Complete Streets Implementation Plan to ensure interdepartmental and interagency coordination during project scoping and consideration of all users and modes, connected travel networks, and nearby land uses. Continue to prioritize opportunities that create a complete transportation network that provides connected facilities to serve all people and modes of travel now and in the future. Use project selection criteria that support Complete Streets projects. Develop traffic signal timing and actuation along transit, bicycle, and heavy pedestrian use areas. Implementers Transportation/Pub 1 to 2 lie Works, Planning years and Development (P&D) Transportation/ Ongoing Public Works, P&D Transportation/ 2 to 3 Public Works, years P&D, Park and Recreation F0RTW0RTH ----.--- 2050 Page 5 Equitable Community Awareness and Culture Funding infrastructure standards for all infrastructure types in th e active transportation network. Achieve the sidewalk condition and gap-filling targets established in the Race and Culture Task Force final report. Continue to educate the public on safe behavior and interaction on th e roads betwee n all road users , including people walking, bicycling, using transit, and driving. Continue to coordinate with school districts to create and implement Safe Routes to School plans . Public Works y ears Transportation / 5 years Public Works, P&D P&D, Fort Worth 1to 2 Police Department ye ars Transportation/ Ongoing Public Works The City of Fort Worth Transportation and Public Works Department is the administrator and primary implementer of the ATP. Fiscal Year 2020 was the first year that Transportation and Public Works had a funded sidewalk program designed to support ATP implementation. The sidewalk program , which began with a budget of $742,000 increased to $3,000,000 by Fiscal Year 2025, including a 28% set-aside for Trinity Metro bus pad replacements and new installations. Between FY 20 and FY 24, the City has installed approximately 15 miles of new sidewalks , 80% (12 miles) of which are located in majority minority areas and 23 % (3.45 miles) of which provide transit facility connections. The City and its departments continue to coordinate between regional and community organizations , develop policies and implementation plans, establish accessibility and equality in projects, encourage active transportation promoting programs, and continue community education regarding active transportation. Master Thoroughfare Plan The current MTP was adopted by the Fort Worth City Council in May 2016 and updated in November 2020. Another MTP update is currently underway as part of the M1M Master Transportation Plan development effort. The MTP vision statement is to "provide a complete and FORT WORTH ---...----- 2050 Page 6 connected, context-sensitive transportation system for all users that supports mobility, healthy living and economic benefit," supported by three goals-Mobility, Safety, and Opportunity. For Mobility, the MTP includes a network of thoroughfares to provide citywide transportation connectivity and capacity. For Safety, the MTP includes street cross sections that encourage moderate automobile speeds and provide safe accommodations for non-motorized transportation modes . For Opportunity, the MTP includes future transportation facilities serving planned growth areas. The MTP is grounded in the "Complete Streets" idea that supports all transportation users placing an increased emphasis on active transportation (walking and cycling) compared to previous plans. The MTP's Complete Streets approach to active transportation is two-pronged: 1. Providing basic connectivity and accessibility by including accessible active transportation elements in each street cross section with an eye toward building a citywide network. 2. Focusing on safety and comfort by narrowing street widths wherever possible (to facilitate pedestrian crossings), buffering people walking and biking from automobile traffic where appropriate, and providing space for streetscape elements (such as trees) to calm traffic and provide a more comfortable user experience. The MTP sets "Complete Streets" as the ultimate goal for street types. All street cross sections in the MTP are intended to include some level of bicycle access, whether on-street or off-street. In general, the preference of the ATP-and therefore, the MTP-is to accommodate bicyclists off- street (using a side path/shared-use path) wherever possible. The exception for areas with higher driveway density and low to moderate motorized vehicle volumes and speeds would be buffered bike lanes . Additionally, the assignment for bicycle facility types using the Typical Section Selection flow chart is suggested. The MTP incorporates the concept of target speed-the speed at which the road designer intends for motorists to travel. Target speed has become an important element of a Complete Streets and Safe Systems approach to roadway design . This approach attempts to control vehicle speeds by means beyond horizontal and vertical curvature, most notably, via lane widths and vertical elements (such as street trees). Target speeds in the MTP are set to no lower than 25 miles per hour. The default target speed should be used in the design of all roadway elements , including horizontal and vertical curvature, and should ultimately be the posted speed limit. fORTWORTH ~ 2050 Page 7 All activity street sections and many of the commerce/mixed-use street sections include on- street parking. Automobile lanes need to be wide enough to safely carry not only passenger cars but buses, trucks , and emergency vehicles as well. However, excessive widths can encourage excessive speeds. Thus, the MTP strives for a balance that harmonizes both mobility and safety. The default lane width in the MTP is 11 feet, with exceptions . Complete Streets Policy The City's Complete Streets Policy was adopted in May 2016 together with the MTP. Its vision is to "provide a safe , accessible, complete, connected , comfortable , efficient, and community- oriented transportation system for all people that supports mobility options, healthy living, and economic benefit." This policy is applicable to all development and redevelopment in the public domain within the City of Fort Worth. The policy states that the city shall adopt design standards using the best and last standards based on Texas Accessibility Standards , the ADA, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). These guidelines include but are not limited to the Fort Worth Master Thoroughfare Plan , /TE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach; AASHTO Guide for Planning , Designing and Operating Pedestrian Facilities , and AASHTO Guide for Designing Bicycle Facilities. Other design standards may be considered as long as a comparable level of safety for all travel modes is present. The policy recommended some performance measures for the success of the Complete Streets Policy, including reductions in injuries, fatalities, and transportation gaps . Other measures included improved emergency services response times, impacts and benefits for traditionally disadvantaged communities , increased usage of alternative transportation modes , reduction in obesity-related illnesses , and economic performance of transportation investments. To implement the policy, the city will incorporate the 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 . Lastly, the policy emphasizes the importance of including an education component to ensure that all people using the transportation system understand and can safely utilize Complete Streets project elements. f0RTW0RTH ---.......--- 2050 Page 8 To help the City of Fort Worth develop actionable strategies as part of the Vision Zero SAP process , the following areas have been identified as potential policy gaps and areas for further implementation related to the Complete Streets Policy: • Need to better understand how the Complete Streets Policy has been implemented in project selection and development. • The current policy lacks a clear implementation timeline, specific strategies for community engagement, and details on how to effectively involve residents in the planning process, as well as mechanisms for feedback and participation. • Additionally, the policy does not outline collaborative strategies between departments, such as regular meetings or joint initiatives involving transportation, public health, and urban planning. • Funding is also unclear, with no guidance on how financial resources will be allocated for successful project implementation. • Social vulnerability considerations are inadequately addressed , lacking clear guidelines on prioritizing safety improvements in underserved neighborhoods and actively involving marginalized communities in decision -making. Fort Worth City Code of Ordinances The City of Fort Worth Ordinance, Chapter 22 3 covers the regulations related to motor vehicles and traffic. This chapter of the city ordinances highlights general traffic rules; truck traffic; operation of vehicles; accidents ; 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. Article VII : Bicycles This ordinance, adopted in 2002, regulates several key elements of bicycle operation . It mandated the use of reflectors from 7:00 pm to 5:00 am , required the use of a proper seat and helmet, and prohibited cyclists from attaching themselves to moving vehicles or riding in a reckless manner. This ordinance updated previous regulations that addressed similar regulations. The current ordinance is generally supportive of Vision Zero. However, since the ordinance was adopted before the concept of Vision Zero was recognized and implemented in the US, it does 3 American Lega l Pub li shing. (n.d.). Fort Worth Ci ty Code of Ordinances: Chapter 22: Motor Vehicles and Traffic . https: //code lib rary.amlegal.com / codes /fuvorth /latest /fuvorth t x /0-0-0-28259 . F0RTW0RTH ---...,....--- 2050 Page 9 not specifically or adequately address safety issues related to vulnerable road users including bicyclists and pedestrians . Despite accounting for only 4% of total crashes, crashes that involved pedestrian, bicyclist and motorcyclist are overrepresented in KSI crashes ; they accounted for more than 34% of KSI crashes during 2019-2023 in Fort Worth. We recommend exploring the vulnerable road user crash patterns (e.g., using CRIS's Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) attribution) along with the Bicycle High Injury Network (HIN) findings to better understand the leading contributing factors for bicycle crashes. Conducting further analysis of bicycle crash contributing factors will help pinpoint the issues that the ordinance could be amended to address more adequately. This approach is likely to gain more support from leadership and residents, preparing for council adoption. Regardless of contributing factors, providing sufficient space for bicyclists , separate from motorized traffic, is one of the primary countermeasures to improve bicyclist safety. Based on best practice, some potential updates could include enhanced lighting in areas where bicyclists frequently ride at night, adding separated bike lanes when streets are reconstructed 4 , and specific infrastructure requirements such as bike parking spaces and bike rack standards .5 If separate lanes or paths cannot be provided, then it is important to consider whether speed limits should be lower so that overtaking motorists have sufficient sight distance and time to react to any bicyclist ahead. One related ordinance that has been passed by the City of Fort Worth is the Safe Passing Ordinance (No. 19570-03-2011), which establishes minimum separation distance when motorized vehicles are passing vulnerable road uses. Article VIII: Pedestrians The original pedestrian ordinance is from the 1964 code. It supported pedestrian safety by establishing the right-of-way for pedestrians and vehicles, including that drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks under certain circumstances (if traffic-control devices are absent and pedestrians are on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling), and pedestrians must yield to vehicles if crossing outside crosswalks. A significant update was made in 2001, 4 City of Cambridge. Cycling Safety Ordinan ce. https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation /policiesordinancesandplan%20s /cyclingsa%20fetyordinance 5 City of St. Lou is. Ordinance 69 148. https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/governrnent/city- laws /ordinances/ ordinance.cfm?ord=69148 f0RTW0 RTH --...,..--- 2050 Page 10 adding provisions prohibiting solicitation on or near roadways . The provision stated that no person shall stand on or near a roadway to solicit rides , employment, business , art, or offer to watch or guard parked vehicles. We recommend similar steps to further understand the contributor factors related to pedestrian crashes, pinpoint HIN locations , using a data-informed approach (e.g., a city-wide streets and intersection pedestrian safety study) to develop specific areas for amendments. Based on research and best practice, some potential updates could include pedestrian infrastructure requirements such as using high-visibility crosswalks, improving street lighting, requiring the use of pedestrian refuge when crossing the road, and reducing conflicts between pedestrian and drivers on roadways with high volumes of traffic or high -speed limits. Article IV: Truck Traffic The truck traffic ordinance was passed in different sections around the 1980s. This article includes provisions for designated truck and commercial delivery routes, restrictions on hazardous materials transportation , limits on vehicle dimensions and weight, and permits for overweight or oversized vehicles under special conditions . 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. Transportation Management Programs-Maintenance, Safety, and Operations The City of Fort Worth Transportation and Public Works Department has six divisions : 1) Transportation Management, 2) Regional Transportation and Innovation , 3) Stormwater Management 4) Street and Stormwater Operations 5) Capital Delivery, and 6) Business Support. Transportation Management (TM) has primary responsibility for traffic operations and safety initiatives within the department. The division performs citywide maintenance of streetlights , traffic signals and signs , fulfills utility locate 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 f0RTWORTH ---...,...,--- 2050 Page 11 and O perations , Right-of-W ay M anagement and receives all customer traffic safety requests for the city. In Fiscal Year 2024, the division received 26,397 service requests across all assets. Transportation Management has key performance indicators for every service request type . However, existing performance indicators measure team response times and the di vi sion's abi lity to meet targets for asset maintenance rather than progress toward the V ision Zero goal. 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. Figure 1 shows the map with serv ice request the City received in fisca l year 2024 overlaid with the overall H IN. About 11% of service requests fa lli ng in the 100 ft buffer zone of H IN locations , as shown in Table 3. This is double the percentage of HIN mi leage among the roadway network which is about 6.3 %. In particular, issues related to Pavement Marking, New Signs and Increased Traffic/Traffic Calming are the top issue types along HIN locations . Their share along HIN is higher than the i r share at all locations, indicating a potential correlation between these issues and safety risks at HIN locations. Table 3: Summary of Service Request Issues and their alignment with HIN Issue Types Increased Traffic / Traffic Calming New Crosswalk / Pavement Marki ngs New ERB New Guardrail New Sidewalk New Sign New Warning Lights Parking Restrictions Pavement Marking Issue School Safety Traffic Safety / Speeding Total Issues within 100ft Buffer of HIN # % 46 11 4% 0 0% 3 1% 15 5% 70 5 16 90 9 3% 14 5% 279 100% Percentage of Total Number of Total Issues Issues % # 7% 679 13 % 82 0% 22 19 % 16 7% 213 11% 640 16% 31 11 % 146 18% 507 7% 122 12 % 113 11% 2571 FORT WORTH ----....,.--- 205 0 Page 12 r--;-"\_ 'L . Q . ' , - I .. ... ~-~ • ~~t,.,, . ..... , , • ._ •/t ~ ~ .Po • "o ' ' r---------- -< Ju I w::L-1 1 Overall High I njury Network VUE Works Issue Types Pavement Marl<ing Issue I New Guardrail I New ERB l I Figure 1: Service Requests Overlay with HIN New Sidewa lk Traffic Safety / Speed ing New Crosswa lk / Pavement Markings New warning Lights Parl<lng Restrictions 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I FORT WORTH --..,.--- 2050 -----,r _..L School Safety New Sign Increased Traffic / Traffic Ca lming ~ mi (t} 1·010LE qes1GN .., ,,,. r•...,.. ,, )' "' .,, Page 13 Summary In summary, Fort Worth 's transportation safety-related policies display promising potential for cultivating safer streets. Most policies and programs align well with Vision Zero's safety objectives. Road safety policies and programs implemented by the city demonstrate its commitment to Vision Zero principles. While recognizing these strengths, our an alysis underscores the need for concerted action and strategic investment to fully realize Vision Zero's objectives and safeguard the well-being of all road users . Moving forward , Fort Worth can leverage its existing initiatives to establish a more cohesive and effective transportation safety framework focusing on: • Clearly establishing timelines and efficiently allocating resources to meet safety goals . • Enhancing coordination among stakeholders for streamlined implementation and strengthening community engagement efforts to instill a culture of safety and responsibility. • Implementing proactive safety measures using data-driven methods and the Safe System Approach. • Exploring innovative advanced technologies such as traffic data analysis tools , smart infrastructure, and emergency response systems to improve safety and efficiency. • Addressing issues faced by vulnerable road users through infrastructure improvements and awareness campaigns. • Assuring that all residents have access to safe and efficient transportation options , regardless of socioeconomic background or mode of transportation. • Tracking and developing key performance indicators to measure progress . FORT WORTH ----.--- 2050 Page 14 References City of Fort Worth . (2016). Complete Streets Policy. https:/ /www.fortworthtexas.gov /files /assets / public /v /1/tpw/documents /adopted -complete -streets-policy.pdf. City of Fort Worth . (2019). Vision Zero Resolution No. 5149 -11-2019. https://www.fortworth te xas.gov /files /assets /public /v /1/tpw / documents /vision -zero-resolution5149 -11-2019 .pdf. City of Fort Worth. (2019). Active Transportation Plan implementation . https:/ /www.fortworth texas.gov / depa rtments/tpw / atp. City of Fort Worth. (2022). Roadway Safety Assessments . (Utilized City of Fort Worth High Injury Network Corridor Evaluation Report ; no link available). City of Fort Worth. (2023). Fort Worth Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22 Motor Vehicles and Traffic. https:/ / codelibrary.a mlegal.com / codes /ftworth/latest/ftworth_tx /0-0-0-237 49. City of Fort Worth . (2023). Fort Worth Code of Ordinances , Chapter 30 Streets and Sidewalks. https:/ / cod eli bra ry .a m lega I .com / codes /ftworth/latest/ftworth _ tx /0 -0 -0 -2825 9. City of Fort Worth . (2014). Walk Fort Worth . https://www.fortworthtexas.gov/departments/ tpw/walkfw#:~:text=The %20Walk!,thanks %20to%20increased %20physica1 %20activity. City of Fort Worth. (2009). Bike Fort Worth. https://www.fortworthtexas.gov /fil es/assets / public /v /1/tpw/documents/bik e-fort-worth -final.pdf . City of Fort Worth . (2019). City of Fort Worth Vision Zero . https:/ /www.fortworthtexas .gov/ departments /tpw /services /vision -ze ro#:~:te xt=Vision %20Zero%20is %20an %20internationally,is %20forgiving%20of%20human %20error. City of Fort Worth. (2023). City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan . https:/ /www.fortworth texas.gov /departments/the-fwlab/planning/comprehensiveplan City of Austin Budget Office. FY 2024 Budget. https://financeonline.austintexas.gov /afo /afo _ content.cfm ?s= 1. Seattle Department of Transportation . (2023). Se attle Transportation Funding . https://se attle.gov/ transportation / a bout-us/funding . Seattle Department of Transportation . (2024). Seattle Transportation Plan . https:/ /seattle .gov/ documents /Departments /SOOT /STP /Feb2024/STP _at_a_ Glance _ 02_2024.pdf. Seattle Department of Transportation. (2024). Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan . https://www. seattle.gov /opcd /ongoing-initiatives/seattle -2035-comprehensive-plan. City Budget Office , Seattl e. (2022-2027). 2022-2027 Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP). https:/ / www.seattl e.gov/ city-budget-office / ca pita 1-i mp rovement-progra m-a rch ives/2022-2027 -proposed-ci p. Seattle Department of Tran sportation. (2024). Vision Zero. https:/ /seattle.gov /transportation / projects-and-programs / safety -ti rst/vision -zero. f 0 RTW0 RTH ---.,...----- 2050 Page 15 •• APPENDIXB State of Safety Report Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................................................ 3 Crash Trends and Patterns .............................................................................................................. 5 Cras hes by Yea r ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Injury Sev e rity ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Crash es by Mode .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Commerc ial Motor V e hicl e and Large Truck-Involved Cra shes ................................................................................................. 9 Cra shes by Ro adway Owne rship ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Parties Involve d ................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Soci al Vuln e rability Ind ex .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 3 Cras h Cau sation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Behaviors ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 9 Road way Ch arac t eri sti cs ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 3 En v ironmental Ch a racte ri stics ......................................................................................................................................................... 37 High Injury Network ...................................................................................................................... 46 Slidin g Windows An alysis M ethodology ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Hig h Injury N etwork D evelopm ent ................................................................................................................................................ 47 Appendix A: Crash Data Preparation ......................................................................................... 50 Appendix B: Spatial Data Consolidation .................................................................................... 54 Appendix C: Crash Maps ............................................................................................................... 57 Appendix D: HIN Maps .................................................................................................................. 64 Appendix E: Crash Rate and HIN ................................................................................................. 71 List of Abbreviations AADT ACS CMV CRIS DUI FHWA HIN KABCOU KSI LRS OSM SHSP TX TxDOT VMT VRU Annual Average Daily Traffic American Community Survey Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Records Information System Driving Under the Influence Federal Highway Administration High Injury Network Injury Severity Scale (Texas): K: Fatal injury A: Suspected incapacitating injury B: Non-incapacitated injury C: Possible injury 0: Not injured U: Unknown Killed or Serious Injury Linear Referencing System OpenStreetMap Strategic Highway Safety Plan Texas Texas Department of Transportation Vehicle Miles Traveled Vulnerable Road User includes Pedestrian and Bicyclist f0RTW0RTH -...,....-- 2050 2 Introduction This State of Safety Report summarizes the results of the crash data analysis conducted as part of the Fort Worth Vision Zero Safety Action Plan (SAP) development process . The focus of this SAP is to develop a holistic, well-defined strategy to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries within the City of Fort Worth, Te xas. This report includes the descriptive crash data analysis that identifies trends, patterns, and key factors from the latest 5-year crash data , as well as the high injury network (HIN) developed based on these historical crash data. This report helps create a picture of the existing safety conditions within Fort Worth. It helps pinpoint the city's traffic safety needs and gaps and will serve as a foundation for other components of the SAP, such as countermeasure selection and strategy identification . Summary of Key Findings This section summarizes key findings from the descriptive crash data analysis. Overall Crash Trends and Patterns • Number of Crashes: In total , 68 ,936 crashes happened within the City of Fort Worth between 2019 and 2023. Out of these , 2 ,589 of them resulted in death (533) or serious injury (2,056) • Crashes by Year: The year 2019 had the highest share of all crashes across the five years (21.5 % or 14,842 out of 68 ,936 total crashes), while 2022 had the highest share of KSI crashes (21 .6% or 562 out of 2 ,589 KSI crashes). The number of KSI crashes has been trending up since 2019 except for a small drop from 2022 to 2023. • Injury Severity: While most crashes in Fort Worth resulted in minor or no injuries , the city experienced an annual average of 107 crashes resulting in death and over 411 crashes resulting in serious injury. • Crashes by Mode: Vulnerable roadway user (i.e., bicyclists and pedestrians) crashes and motorcycle crashes are overrepresented in KSI crashes . Crashes involving pedestrians , bicyclists, and motorcyclists, accounted for less than 4% of the total crashes but made up 35 % of KSI crashes. FORT WORTH ---.,.--- 2050 3 • Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) or Large Truck-Involved Crashes: The City of Fort Worth exceeded the statewid e average percentage of CMV and large truck-involved crashes. This percentage is also much higher than other major Texas cities including Austin , Dallas , El Paso , Houston , and San Antonio . • On-System Crashes: Despite representing less than half of all crashes and one-third of VRU crashes , on-system roadways accounted for more than half of the KSI crashes , indicating that on-system road crashes were more likely to result in severe outcomes. • Parties Involved: Young adults aged 15 to 34 were most likely to be involved in a KSI crash. • Social Vulnerability: Over 34% of total crashes and more than 36% of KSI crashes occurred in areas with high social vulnerability. Combined medium -high and high vulnerability areas accounted for over 50% of both total crashes and KSI crashes. Crash Causation • Contributing Factors: The factors that most often contributed to all crashes and severe crashes were speeding and driver inattention or distraction. Crashes caused by pedestrians who failed to yield have the highest risk of resulting in a KSI outcome. • First Harmful Event: The most common crashes involved motor vehicle collisions with another moving vehicle , followed by collisions with fixed objects and parked cars . Vehicle collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists occurred less frequently but are more likely to be severe. Railroad crashes , despite being very rare , tend to be deadly as well. • Collision Manner: The top collision manners are vehicles going the same direction, crashes that involved only one vehicle , and angle crashes. More than half of the most severe crashes occurred as the result of the action of one motor vehicle . Behavior • The behaviors that contributed most to the KSI rate were speeding and distracted driving. • Speeding, driving under the influence, and not using safety restraints are more likely to cause severe outcomes. Roadway Characteristics • Intersections vs. Segments: Crashes occurred more often along segments (i.e ., away from intersections). Crashes at intersections were less likely to cause severe outcomes compared to those that occurred along roadway segments . f0RTW0RTH ---......----- 2 050 4 • Intersection Control: While less than half of VRU crashes occurred at signalized intersections, they are 25 % more likely to result in severe outcomes than those at unsignalized intersections. • Speed Limit, Functional Class, Traffic Volume, and Number of Lanes: Comparing their share of crashes and lane miles , roadways with higher speed limit, higher functional class , higher traffic volume , and larger number of lanes were overrepresented in crashes. This overrepresentation was even more pronounced in KSI crashes . Environmental Factors • Time of Day and Day of Week: KSI crashes were more likely to happen during early hours on weekdays and from late afternoon to late night on Fridays and the weekend . • Lighting Conditions: Crashes at night or when it was dark (whether lit or unlit) were more li kely to cause severe outcomes . Land Use Context • Transit Stop, School, and Park Approximation: More than half of crashes across all modes and an even higher percentage of VRU crashes occurred within a quarter mile of a transit stop and a half mile of a school and a park , highlighting the importance of improving safety in those areas , especially for VRUs. Crash Trends and Patterns The descriptive crash analysis provides an overview of factors and contexts that contributed to reported crashes on the Fort Worth road network from 2019 to 2023, including those resulting in killed and serious injury (KSI). The first part of this report presents descriptive statistics of those crashes stratified by various attributes such as injury severity, environmental conditions, behaviors , harmful events , and road user characteristics . The attributes examined in this report are also aligned with safety emphasis areas identified in TxDOT's 2022-2027 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)1. 1 TxDOT Strategic Hig hway Safety Plan 2022 -2027: https·//ftp dot.state tx us/pub/txdot-info/library/pubs/goy/shsp pdf fORTWORTH --.......-- 2050 5 The fo ll owing sections summar ize City of Fort W orth crash data from 2019 through 2023, and provide statistica l trends , tempora l patterns, crash se v erity, and modes . Crashes by Vear Figure 1 summarizes the number of crashes and crashes that resulted in KSI from 2019 through 2023. Du ring t hose fi v e years , there were 68,936 crashes , 2,589 of wh ich were KSI crashes . The overall KSI rate (i .e., the percentage of crashes resu lting in KSI) is about 3 .8 %. In 2019 the city saw the highest share of all crashes across t he five years (21.5% or 14,842 out of 68 ,936 total crashes), wh il e 2 022 had th e highest share of KSI crashes (21.6 % or 562 out of 2,589 KS I crashes), and the highest percentage of cras hes resulting in KSI (4 .2%). From 2022 t o 2023, the tota l number of crashes i ncreased and KS I crashes decreased slightly, but t he percentage of crashes resulting in KSI remained high (4 %). Total and KSI Crashes by Year 16 ,000 4 .2% 4.5% 4.0% 4.0% 14,000 4.0% 12 ,000 3.5% 3.0% 10 ,000 2.5% 8,000 2.0% 6,000 1.5 % 4,000 1.0 % 2,000 0.5 % 0 0.0 % 2019 2020 2021 2022 202 3 -Total Crashes -KS! Crashes % Crashes resulted in KS! Figure 1 : Total and KS/ Cra shes by Year, All Modes, 2019-2023 FORT WORTH -----,..-- 2050 6 Injury Severity Table 1 summarizes crashes by injury severity based on the highest level of injury reported to be sustained in the crash . In the five -year period from 2019 to 2023, a total of 533 crashes resulted in at least one death and 2,056 crashes resulted in at least one serious injury, accounting for about 3.8 % of all crashes. KSI crashes represent a small percentage of overall crashes, but they should be the focus of any safety effort, due to their severe consequences and the need to prevent debilitating injuries or loss of life. More details about the location of these crashes and the dynamics related to them will be described throughout this analysis. Table 1: Crashes by Injury Severity, All Modes, 2019-2023 Injury Severity # of Crashes % of Crashes Fatal injury (K) 533 0 .8 % Suspected serious injury (A) 2 ,056 3.0 % Suspected minor injury (B) 8 ,710 12.6 % Possible injury (C) 14,404 20.9 % No apparent injury (0) 40,110 58.2 % Unknown 3 ,123 4 .5% Total 68,936 100% Crashes by Mode Table 2 summarizes crashes by mode. Motor vehicle crashes accounted for 96 % of total crashes . This is expected as most trips in the United States are typically made by motor vehicle. Motorcycle crashes followed with roughly 1.9% of all crashes. Pedestrian crashes ranked third highest with roughly 1. 7 % of the total crashes , while bicycle crashes had the lowest crash share at 0.4%. FORT WORTH ---..,.-- 2050 7 Table 2: Crash es by Mode, 2019-2023 %of # of KSI % of KSI % Crashes Resulted Mode # of Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes in KSI Bicycle 292 0.4 % 49 1.9 % 16.8 % Pedestrian 1,174 1.7 % 465 18% 39.6 % Motorcycle 1,317 1.9 % 387 14.9% 29.4% Motor Vehicle 66 ,153 96% 1,688 65 .2 % 2.6 % Tota l 6 8,936 100% 2,589 100% 3.8% Despite accounting for only 4 % of total crashes , crashes that involved pedestrian , bicyclist and motorcyclist are overrepresented in KSI crashes; they accounted for more than 34% of KSI crashes (see Figure 2). Over one-third of pedestrian crashes, one -fourth of motorcycle crashes, and close to one-seventh of bicycle crashes resu lted in death or severe injury. 0 .4% % Share of Total Crash 96.0% • Bi cycle • Pedest ri an • Mot orcycle Mot or Vehicle 65.2% Figure 2: All crashes and KS/ Crashes by Mode, 2019-2023 1.9% %Share of KSI Crash FORT WO RTH --.......--- 2050 8 Commercial Motor Vehicle and Large Truck-Involved Crashes We examined the Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV)-involved Crashes and large truck-involved crashes 2 . The City of Fort Worth has a higher than statewide average percentage of CMV and large truck crashes , as shown in Figure 3 and Error! Reference source not found .. Compared to several peer cities, Fort Worth has the highest percentage of CMV and truck-involved crash es despite having the sixth-lowest total number of crashes , just below Austin. 12% 10% 8% 6 % 4% 2% 0% Percentage of CMV and Large Truck Crash es 9.0 % 8.6% State-wide Fort Worth Average 3.3% Austin 7.7 % 5.2% 4.8% Dallas El Paso ■ % of CMV Crashes ■ % of Large Truck Crashes Houston Figure 3: Percentag e of CMV and Large Truck Cra shes S.1 % 4.8% San Antonio However, when compared to these other cities in terms of CMV or Large Truck crashes per million commercial vehicle miles traveled (VMT), Fort Worth is the second lowest, only higher than the City of Austin , as shown in Table 3. The results depicted in Figure 3 and Table 3 in combination show that despite not having a higher large truck crash rate considering the amount of freight vehicle movements within the City, when compared to crashes involving other modes , larg e truck-involved crashes in Fort 'CMV crashed are identified directly using the CMV flag in CRI S d ata, wh i le l arge truck crashes are identif ied based on vehicle body type. Any crash invo lves a ve hi cle w ith a body type of truck tractor o r sem i-tra i ler, as defin ed i n TxDOT SHSP. f0RTW0RTH ---..---- 2 050 9 Worth hav e a hi gher shar e than th at in the oth e r cities and the statewid e average . City of Fort Worth also has th e high est share of Fr eight tri ps among all trips. Table 3: CMV and Large Truck Crashes per Freight VMT Statewide Fort San Austin Dallas El Paso Houston Average Worth Antonio Total Crashes 2,70 5,2 97 68 ,936 65 ,747 169,629 76,8 40 328,787 195 ,8 98 CMVCrashes 187,594 6,193 1,711 13,0 73 3,9 59 17 ,782 9,930 % of CMV-lnvolved 6.90 % 9.00% 2.60% 7.70% 5.2 0% 5.4 0 % 5.10% Crashes Large Truck Crashes 200,21 5 5,943 2,160 11 ,23 9 3,6 56 16,018 9,3 62 % of Large Truck Crash 7.4 0% 8.60% 3.30% 6.60% 4 .8 0 % 4 .9 0 % 4.80% Freight Trips 3 4,622,536 229,307 160,2 70 328,57 8 106,784 60 9,195 2 50,383 % of Freight Trips among 3.9 5% 3.96 % 2.72% 3 .7 5% 3.27 % 3 .1 9% 3.14% All Trips Average Freight Trip 23 36 31 37 25 2 1 33 Miles 1 Median Freight Trip Miles 1 10 16 9 15 6 8 9 CMV Crashes per One 340 1,07 5 1,507 1,4 10 1,18 7 1,7 34 744 Million Freight Trip VMT4 Large Truck Crashes per One Million Freight Trip 1,8 51 714 4 29 92 4 1,392 1,27 0 1,119 VMT The high percentag e of CMV-involved crashes in Fort Worth merit a focused study of these crashes. Therefore, we developed a CMV Crash HIN as part of the HIN development process to help identify locations that have a higher concentration of historical CMV crashes . Truck crashes, when they occu r, can result in serious injuries and de ath, in addition to causing disruptions that d elay truck travel. Even non -recurring or less severe cra shes can still disrupt travel and create d elays , impacting freight reliability, consumers , and businesses alike . Th is trend proposed the need for better freight safety analysis and freight traffic management in Fort Worth. 3 So u rce: Replica. These are typical da ily tri ps on a weekday from Replica. Freight trips were obtained by filtering down to commercial vehicle (freig ht) mode and intersecting with the city (trips that started, ended, or passed t hrough the selected city); Replica confidence level t o th e total t rip data -Hig h Certai nty, freig ht t rip data -Medium Certainty 4 Freight Trip VM T are calculated by multiplying freight trips with the average m i les fORT WORTH -.......--- 2050 10 FORT WO RTH ---.,.--- Crashes by Roadway Ownership Roadways w ith i n th e City of Fort W orth boundary are either owned by Tx D OT (on -system) or by the city (off-system). This section compares th e number of tota l crashes and KS I crashes th at occurred on on -system and off-system roadways . The result of this ana lysis is shown in Table 4 . Despite representing less than half of all crashes and on ly about 36 % of V RU crashes , on-system roadways account for more th an half of all mode KS I crashes and V RU KSI crashes , indicating that crashes on on-system road s are more like ly to ha ve severe outcomes, likely due to the higher f u nctional classes and spe ed limits typica ll y found on on -system roadways. Considering the different mi leage and numbe r of traffic carried by th ese two roadwa y systems , the total annual v ehicle mi les trave led (V MT) on each roadway system were calcu lated to de t ermine if crashes are overre presented on eith er system 5 compare to their share of VM T. The on-system roadways in Fort W orth carry about 84% of the tota l V MT. Compar i ng the on -system sh are of crashes shown in Tabl e 4 with the share of V MT, crashes on on-system roadways are not overrepresented. O n the other hand , despite carrying on ly 16% of annua l VMT, the off-system roadways are overrepresented , with more t han 50% of all crashes and ov er 80 % of V RU crashes . Tabl e 4: All and VRU Crash es by Roadway System , 2019 -202 3 All Crashes I VRU Crashes I Roadway # of %of # of KSI %of KSI # of %of # of KSI % of KSI VMT System Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Off- Sy st em 35 ,966 52 .2% 1,22 6 47.4% 933 63.6 % 24 1 4 6.9 % 16% O n- 32 ,970 47.8% 1,3 63 52.6% 533 36.4% 273 53 .1% 84% System 2 050 To tal 68 ,936 100% 2,589 100% 1,466 100% 514 100% 100% Looki ng at C MV crashes by roadwa y sys t ems, ov er t w o -th i rds of CMV crashes happe ned on TxD OT-maintained on -system roadways and they are almost two times more likely to result in severe injuries or death . 5 Th e VMT was c a l c u la t ed usi ng TxDOT roa d way i nve ntory a nd AA DT d at a c onfla t ed t o the ro adw ay n et work receive d fro m the c ity. 11 Tabl e 5: CMV Cra shes by Roadway System, 2019-2023 %of KSI % of Crashes Roadway System # of Crashes % of Crashes # of KSI Crashes Crashes Resulted in KSI Off-system 1,985 32.1% 34 20.7 % 1.7% On -system 4,20 8 67.9% 130 7 9.3% 3 .1 % Total 6 ,193 100% 164 100% 2.6% Parties Involved In addition to identifying the conditions under which crashes occurred and the specifics of those crashes , it is critical to understand who was most affected by unsafe roadway conditions in the City of Fort Worth . The fo ll owing section il lustrates the distribution of peop le involved in a crash by age group. These comparisons are based on the number of parties in v olved, not the number of cras hes , as any given crash may injure mu ltiple parties , to varying degrees of sever ity. In general, young adult travelers were invo lved in a larger share of tota l crashes , with road users aged 15-34 accounting for over 46% of people i nvo lved in all crashes and close to 49 % of people invol v ed in KS I crashes (Table 6 and Figure 4). W hen compared to the percentage of the tota l population that accounts for this ag e group, trave lers aged 15-34 are overrepresented in both tota l and KS I crashes . 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <=14 Percentage of Parties Involved in Crashes by Age Compared to Total Population Distribution 10 .4% 6 .3% 15-24 25-34 35 -44 45 -54 55-64 65 -74 Age Groups -% of All Parties -% of KS! Parties % of Population Figure 4: Percentage of Parties Involved in Crashes by Age, All Modes, 2019-2023 3.9% >=75 f0RTW0RTH ~ 2050 12 Table 6: Parties Involv ed in Crashes by Age, All Modes, 2019 -2023 % of Parties All Crashes : KSI: # of %of # of KSI % of KSI Age%of Age Resulting Population Population Parties Parties Parties Parties Population from a KSI Ratio Ratio <=14 18 ,169 10.7% 115 3.9 % 0.6% 22.4% 0.48 0 .17 15-24 41,419 24.3% 692 23 .3% 1 .7 % 14.4% 1.69 1.61 25-34 37,206 21.8 % 753 25.3% 2.0% 16.2% 1.35 1.56 35-44 26,911 15.8% 464 15.6% 1.7% 14.4% 1 .10 1 .08 45-54 20,212 11.9% 377 12.7% 1.9 % 12.1% 0 .98 1.05 55-64 15,486 9.1 % 339 11.4% 2 .2 % 10.4% 0.87 1.09 65-74 7,405 4 .3% 163 5.5 % 2.2 % 6 .3% 0 .69 0 .87 >=75 3,618 2.1 % 73 2 .5% 2.0% 3.9 % 0.55 0 .63 Total 170,426 100% 2,976 100% 1.7% 100% 1 1 Social Vulnerability Index The Social Vu lnerabi lity lndex6 (SVI) is a tool designed to he lp pub lic health officials and emergency response p lanners identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before , during, and after hazardous events. It measures the relative vulnerabi lity of each U.S. census tract by ranking them on 16 socia l factors, i ncluding unemployment, racia l 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 overa ll ranking. These SVI elements were ana lyzed and compared with crash data to assess the level of disproportionate impact of crashes on vulnerable communities. Tab le 7 reveals that over 34% of total crashes and more than 36% of KS I crashes occurred in areas with high social vu lnerability. When combining medium-high and high vulnerability areas, these zones accounted for more than 60% of both total and KS I crashes. This underscores the disproportionate safety concerns faced by communities in these vulnerab le areas. Table 7: Crashes by CDC Social Vulnerability Inde x, All Mode , 2019 -2023 6 https ://www.a t sd r.cd c.gov/p lacea ndh ea lth/svi/i nd ex.html FORT WORTH --......--- 2050 13 %of # of KSI % of KSI % Crashes Resulted in SVI Score # of Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes KSI Low 12,179 17.8% 456 17.6% 3.7% Low-Medium 14,438 21.1% 474 18.3% 3.3% Medium-High 18,263 26.7% 683 26.4% 3.7% High 23,39 4 34.3% 952 36.8% 4 .1% Total 68 ,2747 100% 2,565 8 100% 3.8% App endi x D of this re port includ es a map showing cen sus t ra cts with differe nt levels of SVI scores overl ai d w ith th e overall HIN . Crash Causation Collision Manner Over 41% of cras he s happened betwee n vehicles traveling the same direction , followed by crash es involvin g only one vehicle , and ang le crashes 9. More than half of th e most sev e re crash es resulted from the action of on e motor vehicle Figure 5 and Table 8 . 7• 6 The total and KS I crashes analyzed d iffer from 68,936 and 2,589, respectively, because some crashes occurred in tracts without an assigned Social Vulnerability Index (SV I). 9 An angle collision occurs when one vehicle strikes another vehicle at an ang le somewhere between 90 degrees (referred to as a side- impact co llis ion) and 180 deg rees (k nown as a rea r-end co llisio n). fORTWORTH ---.---- 2 050 14 Percentage of Crashes by Collision Manner 60% 50 % 40 % 30 % 20% 10 % 0 % 41.9% Sam e Dir ection -% of Cras hes 51.2% On e Motor Ve hicl e -% of KS! Cras h es 21.5% 11 .2% 12.9 % An gle Opposi te Dir e c t ion % Cras h es Resulte d in KS! Figure 5 : Percentage of Crashes by Collision Mann er, All Modes , 2019-2023 Table 8: Crashes by Collision Manner, All Modes , 2019-2023 %of KSI %of KSI % Crashes Resulted Collision Manner All Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes in KSI Same Di rection 28,878 41 .9% 514 19 .9% 1.8% One Motor Vehicle 17,279 25 .1% 1,326 51.2 % 7.7 % Angle 14,818 21.5 % 402 15.5% 2.7 % Opposite Direction 7 ,734 11.2% 335 12.9 % 4.3 % Other 227 0.3% 12 0 .5% 5.3% Total 68,936 100% 2,589 100% 3.8 % Table 9 includes more details on the top manner of collision and illustrates that the highest share of KSI crashes, 4 7 %, were crashes that involved one motor vehicl e traveling straight. However, crashes in which two cars collided while going straight and traveling in opposite directions had a disproportionately high risk , 10.9%, of resulting in a KSI outcome. FORT WORTH ---...,.-- 2050 15 Table 9: Crashes by Top Types of Crash Manner, All Modes , 2019-2023 # of %of # of KSI % of KSI % of Crashes Collision Manner Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Resulted in KSI Angle Both Go in g Straight 9 ,8 62 14.3% 2 80 11% 2 .8 % One Motor Vehicle Go in g Straight 14 ,8 17 2 1.5 % 1,224 4 7 % 8 .3% Opposite Direction Both Goi ng Straig ht 1,0 59 1.5% 11 5 4 % 10.9% On e Straight, On e Left T urn 6 ,150 8.9 % 2 11 8 % 3.4% Same Direction Both Go in g Straight, Rea r End 10,138 14.7 % 2 2 8 9 % 2 .2 % Both Go in g Straight, Sid es wip e 7 ,2 04 10.5% 128 5% 1.8 % Contributing Factors While a specific movement by one or multiple road users could result in a crash , there were a multitude of extraneous factors that affected the likelihood of a crash occurring. Table 10 lists some of the top contributing factors for crashes that occurred in the City of Fort Worth from 2019 to 2023. The factors that most often contributed to crashes and severe crashes were speed and distraction . Despite accounting for a lower number of crashes , crashes caused by "pedestrian failed to yield right of way" had the highest risk of resulting in a KSI outcome. More than half of those crashes caused death or severe injury when a pedestrian "failed to yield ," which may indicate a lack of convenient or safe walking paths and crossing locations. Crashes involving an intoxicated driver under the influence of drugs or alcohol also tended to be more likely to cause severe outcomes. f 0 RTW0RTH ----.---- 2050 16 Table 10: Crashes by the Top Contributing Factors , Alf Modes , 2019-2023 #of %of # of KSI %of KSI % of Crashes Contributing Factors Crashes 10 Crashes Crashes Crashes resulted in KSI Speed-Related 19,430 28.2% 927 35 .8% 4 .8 % Distraction 16,732 24.3 % 512 19.8% 3.1% Failure to Yield Right of Way 9,038 13.1 % 280 10.8% 3.1% Changed Lane When Unsafe 5,104 7.4 % 102 3.9% 2.0% Disregard Red-Yellow-Green Signal 3,291 4.8% 132 5.1% 4.0% Alcohol/Drugs 2 ,346 3.4 % 235 9.1 % 10.0% Faulty Evasive Action 2,251 3.3 % 110 4 .2 % 4.9% Improper/Unsafe Turn 2,210 3.2% 43 1.7 % 1.9 % Fail to Maintain Single Lane/Took Half of Roadway 1,792 2.6% 107 4.1% 6.0% Followed Too Closely 1,679 2.4 % 23 0.9 % 1.4% Disregard Stop Sign/Light 1,601 2.3% 58 2.2 % 3 .6 % Backed without Safety 556 0.8 % 7 0.3 % 1.3 % Pedestrian Failed to Yield Right of 380 0.6% 195 7.5 % 51.3% Way First Harmful Event Figure 6 and Table 11 illustrate the crash causes based on the recorded first harmful event, when known, for all crashes and KSI crashes. The most common crashes involved motor vehicle collisions with other vehicles in transport 1 1 (74.9 %), followed by collisions with fi xed objects 10 Note that one c rash may have more than one associated co ntribu ti ng factors. The % of c rashes shown in thi s table is the percentage among the total number of crashes (i.e., 68,936) a nd the % of KS I crashes is t he percentage among the tota l number of KSI crashes (i.e ., 2,589). 11 In Transport - Denotes the state or condition of a motor vehicle whic h is in motion or within the portion of a way ordinarily used for travel by similar vehicles . When applied to motor ve hic l es, in transport m eans in motion or on a roadway . Source: bttps ·//fto txdot goy/oub/txdot-info/trf/crash statistics/2020/b.odf FORT WORTH ---.,..--- 2 050 17 (15 .7%), and parked cars (5.7 %). Vehicle co lli sions with pedestrians and bicyclists occurred less frequently but produced much higher KSI rates (39% and 17%, respective ly). Railroad crashes, despite being v ery rare, also tend to be deadly. 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40% 30% 20 % 10 % 0 % 74.9% Percentage of Crashes by First Harmful Event 18.3% 17.0% 0.4 %1.9 % 3.5% 0.4 %0 .4% 11.2% 0 .2%0 .5% Motor Veh icl e Fixed Object Parked Car Pedestrian Overturned Pedal cyclist Other Object Other Non - in Transport Colli sion 5.0 % 0.1 %0.1% Animal 14 .3% 0.1% 0.03% I Rai l/Train -% of All Pa rti es -% of KS! Crash es % of Cr ash es re s ulte d in KS! Figure 6: Percentage of Total Crashe s and KS/ Crashes by the First Harmful Event, 2009-2023 Table 11: Crashes by the First Harmful Event, All Mode, 2019-2023 #of %of # of KSI %of KSI % of Crashes that First Harmful Event Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Resulted in KSI Motor Vehicle in Transport 51 ,657 74.9 % 1,263 48.8% 2.4% Fixed Object 10,848 15.7% 649 25.1% 6.0 % Parked Car 3,938 5 .7% 56 2.2 % 1.4% Pedestrian 1,074 1.6% 422 16.3% 39.3% Overturned 665 1.0% 122 4 .7% 18 .3% Pedal cyclist 289 0.4% 49 1.9% 17.0 % Other Object 288 0.4% 10 0.4% 3 .5% Othe r Non -Collision 116 0.2 % 13 0.5 % 11 .2 % Animal 40 0.1 % 2 0 .1% 5.0 % Rail/Train 21 0.03 % 3 0 .1% 14.3% Total 68 ,93 6 100% 2 ,5 89 100% 3 .8% FORT WO RTH ---.,.,-- 2050 18 Behaviors As revealed while analyzing contributing factors for crashes, several behavior-related factors are associated with a higher number of or more severe crashes. In this section , each of those factors and the likelihood of them resulting in severe outcomes were presented. Speeding Fig ure 7 and Tab le 12 summarize speed-re lated crashes in which at least one driver was traveling above the speed limit or driving at an unsafe speed . Speeding -related crashes comprised 28.2 % of all crashes and 35.8% of KSI crashes. This indicates that speeding is not only a leading contributing factor of crashes, with more than one out of every four crashes being speeding-related , but also tends to resu lt in more severe outcomes: one out of every three KS I crashes were speeding-re lated. Percen tage of Speed ing-related Cras hes in All Cras hes and KS! Crashes Figure 7: Percentage of Speeding-Related Crashes Table 12: Crashes by Reported Speeding, All Modes, 2019-2023 # of KSI % of KSI % of Crashes that Speed-related # of Crashes % of Crashes Crashes Crashes Resulted in KSI Yes 19,430 28.2 % 927 35 .8% 4.8 % No 49,506 71 .8% 1,662 64.2% 3.4% To ta l 68,936 100% 2,5 89 100% 3.8% fORTWO RTH ---.---- 2050 19 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Figure 8 and Tab le 13 Crashes caused by driving under the influence of alcoho l or drugs include those where the reported alcohol leve l was over the lega l limit, or where the collision report listed alcoho l use as a contributing W hi le alcoho l-impaired driving accounted for just 3.3 % of crashes , they make up 8.1% of KSI crashes , indicating that these crashes are more likely to cause severe outcomes. Percentage of DUI Crashes in All Crashes and KSI Cras h es Figure 8: Percentage of DU I-Related Crashes Tabl e 13: Cra sh es by Reported DUI , All Modes, 201 9-2023 # of KSI %of KSI % of Crashes that DUI # of Crashes % of Crashes Crashes Crashes Resulted in KSI Yes 2,266 3.3% 210 8.1% 9.3% No 66,6 70 96 .7 % 2,379 91.9 % 3 .6 % To tal 68,936 100% 2,5 8 9 100% 3.8% FORT WORTH ~ 2050 20 Lack of Safety Restraints Safety restraints are designed to reduce the risk of harm by keeping occupants securely in place during a collision . Figure 9 and Table 14 summarize crashes where restraint usage is known and applicable , and an unrestrained driver or occupant died or was injured. Of the 1,226 such crashes , 290 of them were KSI crashes. They accounted for just 1.8% of all crashes , but 11 .2 % of KSI crashes . This indicates that crashes that involve a lack of restraint can be six times more likely to result in severe injuries or fatalities (as shown in Table 14). Percentage of Lack of Restriant Use Crashes in All Crashes and KSI Crashes Figure 9: Percentage of Lack of Restraint Crashes Tabl e 14 : Crashes by Reported Lack of Safety Restraint, All Modes, 2019-2023 Lack of Restraint #of KSI %of KSI % of Crashes that # of Crashes % of Crashes Crash Crashes Crashes Resulted in KSI Yes 1,226 1.8% 290 11 .2% 23 .7% No 67 ,7 10 98 .2% 2,299 88 .8% 3.4% Total 68,936 100% 2 ,589 100% 3.8% fOR TWORTH --.,.--- 205 0 21 Distracted Driving Distracted driving crashes are those i n which at least one driver was distracted , inattentive, or using a cell phone. Distracted driving is a leading contributing factor for all crashes , with almost one out of ev ery four crashes re lated to distracted drivi ng . However, these crashes represented a smaller share, 19.5 %, of KS I crashes. O vera ll , abo ut 3.1 % (505 out of 16,536) of d istracted driving-related crashes resu lted in KSI. This rate is similar to the overa ll KS I rate of 3.8 % of all crashes , i nd icating that distracted dri v ing isn't a prom in ent contri buting factor in crashes with severe outcomes. Percentage of Distracted Driving Crashes in All Crashes and KS ! Crashes Figure 10: Percent age of Distracted Driving Crashes Table 15: Cra she s by Distracted Driving, All Modes , 2019 -2023 Distracted #of KSI % of KSI % of Crashes that # of Crashes % of Crashes Driving Crash Crashes Crashes Resulted in KSI Yes 16,536 24% 505 19.5% 3.1% No 52,400 76% 2,084 80.5% 4.0 % Tota l 68,93 6 100% 2,5 89 100% 3.8% F0RTW0RTH ---.,.--- 2050 22 Roadway Characteristics This section summarizes crashes by roadway characteristics to see if any of them are associated with a higher percentage of overall and KSI crashes . Crash Location (Intersection vs. Segment) This section summarizes crash frequencies by location type for all modes , all crashes , and VRU crashes. A crash was identified as an intersection crash if it occurred within the boundaries of an intersection, if the first harmful event occurred on an approach to or ex it from an intersection, or if it resulted from an activity or behavior related to the movement of traffic units through the intersection . All modes crashes occurred more often on roadway segments (Figure 11 and Table 16 ). Segment crashes accounted for 56.8 % of all crashes and 65 .9 % of KSI crashes. Intersection crashes made up slightly more than 43 % of overall crashes and an even smaller share of KSI crashes , at 34%. Crashes that happened at intersections seem less likely to cause severe outcomes compared to those happened along roadway segments (3 % vs 4.4%). 70% 60% 50% 40% 30 % 20% 10 % 0 % Percentage of Crashes across all modes by Location 3.0% Intersection -% of All Crashes -% of KS! Crashes 65.996 Segment 5.0 % 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0 % 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0 .0 % % of Crashes Resulted in KS! Figure 11 : Perc entage of All Modes Cra shes by Location , 2019-2023 FoRTWoRTH ~ 2050 23 Table 16 : Crashes by Location, All Modes , 2019-2023 # of KSI %of KSI % of Crashes Resulted Crash Location # of Crashes % of Crashes Crashes Crashes in KSI Intersec tion 29,771 43 .2% 88 4 34.1% 3.0 % Seg ment 39,165 56.8% 1,705 65 .9% 4.4% Total 68 ,936 100% 2,589 100% 3.8% The location distribution of VRU -involved crashes (Figure 12 and Tab le 17) shows a similar pattern, though an even higher percentage of them occurred outside an intersection , accounting for 59 .3 % of all crashes and 74.9% of KSI crashes . Compared to VRU crashes at inters ections , VRU crash es on ro adway segm ents between intersections were almost twice as likely to cause severe outco mes . Percentage of VRU Crashes by Location 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10 % 0 % Intersection -% of All Crash es -% of KS! Crashes Figure 12: Percentage of VRU Crashes by Location , 2019-2023 Table 17: Cra she s by Location , VRU Crashes , 2019-2023 #of KSI Crash Location # of Crashes % of Crashes Crashes Intersectio n 596 40.7% 129 Seg ment 870 59 .3% 385 Tota l 1,466 100% 51 4 44.3 % 74.9% Segment 50% 45% 40% 35% 30 % 25% 20 % 15% 10 % 5% 0 % % of Crashes Resulted in KS! % of KSI % of Crashes Resulted Crashes in KSI 2 5.1% 2 1.6% 74.9 % 44 .3% 100% 35 .1% F0RTW0RTII -....,..--- 2050 24 Intersection Control Figure 13 and Figure 14 depict crashes by intersection control (where data is available) for all modes and for VRUs. For al l modes, crashes occurred slight ly more often at signa lized intersections (53.4% of all crashes). The share of KSI crashes at signa lized and unsignalized intersections is roughly the same. However, crashes at unsignalized intersections tended to result in slightly more severe outcomes. Percentage of Crashes across all modes by Intersection Control 60% 50 % 40% 30 % 20% 10 % 0 % 3.1 % Unsignalized -% of All Crashes -% of KS! Crashes 3.5% 3 .0 % 2.5% 2.0 % 51.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5 % 0 .0 % Signalized % of Crashes that Resulted in KS! Figure 13: Percentage of Cra shes across all modes by Intersection Control, 2019-2023 Table 18: All mode crashes by Intersection Control, 2019-2023 # of KSI % of Crashes Resulted in Crash Location # of Crashes % of Crashes % of KSI Crashes Crashes KSI Un signalized 13,871 46 .6% 433 49 % 3.1% Signalized 15,900 53.4% 451 51 % 2.8% Tota l 29,771 100% 884 100 % 3% The VRU-involved crashes show a different pattern from all mode crashes (see Figure 14). Despite a slightly sma ll er percentage of V RU crashes at signa lized intersections (49 .8%), a higher percentage of those crashes were KSI crashes . VRU crashes at signalized intersections are 1.3 times more like ly to result in severe outcomes than those at unsigna lized intersections. FORT WOR TH ---...,.-- 2 050 25 Percentage of VRU Crashes by Intersection Control 60% 50 % 40 % 30% 20 % 10 % 0 % Unsign a li ze d -% o f All C ra s h es -% of KS! Crashes 30.0% 25.0 % 20 .0 % 15.0 % 10 .0 % 5.0 % 0 .0 % Si gnali ze d % of Cras h es tha t Resulte d in KS! Figure 14: Percentage of VRU Crashes by Inte rsection Control, 2019 -2023 Table 19: VRU Crashes by Intersection Control, 2019 -2023 % of Crashes Resulted Crash Location # of Crashes % of Crashes #of KSI %KSI in KSI Un sig nali ze d 299 50.2% 57 44.2% 19.1% Si gnali ze d 297 49 .8% 72 55.8% 24.2% Total 596 100% 129 100% 21 .6% Posted Speed Limit Figure 15 and Table 20 summarize all modes crashes on roadway segments by speed limit. When comparing all crashes and KSI crashes , those that occurred on roadways with speed limit of 35 mph , 40 mph , and 55 mph and above were more likely to cause severe injury outcomes. Roadways with a speed limit of 30 mph or less represent more than half of all roadway lane miles but account for just 15 % of all crashes and only slightly more than 10% of KSI crashes. This is the only category of roadway segments that has a much lower percentage of KSI crashes than all crashes , indicating crashes on roadways posted at 30 mph or less are less likely to cause severe outcomes. This findin g is consistent with the proven rel ationship between speeds and crash f0RTW0RTH --.,...--- 2050 26 severity12. On the other hand, roadways with speed limits higher than 30 mph, despite representing less than ha lf of roadway lane miles, accounted for more than 80% of total crashes and nearly 90% of KSI crashes . Overall, the data indicates that higher-speed roads are overrepresented in all crashes, with this overrepresentation being even more pronounced in KSI crashes. 59% 60% Percentage of Crashes across all modes by Speed Limit Compared to Percentage of Roadway Lane Miles 50% 40% 30% 20% 10 % 0 % 30.8% 15.1% <=30 35-40 -% of All Crashes 45-50 -% of KS! Crashes 55-60 % of Roadway Miles Figure 15: Percentage of Crashes across all modes by Speed Limit, 2019-2023 Table 20: Crashes across all modes by Speed Limit, 2019-202 3 Posted %of # of KSI %of KSI Speed Limit # of Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes (MPH) <=30 5,893 15.1% 176 10.3% 35-40 9 ,611 24.6% 524 30.8 % 45-50 5,743 14.7% 259 15 .2% 55-60 10,785 27.6 % 426 25.0% >=65 7,079 18.1% 319 18.7% Total 39,111 13 100% 1,70414 100% 12 FHWA Fact Sheet o n the re l atio n be t ween speed a nd cras hes https·//safety thwa dot gov/speedmgt/ref mats/fhwasa 1304/Reso urces3/0B%2 0- %20Jhe%20Relatioo%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes pdf All KSI Lane Crash/ Crashes/ Miles Miles Mile 2.2 0.1 2,737 10.1 0 .6 95 3 9.5 0.4 604 33.2 1 .3 325 797.1 35.9 9 8 .5 0.4 4,627 >=65 %of Roadway Lane Miles 59 % 21 % 13 % 7 % 0.2% 100% 13 Th e tota l is differe nt from 39,1 65 beca u se 54 segme nt cras hes occ u rred o n roa d seg m e nts w it ho ut ava i lable speed lim it da t a . 14 Th e tot a l is differe nt f rom 1,705 because one segme nt cras h occ urred o n ro ad segme nts w it ho ut ava i la ble spee d limit d at a. FORT WORTH ---.,.-- 2050 27 Figure 16 and Table 21 pres ent the same information for VRU crashes. Compared to crashes for al l modes , VRU crashes mostly occur on lower-speed limit roadways , with near ly 70% occurring on roadways with a speed limit of 40 mph or less. This is expected sinc e walking and biking happen mostly on lower -speed roadways. Although roadways with a speed limit of 30 mph or less have the highest share of VRU crashes (41 %), they account for only 20% of VRU KSI crashes . Neith er of these shares is overrepresented compared to these roadways' share of roadway lane miles. Roadways with a speed limit above 50 mph, despite carrying a sma ll portion of all VRU crashes, represent over a quarter of VRU KSI crashes. Roadways with a speed limit of 35 or higher are overrepresented in VRU KSI crashes . 59% 60 % 50 % 41.0 % 40% 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % <=30 Percentage of VRU Crashes by Speed Limit Compare d to Pe r ce ntage of Ro a dway La n e Mil es ' 36.4% ~.5% 16.3% 4.0 % 7% 35-40 45-50 55 -6 0 10 .5% 2.4% ~ 0 .2% >=65 -% of Al l Crash es -% of KS ! Cr as h es % of Roa dway Mil es Figure 16 : Percentage ofVRU Crashes by Spe ed Limit, 2019-2023 Table 21 : VRU Crashes by Speed Limit , 2019-2023 %of All KSI FORT WORTH --.,..--- 2050 Posted Speed # of %of # of KSI Lane % of Roadway KSI Crash/ Crashes/ Limit (MPH) Crashes Crashes Crashes Miles Lane Miles Crashes Miles Mile <=30 265 41.0% 64 21.1 % 0 .10 0 .0 2 265 59% 35-40 302 28.5 % 147 36.4% 0 .32 0 .15 302 21 % 45-50 152 24.1 % 62 15 .8% 0 .25 0.10 152 13% 55-60 92 4 .0 % 69 16.3% 0 .28 0 .21 92 7% >=65 59 2 .4% 4 3 10.5% 6.64 4 .84 59 0.2 % Total 870 100% 385 100% 0 .19 0.08 870 100% 28 Functional Class Figure 17 and Table 22 break out crashes for all modes by roadway classification 15 , compared to each classification's percentage of roadway lane miles . Tollway / freeway represented the largest share of total and severe crashes, comprising 44.1 % of all crashes and 40.9% of KSI crashes. Less than 18% of all crashes and 16% of KSI crashes occurred on residential and collector roads, despite those representing 60% of the roadway lane miles. This indicates that all crashes , and KSI crashes in particular, are concentrated on higher functional class roadways. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 44.1% Percentage of Crashes across all modes by Roadway Functional Class Compared to Percentage of Roadway Lane Miles 54% 0.7% 0 .5% 1.2% 1.6% Tollway/ Freeway Freeway Principal Ramp Artelial -% of All Crashes Major Minor Collector Residential Service Arterial Arterial Road County Road -% of KS! Crashes % of Roadway Miles Unknown Figure 17: Percentage of Crashes across all modes by Roadway Functiona l Class , 2019-2023 15 Fun ctio nal c lassification is a federally-mandated ca t egorization of roadways based o n the l evel of traffic service and degree of access they provide. For specific def in itio ns of each fu nctio nal class, re f er t o https·//www nctcog org/getmedja/c77e7aab-3464-440e-a6de- 336963269498/Functjonal-Class-Eligi bility,pdf FORT WORTH ---....,..--- 2050 29 Table 22: Crashes across all modes by Roadway Functional Class , 2019-2023 % of Crashes Roadway #of %of # of KSI % of KSI Functional Class that Resulted in Lane Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes KSI Miles Tollway/ Freeway 17,2 90 44.1% 6 9 7 40.9 % 4 .0 % 9 .2% Freeway Ramp 784 2 .0 % 4 3 2 .5% 5 .5 % 3 .6% Principal Arteria l 4,450 11 .4% 231 13 .5% 5.2% 7.4 % Major Arterial 4 ,824 12 .3% 26 0 15 .2% 5.4% 8 .0 % Minor Arterial 2,5 12 6.4 % 146 8 .6% 5.8 % 5.9 % Collector 1 ,8 69 4 .8 % 83 4 .9 % 4.4% 6 .0 % Residential 5,149 1 3.1% 129 7 .6 % 2 .5% 53 .9% Service Road 1,5 16 3.9 % 80 4 .7% 5.3% 4 .2 % County Road 28 7 0 .7% 9 0 .5% 3 .1% 1.7 % Unknown 484 1.2 % 27 1.6% 5.6 % 0 .1 % Total 39 ,165 100% 1,705 100% 4.4% 100% The distribution of VRU crashes by function al class shows a similar pattern (see Figure 18 and Tab le 23), but with much fewe r crashes on tollway/freeway and more on lower functional class roadways . However, t ollway/freeway still represented the highest share of KSI crashes , like ly due to the high traveling spe eds . Again , roadways with higher functional classes are overrepresented in both overall and KS I crashes while residential ro ads , despite accounting for more than half of the roadway lane miles , have a much lower share of crashes , especially KSI crashes . O verall , a disproportionate number of total and KS I crashes happened on higher functiona l class roadways , such as tollway/freeway and arteria ls, regardless of the mod e involved . f 0 RTW0 RTH ---.---- 2 050 30 Percentage of VRU Crashes by Roadway Functional Class Compared to Percentage of Roadway Lane Miles 60% 54% 50% 40% 30% 29.1% 20.7% 20.5% 20% 10% 0% Tollway/ Freeway Principal Major Minor Co ll ector Residential Senrice County Unknown Freeway Ramp Arterial Arterial Arterial Road Road -% of All Crashes -% of KS! Crashes % of Roadway Miles Figure 18: Percentage ofVRU Crashes by Roadway Functional Class, 2019 -2023 Table 23: VRU Crashes by Roadway Functional Cla ss, 2019 -2 023 % of Crashes #of %of # of KSI %of KSI Roadway Lane Functional Class that Resulted in Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Miles KSI Tollway / Freeway 15 1 17.4% 112 29.1 % 74.2 % 9.2% Freeway Ramp 7 0 .8% 5 1.3 % 71.4% 3.6% Principal Arterial 115 13.2% 64 16.6% 55 .7 % 7.4% Major Arterial 180 20.7 % 79 20.5 % 43.9 % 8 .0 % Minor Arterial 105 12.1% 38 9 .9 % 36 .2% 5.9 % Collector 59 6.8% 16 4.2 % 27.1% 6 .0 % Residential 210 24 .1% 46 11.9% 21.9 % 53 .9 % Service Road 25 2 .9% 14 3.6 % 56.0 % 4.2% County Road 4 0 .5% 1 0 .3% 25.0% 1.7% Unknown 14 1.6 % 10 2.6 % 71.4% 0.1 % Total 870 100% 385 100% 44.3% 100% FORT WORTH ~ 2050 31 Traffic Volume Figure 19 and Table 24 summarize crashes by average annual daily traffic, or AADT, for all modes , compared to the percentage of the total lane mileage within each AADT range . Only crashes that occurred on segments with available AADT data were included in this comparison. Roadways with an AADT of over 40,000 had the largest share of overa ll crashes (44%) and KSI crashes (40.1 %), more than four times higher than their share of the roadway lane miles . Roadways with AADT less than 5,000, despite representing over 70% of roadway lan e miles, experienced just over 20% of all crashes and about 15% of KSI crashes , resulting in lower crashes per lane mile. Roads with an AADT over 5,000 are overrepresented in both all crashes and KSI crashes when compared to their share of lane miles. They are also more likely to result in severe outcomes, as indicated by a higher share of KSI crashes. 60% 50% 40% 3 0 % 20 % 10 % 0 % 57% 13 .7% Percentage of Crashes across all modes by MDT Compare d to Perce ntage of Roadway Lane Mil e s 0-1 ,000 1,000-5,000 5,000-10 ,000 10,000-20,000 20 ,000-40 ,000 >;40,000 -% of Al l Crashes -% of KS ! Cras h es % of Roadway Miles Fig ure 19: Percentage of Crashes across all modes by AA DT, 2019-2023 Ta ble 24 : Cras hes across all modes by AAD T, 20 19-2 023 Traffic Volume # of KSI %of KSI # of Crashes % of Crashes % of Miles (AADT) Crashes Crashes 0-1 ,000 5,348 13 .7% 128 7 .5% 57.4% 1 ,000-5 ,000 2,708 6 .9% 126 7.4 % 12.7 % 5,000-10,000 3,85 5 9.9 % 223 13 .1% 8 .6 % f0RTW0RTH ~ 2050 32 10,000-20,000 6,624 17.0% 341 20.0% 8.6% 20 ,000 -4 0,000 3,359 8.6% 202 11.9% 3.7% >=4 0,000 17,184 44.0% 684 40.1% 9.0% Total 39,078 16 100% 1,7 04 17 100% 100% The distribution of VRU crashes with AADT (Figure 20) is similar to that of all mode crashes , except that a higher percentage of VRU crashes happen ed on roadways with lower AADT. Despite having a higher share of all crashes, roadways with AADT less than 5,000 don't have a much higher share of KSI crashes (15 % in Figure 19 above and 16% in Figure 20 below), indicating roadways with lower AADT are generally safer for VRU. In contrast, roadways with high er AADT tend to have a hi gher share of VRU KSI cras hes than overall VRU crashes , indicating these roadways are more dan gerous for VRUs . 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 57% 23.6% ' ' ■ 0-1,000 Percentage of VRU Crashes by MDT Compared to Percentage of Roadway Lane Miles 13% 8.6% 25 .7%26 .0% 28.1% 1,000-5,000 5,000-10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-40,000 >=40,000 -% of All Crashes -% of KS! Cras h es % of Roadway Miles Figure 20: Percentage of VRU Crashes by AADT, 2019-2023 16 The total is different from 39,165 because 87 segment crashes occurred on road segme nts without available Average Annual Daily Tr affic (AADT) data. 17 Th e total is d ifferent from 1,705 because one segment cras h occurred on road segments witho ut available Average Annual Dai ly Tr affic (AADT) data. FORT WORTH ~ 2050 33 Table 25 : VRU Crashes by AADT, 2019 -2023 Traffic Volume # of KSI # of Crashes % of Crashes % KSI Crashes %of Miles (AADT) Crashes 0-1 ,000 2 0 5 23 .6% 45 11.7% 57.4% 1,000-5,000 75 8 .6% 17 4 .4% 12 .7% 5,000 -10,000 132 15.2% 65 16.9% 8.6% 10,000-20,000 223 25.7 % 100 26.0 % 8.6% 20,000-40,000 77 8.9% 50 13.0% 3.7% >=40 ,000 15 7 18.1% 108 28.1% 9.0 % Total 869 18 100% 385 100% 100% Number of Lanes Figure 21 and Table 26 summarize crashes across all modes by the number of traffic lanes . Crashes occurred most often on two-lane roads (40.6 % of total crashes, 35.4 % of KSI crashes), which can be attributed to their 75 % share of the city's total road network lane miles . Roadw ay s with three or more lanes , while far les s prevalent in the city's roadway network, accounted for about 59 % of all crashes and over 64% of KSI crashes , indicating higher densi t y of crashes on roadways with more lanes . 18 The total is different from 870 beca use one segme nt crash occurred on road segments without available Average Annual Daily Traffic (AA OT} data . FORT WORTH ---..,..--- 2050 34 Percentage of Crashes across all modes by Number of Lanes Compared to Percentage of Roadway Lane Miles 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 3 0 % 20% I 10% 3% 0.4 % 0 .5% 0% <=1 -% of All Cras h es 75% / 40 .6% 2 -% of KS! Crashes 3 >=4 % of Roadway Miles Figure 21: Percentage of Crashes acro ss all modes by Number of Lan es, 2019-2023 Table 26: Crashes across all modes by Number of Lanes, 2019-2023 #of KSI Number of Lanes # of Crashes % of Crashes % KSI Crashes Crashes <=1 170 0.4% 9 0.5 % 2 15,884 40.6% 603 35.4% 3 10,809 27.7% 493 28 .9% >=4 12,220 31.3% 600 35.2% Total 39,08319 100% 1,705 100% %of Miles 3% 75 % 10% 12% 100% The distribution of VRU crashes by number of lanes follows a similar trend as that for crashes across all modes (Figure 22 and Table 27). However, a higher share of severe crashes involving VRUs occurred on roads with four or more lanes (41.6% of all VRU-involved crashes compared to 35.2% for crashes across all modes). 19 Th e total is differen t fro m 39,165 because 82 seg m ent c ras hes occurred on road segme nts without avai lable lane cou nt data . F0RTW0RTH ~ 2 050 35 Percentage of VRU Crashes by Number of Lanes Compare d to Pe rce ntage of Ro adway Lan e Mil e s 80% 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30% 20 % 10 % 0 % I 3% 0.3% 0 .3% <=1 -% of Al l Cras hes 75% / 43.6% 2 -% of KS I Cras hes Figure 22 : Percentage of VRU Crashes by Number of Lanes , 2019-2023 Table 27: VRU Crashes by Number of Lanes, 2019-2023 Number of #of KSI # of Crashes % of Crashes Lanes Crashes <=1 3 0.3% 1 2 379 43.6 % 119 3 166 19 .1% 105 >=4 321 36.9 % 160 Total 869 20 100% 385 3 41.6 % >=4 % o f Roadway Miles % of KSI %of Miles Crashes 0 .3% 3% 30.9% 75% 27.3% 10% 4 1.6% 12 % 100% 100% The analys is in the above sections demonstrates that ro adways with three or more lanes are overre p re sented in term s of both ove rall crashes and KSI crashes , reg ardless of the mod e involved. 20 Th e total is differe nt f ro m 870 beca use o n e segme nt c ras h occ urred o n roa d seg m ent w ith o ut ava i lab l e l an e co unt d at a. FORT WORT H --.,..--- 2050 36 Environmental Characteristics Period of Day From Figure 23 , crashes are more likely to happen during daylight time and nighttime as more travelling happen during these periods. However, nighttime crashes are overrepresented in KSI crashes, indicating they are more likely to result in severe outcomes and highlighting the impact of lighting on safety. 80% 70% 60% 50 % 40% 30% 20% 10 % 0 % Percentage of Crashes by Period of Day 68.1% 64.4% 1.6% 1.8% 1.8 % 1.9 % 2.2% 2 .2% 2.4% 2.3% --dawn daylight dusk night ■ % of All Crashes ■ % of KS! Crashes VRU Crashes ■ VRU KS! Crashes Figure 23: Pe rcentage of Crashes by Per iod of Da y, 2019 -2023 Table 28: All and VRU Crashes by Period of Day, 2019 -2023 All Crash VRU Crash Lighting # of % of # of KSI % of KSI # of Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Dawn 1,130 1.6% 47 1.8 % 26 Daylight 44,386 64 .4% 1,180 45 .6% 712 % of # of KSI Crashes Crashes 1.8 % 10 4 8 .6% 142 % of KSI Crashes 1.9 % 27 .6% fORTWORTH ---.,..--- 2050 37 Dusk 1,5 23 2.2% 56 2 .2 % 35 2.4% 12 2 .3 % Night 2 1,868 31.7% 1,306 50.4% 693 47.3% 350 68 .1% Total 68,90721 100% 2,589 100% 1,466 100% 514 100% Time of Day and Day of Week Figure 24 illustrates crashes by time of day for all modes and VRU-involved crashes. Perc entages shown represent the percentage of KSI crashes that took p lace during every time period {where data was available) on any day of the week. Overall, crashes across all modes and VRU KSI crashes peak during the ear ly evening (6 PM -10 PM). This peak is particularly obvious for VRU KSI crashes ; near ly 50% of them happened between 6 PM and midnight. Percentage of KSI Crashes by Time of Day 25% 20% 15 % 10 % 7% 5% 5% 0 % 3% 4% 4% 6 AM -8 8 AM -10 JO AM - 12 12 PM -2 2 PM -4 4 PM -6 6 PM -8 8 PM -10 10 PM -12 12 AM -2 2 AM -4 4 AM -6 AM AM AM ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ AM AM AM -e-All Modes KS! Crashes -e-VRU KS! Crashes Figure 24 : Pe rcentage of KS/ Crashes by Time of Day, 2019-2023 Table 29: All and VRU crashes by Tim e of Day, 2019-2023 All Crash VRU Crash Time of the Day # of %of # of KSI % of KSI #of %of Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes 6AM-8AM 5,761 8.4% 171 6.6 % 117 8.0 % 8AM -10AM 5,79 3 8.4% 115 4.4% 91 6.2 % 21 Th e total is d ifferent from 68,936 because 29 cra s hes d id not have Period of Day dat a avai l able . # of KSI %of KSI Crashes Crashes 38 7.4 % 16 3.1% fOR T WORTH ---.,..--- 2 050 38 10AM-12AM 5,645 8.2 % 152 5.9% 91 6.2% 18 3.5 % 12 PM -2 PM 6,991 10.1% 193 7.5 % 86 5.9 % 20 3.9% 2 PM -4 PM 8,650 12.5% 201 7.8 % 132 9.0% 25 4 .9% 4 PM -6 PM 10,096 14.6% 277 10.7% 179 12.2% 42 8.2 % 6 PM -8 PM 7,778 11.3% 318 12.3% 213 14.5% 73 14.2% 8 PM -10 PM 5,698 8.3 % 321 12.4% 237 16.2% 108 21.0% 10 PM -12 PM 4,328 6.3 % 266 10.3% 122 8.3% 63 12.3% 12AM-2AM 3,073 4.5 % 224 8.7% 77 5.3% 42 8.2% 2AM-4AM 2,887 4.2 % 220 8.5% 65 4.4% 36 7.0% 4AM-6AM 2,236 3.2% 131 5.1 % 56 3.8% 33 6.4% Total 68 ,936 100% 2,589 100% 1,466 100% 514 100% Figure 25 and Table 30 show that crashes across all modes and VRU KS I crashes were more likely to occur on Friday and during the weekend. 25% Percentage of KSI Crashes by Day of Week 20% 18 % 17% 16 % 15% 12% 12% 14% 10% 12% 11% 11% 5% 0% Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday ---All Modes KS! Crashes ...... VRU KS! Crashes Figure 25: Percentage of KS/ Cra shes by Day of Week, 2019-2023 Table 30: All and VRU Crashes by Day of Week, 2019-2023 1 % 16% Sunday foRTWORTH ---.,.--- 2050 39 I Tuesday 9,805 14.2% 311 12 .0% 209 12% 63 12.3 % Wednesday 10 ,078 14.6% 322 12.4 % 203 11% 57 11.1 % Thursday 9,8 33 14.3% 333 12.9 % 214 11% 58 11 .3% Friday 11 ,20 1 16.2% 380 14 .7% 242 18 % 94 18 .3% Saturday 9,829 14.3 % 450 17 .4 % 213 15% 76 14.8% Sunday 8,4 52 12.3 % 4 18 16.1% 182 17% 86 16.7 % Total 68 ,936 100% 2,589 100% 1,466 100% 514 100% When cross-ch ecking the distribution of KSI crashes ag ain st time of day and day of the week (Table 31 for crashes across all modes and Tab le 32 for VRU crashes), more KS I crash es across all modes occurred duri ng between lat e afternoon and late night, and slightly more of thes e c rash es happened between Friday and Mond ay. Table 31 : All Modes KS/ Crashes by Day of Week and Tim e of Day, 2019-2023 6AM 8AM 10AM 12 PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM 12AM Time of Day - - - - --- - - - 7AM 9AM 11AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11PM SAM Monday 34 15 18 39 29 47 43 38 37 75 Tuesday 35 15 20 25 21 38 40 44 31 42 W ednesday 24 17 22 29 34 39 44 34 25 54 Thursday 27 24 25 22 25 32 43 44 45 46 Friday 26 18 22 28 31 41 45 57 40 72 Saturday 14 16 24 26 28 49 48 55 53 137 Sunday 11 10 21 24 33 31 55 49 35 149 The distribution shows that seve re daytime crashes (morning through early ev ening) most often occurred during the week, whi le severe evening and late-night crash es most often occurred over the weekend . A nalysis of KSI crashes invo lving VRU underscores this pattern. M ost severe crashes occur between early morning and afternoon in the first ha lf of the week but switch in th e latter half of th e week to occur between late afternoon and late night. Severe late-night crashes occurred much more often over the weekend ; only one-third of all late night KSI crashes occurred during the first four days of the week. f 0 RTW0RTH ----.----- 2050 4 0 Table 32 : VRU KS/ Crashes by Day of Week and Time of Day, 2019 -2023 Early Late Early Late Morning Afternoon Evening Morning Afternoon Evening Night 10 2 8 10 12 6AM 8AM AM PM 4PM 6PM PM PM 12AM PM Time of Day - 7AM 9AM 11 3 5PM 7PM 9 11 SAM 1PM AM PM PM PM Monday 6 1 6 7 7 1 9 16 12 15 Tuesday 8 1 5 1 2 7 9 14 8 8 Wednesday 5 8 1 1 3 6 7 14 6 6 Thursday 6 3 3 1 2 5 9 16 6 7 Friday 9 2 3 3 5 7 14 20 13 18 Saturday 1 1 0 4 3 7 10 15 9 26 Sunday 3 0 0 3 3 9 15 13 9 31 Lighting Condition Tab le 33 and Figure 26 summarize crashes by reported lighting conditions. Only crashes with availab le lighting condition data were included in this comparison. Both overall crashes and KSI crashes occurred most often in daylight and when it was dark , under lighted conditions. This is understandable since most of the travel occurs during the daytime. However, crashes that occur in dark conditions, with or without lighting, are more likely to cause severe outcomes , as they are overrepresented in KSI crashes compared to their share of all crashes. FORT WORTH ~ 2 050 4 1 70 % Percentage of All M odes Crashes by Ligh ting Co n d i tion 63.8% 60 % 50% 40% 39 .0% 30 % 25.9% 20 % 13.8% 10% 1.1 % 0 .9% 0 .9% 0 .7% 0% Dar k, Li gh ted Da r k, Not Lighted Dar k , Unk n ow n Daw n Daylig ht Li g ht i ng ■ % ur All Cras hes ■%o r KSI Cr ash es Figure 26 : Percentage of Crashes across all modes by Lighting Condition, 2019-2023 Table 33 : Crashes by Reported Lighting Condition , All Modes , 2019 -2023 %of # of KSI % of KSI Reported Lighting Condition # of Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Dar k, Lighted 17,844 25 .9% 1,007 39 % Dar k, Not Lighted 4 ,74 8 6.9% 356 13.8% Dark , Unknown Lighting 756 1.1% 24 0.9 % Dawn 62 2 0.9 % 19 0.7 % Dayligh t 4 3 ,876 63 .8 % 1,147 44.4% Du sk 84 3 1.2 % 27 1.0 % Other 91 0.1% 4 0 .2 % Total 68,78022 100% 2,58423 100% 22 The t ot al is differe nt from 68,936 because 156 crashes d id not have reported li ghti ng co nd itio n da t a avai l a ble. 1.2% 1.0% Du sk % of Crashes that Resulted in KSI 5.6% 7.5% 3.2% 3 .1 % 2.6% 3 .2 % 4.4% 3.8 % 23 Th e tot a l is differe nt fro m 2 .58 4 beca use f ive KS I c ras hes di d not have re port ed lighti ng co ndition dat a available FORT WORTH ---.--- 2050 42 Hazardous Roadway Overtopping Locations Every year, vehicles drive into Fort Worth's many hazardous roadway overtopping locations. Many locations frequently were the scene of fatalities, bodily injury, or property damage. Even locations without reported incidents were identified as problematic thanks to citizen complaints . In 2005, the worst locations were identified and ranked. Since then, the list of hazardous crossings in Fort Worth has expanded from 40 to approximately 400 locations, which were further investigated and prioritized based on several criteria and site observations. To address safety issues , within resource constraints, , the below mitigation elements are considered for implementation : • Installation of high water warning systems • Upsizing culverts to provide more conveyance capacity • Guard rails , • Lighting, • Flood warning flashers and • Staff gauges The flood warning system in Fort Worth, also known as the High-Water Warning System (HWWS), relies on real-time water level measurements taken at 52 hazardous low-water crossing locations. Roadside flashers at these locations immediately warn drivers of the flood hazard. Email alarms are sent to first responders and emergency managers at the city, county, school districts, the National Weather Service , and other partners when the sensors of each flasher system are triggered by rising water. First responders from the Stormwater Division of TPW barricade the roads to prevent vehicles from entering the flooded areas . Many of the locations without flashers have roadside flood warning signage . Hazardous road overtopping and flood warning systems are integral to Vision Zero because they enhance safety, promote infrastructure resilience, support effective emergency response, and ensure the safety of all roadway users. The Vision Zero SAP will integrate these elements into recommended strategies and identify action items for the city and its partner agencies to help create safer and more resilient transportation systems and contribute to the vision of zero traffic fatalities and severe injuries. f ORTWORTH -----...y- 2050 43 Land Use Context Figure 27 and Table 34 illustrate crashes by proximity to transit stops, schools , parks, and senior centers for all modes and for vulnerable road users. The following criteria were applied when denning "nearby" for each facility type: • Crashes near transit include crashes that occu r red within 0.25 miles of a transit stop 24 • Crashes near schools include crashes that occurred within 0 .5 miles of a school 2 5 • Crashes near parks include crashes that occurred within 0.5 miles of a park 26 • Crashes near senior centers include crashes that occurred within 0.5 miles of a senior living facility27 Regardless of the involved mode, the majority of KSI crashes happened near transit stops , schools , and parks. This share is even higher for VRU crashes: more than 70% of VRU KSI crashes occurred near a transit stop or a park and almost 54% of them occurred near a sc hool. In contrast, not many KSI crashes happened near senior living facilities . However, a comparison of the share of KSI crashes (whether across all modes or just those involving VRU) with the amount of land they cover, as well as their buffer areas , demonstrates that all four facility types are overrepresented in KSI crashes. The higher incidence of severe crashes near transit stops , schools , and parks involving vulnerable road users is likely due to the high exposure of VRU in those areas. These findings highlight the importance of providing safe access to these essential destinations, especially for VRU . 24 Fro m Tri n ity Metro, inc ludes b us stops and statio ns. 25 From Texas Education Agency, includes eleme ntary/middle/high schools from all districts with in t he Fort Worth area. 26 From th e C ity of Fort Worth 27 From OpenStreetMaps, in cludes nursing homes, assisted livi ng fac i liti es , and se n ior social centers. FORT WORTH ---..,.--- 2 050 44 FORT WORTH ---.,.-- 2050 Pe r c ent a ge of KSI Cr as h e s in Close Pro ximi ty t o De stina tions 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50 % 40% 30 % 20 % 10% 0% 72.4% 22 .6% Near Transit 53.9% 37 .8% Nea r Schools 75.7% 57.4 % ear Parks 17% 1.4 % oo . 0 I. ¾, ·ear Senior Living Facilities -KS ! Crashes -VR U KS! Crashes % of City Covered Figure 27: Percentage of KS/ Crashes in Clo se Proximity to Destinations, 2019-2023 Table 34: Crashes in Close Proximity of De stinations , All Mode and VRU Crashes , 2019 -2023 All Crashes VRU Crashes Destination % of City # of %of # of KSI %ofKSI # of %of # of KSI % of KSI Covered Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Near Transit 38 ,969 56.5% 1,437 55.5 % 1,0 55 72 % 372 72.4% 22.6 % Near Schools 34 ,820 50.5 % 1,2 8 1 49.5 % 887 60.5% 277 53.9 % 37.8 % Near Parks 4 7 ,232 68.5% 1,765 68 .2 % 1,184 80.8% 389 75 .7% 57.4% Near Senior Living 1,438 2 .1% 45 1.7% 20 1.4% 5 1.0% 1.4% Facilities 45 High Injury Network The development of a HIN is a key element of a safety plan because it identifies areas that have historically seen the greatest density and severity of crashes. This allows cities , counties , and metropolitan areas to prioritize investments in safety treatments. For the City of Fort Worth, mode-specific HINs have been developed to focus on crashes involving vulnerable road users (VRU), including pedestrians and bicyclists, motorcyclists, motor vehicles, and commercial motor vehicles (CMV). These maps can be found in Appendix D of this report. This section of the report describes crash data sources, methodologies, and thresholds used for the development of the High Injury Networks. The HIN development process involves developing crash density estimates along street corridors throughout the region, weighing them by crash severity, and then identifying the highest crash- risk sections for each mode. Both intersection and segment crashes were included in this evaluation, as the focus is on overall corridor conditions. The HIN aims to identify corridors that may warrant special attention. Identification of these streets helps a city prioritize investment in areas where crash history demonstrates serious problems and effectively communicates these priorities to community members. Sliding Windows Ana lysis Methodology A sliding windows analysis helps understand historical crash data throughout a transportation network and identify segments with the highest crashes , weighted by crash severity. The analysis determines the number and severity of crashes in a one-mile window on a roadway and shifts that window along the roadway 1/10 of a mile at a time. In this approach , the virtual window is FORT WORTH ---..,.--- 2050 46 moved along each corridor, counting the number of crashes by density and severity by mode that occurred within each successive segment. An example of a sliding window analysis is shown in Figure 28. The sliding windows score weights the most severe crashes more heavily than lower severity crashes . The analysis was conducted for each mode (bicycle , pedestrian , motorcycle, and motor vehicle), as •• 1/10 mile sliding increment • • 1 mile wi.ndo w Tl • Sliding Windo ws • • Crashes Figure 28. Example of the Sliding Window Analysis well as CMV crashes. A crash was assigned a single mode based on the most vulnerable mode involved. For example , a crash between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist would be classified as a bicycle crash. For CMV crashes, any crash that is flagged as CMV-involved in CRIS (regardless of modes involved) was counted for that sliding windows analysis. The score for each window was determined based on the frequency and severity of crashes by mode. Fatal injury (K) and suspected serious injury crashes (A) were weighted x3, suspected serious injury (B) crashes were weighted x2 , and possible injury (C) were weighted x1; no apparent injury (0), and unknown injury (U) were weighted x0. Once the weights are established and applied to the crashes, the number of crashes is aggregated to each window, incorporating the crash severity weighting. For example , if a segment had 1 A crash , 1 B crash , 2 C crashes , and 5 0 crashes , it would receive a score of 7, or(1x3) + (1x2) + (2x1) + (Sx0). High Injury Network Development Development of the HIN is an iterative process and should emphasize that the key goal of the safety action plan is the elimination of fatal and serious injury crashes. The sliding windows analysis helps to achieve that goal by providing scores for all segments. The next step is to FORT WORTH -...,.--- 2050 47 examine those scores and determine the areas with the highest rates of injury. This is done using the following steps: 1. Map the sliding windows analysis results for each mode (as well as for commercial vehicles) individually. 2. For each mode , determine the threshold score required to be included in the HIN. This step eliminates streets that have a lower crash density, thereby prioritizing streets that have higher crash severities and frequencies. 3. With a HIN created for each mode, create an overall HIN, comprising any segment that is on one or more modal HIN. The goal of the HIN threshold setting process is to independently settle on a sliding windows score for each mode, then identify key corridors where risk is highest, and create a network that covers a selective set of city streets but a relatively large share of crashes , with an emphasis on KSI crashes. These scores differ by mode and location in some instances due to the differences in the number of crashes. For example, a score of 10 may be high for the pedestrian network, but relatively low for a motor vehicle network, as there are so many more motor vehicle crashes than pedestrian crashes. A segment that meets or exceeds the weighted crash score threshold noted for each mode, below, were included in mode-specific HIN and the overall HIN. The threshold scores used for the Fort Worth Safety Action Plan are listed below. ■ Pedestrian: 5 ■ Bicycle : 4 ■ Motorcycle: 8 ■ Motor Vehicle: 50 ■ Commercial Motor Vehicle: 8 Comparing the fraction of crashes -especially KSI crashes -that are on the HIN against the fraction of roads that make up the HIN (by roadway centerline mileage) illustrates how a small subset of roads account for a disproportionate share of crashes , especially KSI crashes. FORTWORTH ---.,.-- 2050 48 f0RTW0RTH --.,.---- 2050 Percentage of Crashes on HIN Percentage of Mode Roadways that are All KSI HIN Pedestrian 47.8 % 50.3 % 2.70%* Bicycl e 25 .0 % 46.9 % 0 .57 %* Motorcycl e 21.1 % 28.0 % 1.03% Motor Vehicl e 44.0 % 45.4% 4.35 % Comm ercial Motor V ehicl e 36.8 % 51.2 % 1.68 % Overall 50.8% 54.5% 6.30% • Excl udes mileage of freeways/t o llway roads. 49 Appendix A: Crash Data Preparation Crash data for the five -year period of 2019-2023 was acquired from Tx DOT's CRIS data portal. Crashes used for this analysis were all reportable crashes with the city attribute equal to Fort Worth . The crash , unit, person , and primary persons table were used for this analysis . Prior to the analysis , the person and primary person tables were combined , so any statistics that refer to persons refer to this combined dataset. Severity Crash level severity is ass igned based on the most seve re outcome to those involved , using the KABCO scale. For example , a crash where one person had a susp ected minor injury (B), and anothe r person had a possible injury (C), the overall crash would be assigned a severity of suspected minor injury (B). Severity was determined by first examining the severity for all persons involved in each crash , using their injury severity ID. For crashes that did not have any associated persons, information from the unit table was used . For these crashes , severity was determined using the columns that listed the count of each severity (death count, serious injury count, etc.), with the assigned severity being the most severe injury level with a value > 0. Note, for any crash where all severity counts were 0, the crash was assigned not injured (O). Mode Each crash was identified as involving or not involving the following modes: • Pedestrian • Bicyclist • Motorcyclist • Motor vehicle • Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) This was done using the criteria outlined in the Texas Strategic Highway Safety Plan 28 (SHSP). Motor vehicle-involved crashes weren't explicitly outlined in the SHSP but were flagged using the same logic as other modes , using the vehicle unit description of 'Motor Vehicle '. 28 https·Uwww texasshsp .com/wp-content/uploads /2022/08/2022 -2027-Texas -SHSP p..df -Append ix D fORTWORTH ---..,.--- 2050 50 Overall crash level mode is assigned based on the most vulnerable mode involved , usin g the order: 1. Pedestrian 2. Bicyclist 3. Motorcyclist 4 . Motor vehicle For example , if a crash involved a pedestrian and motor vehicle , the overall crash would be assigned a mode of pedestrian . VRU modes were considered as pedestrians and bicyclists . Note: when determining crash level mode, CMV crashes were not considered sep arate from motor vehicle crashes . Crash Characteristics Crash characteristics were determined using different person , unit, and crash level data , depending on the characteristic. The following characteristics were determined: • Type o Intersection/intersection-related o Ran off road o Head-on o Work zone o Railroad grade-crossing o Young driver involved o Older driver involved • Behaviors o Driving under the influence (DUI) (includes both alcohol and drugs) o Speeding o Lack of restraint o Distracted driving See the SHSP for the full list of criteria used for each characteristic. FORTWORTH --..---- 2050 51 Spatial Adjustment The CRIS data received was geolocated. For all crashes not geocoded to TxDOT on-system roads, their locations were used as they were received. For crashes that were geocoded to TxDOT on - system roadways , post-processing was performed to adjust their location . This was necessary because CRIS snaps all on-system crashes to the combined centerline of the roadway mainline. This means that there is not a way to spatially differentiate crashes that occurred on different sides of a divided highway, nor crashes that occurred on a frontage road from the mainline highway. This effect was more pronounced on one-way paired couplet highways, where the actual directional centerlines were two physically different roads but the combined centerline was the geographic median and ran through the middle of the block between the two roads. To correct this, attributes from the CRIS crash data, as well as the attributes and spatial properties of the TxDOT roadway inventory, were used in combination. Crashes were subset using the on-system flag and identified as either mainline or frontage roads using the roadway part ID. To adjust the crash locations , roadways were subset from the overall TxDOT roadway inventory as well as identified as mainline or frontage based on record type. The cardinal direction of the roadway segment was also calculated, with the direction of travel being determined by the segment's roadbed identifier. Crashes were then associated in a one-to-many relationship with these roadway segments based on highway number (attributes present in both datasets) and as part of a search tolerance based off the roadway's width, except for one -way paired couplets, where the distance was based off the distance between the two couplets . The CRIS data dictionary lists cardinal roadway direction as an attribute within the crash level dataset, however, that attribute was not present within the dataset acquired from the CRIS website. Instead, CRIS used vehicle direction of travel, although this information was not always present within the vehicle level data , and some multi -vehicle crashes had different vehicle directions. For any crashes not matched based on vehicle direction, it was attempted to interpret roadway direction based on directional elements within the street name reported in the crash , i.e ., 'North ', 'Northbound ', 'NB ', 'NBND', etc. Any crash (still matched on the previously described attribute and spatial criterion) with a difference between interpreted direction and roadway azimuth less than 45 ° for vehicle-based direction, and 90° for name-based direction (vehicle used a lower tolerance because vehicle directions were provided in 45 ° increments, i.e. northwest, southeast, etc., while name based directions were assumed in 90° increments, i.e. north, south , fORTWORTH -.,..--- 2050 52 etc.) was assigned to the closest point on the segment, relative to the original crash location . Using this methodology, approximately 75 % of the potentially fixable on-system crashes were relocated . Location Assignment Crashes were assigned to roadways based on both spatial and attribute criteria . First, all crashes were joined to the closest road within 50 ft, but only if the street name reported in the crash data and street name of the roadway were similar (a Levenshtein distance of <= 10). This was to ensure that if a crash was physically close to multiple streets, it would be assigned to the one that it most likely occurred on . Any crash that was not assigned a road from the previous step was then assigned to the closest road within 50 ft, regardless of other criteria . Crashes were assigned to intersections based on both spatial and attribute criteria. For this assignment, only crashes that were identified as intersection or intersection-related were considered. Crashes were joined to the closest intersection within 150 ft, but only when the roadway segment that was assigned in the previous step participated in the intersection (as determined by name). This requirement was used so that crashes were not assigned to adjacent, non-connected intersections. Finally, overall location type was determined based on being an intersection crash or not. Intersection/intersection-related crashes were assigned as 'Intersection ' and all other crashes were assigned as 'Segment '. f0RTW0RTH ---...,..--- 2050 53 Appendix B: Spatial Data Consolidation This analysis used North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) centerlines as the basis for the analysis . This was chosen over the City of Fort Worth 's centerlines , as the city's centerline data only contained geometry for streets within its jurisdictional boundary. In some locations, this left gaps on roadways that traversed in and out of the city, which would have caused issues when consolidating data from other sources where all roadways are included. This approach also helped account for edge effect, where roads that form part of a boundary may assigned to a neighboring city. Like crashes, this regional network was then flagged as comprising the study area based on meeting any of the following criteria: • NCTCOG data identified the source as "City of Fort Worth" • > 50% of the segment's length was within a 30 ft buffer of the City of Fort Worth Functional Classification Functional classification came from several sources. For segments that were within the City of Fort Worth, the city's functional classification system was used. Segments outside the city were assigned to their equivalent City of Fort Worth classification based on a combination of the NCTCOG 's regional and local authority's classifications . Lane Count Lane count data for the streets within the City of Fort Worth was available, but as part of a separate pavement dataset that did not have a linking ID back to the centerline dataset. The lane count from the pavement was conflated to the network. Next, for areas outside the City of Fort Worth, lane counts were conflated from the TxDOT Roadway Inventory. The TxDOT roadway dataset had fully populated lane count data, although it did not have geometry to represent every centerline segment within the study area. Adjustments were made to account for locations where the roadways were represented differently between the two datasets. For example , the same road may be represented as one two-way segment in the TxDOT dataset and as two one-way segments in the NCTOG dataset. If the TxDOT lane f 0RTW0 RTH ---.,.--- 2 050 54 count had a value of four (two in each direction) and this was simply conflated over, it would give both NCTCOG segments a value of four, when in reality they should both have a value of two. For any segments that were assigned a value from the TxDOT Roadway Inventory, OpenStreetMap (OSM) data was used. This was done in the same manner as with the TxDOT data, i.e., spatial conflation with adjustments to account for differences in data representation. Finally, for any segments that were still unknown, they had their values filled based on the most commonly occurring values for the same functional classification and road name, except for residential roads. This is because local roads tend to not have values, and where they do have known values, there's a higher chance of that location being enough of an outlier to warrant collecting data. Any residential roads without a known value from one of the above sources was assigned a lane count of two. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) AADT was not present in the NCTOG data. AADT was available in the TxDOT roadway inventory and was conflated onto the network. Like lane count, the TxDOT AADT data was fully populated within itself, but not did cover all roadway segments. Adjustments were made to ensure the final AADT values assigned correctly accounted for differences in data representation. For segments without AADT, estimated AADT from Replica were used . Since these are modeled volumes , they were fully populated and able to fill in most of the remaining data gaps. The only gaps remaining were instances in which minor differences in segment geometry prevented a spatial match. For these, values were estimated based on the most common occurring values for segments of the same name and functional classification. Unlike lanes , residential streets were included in this stage , as most local roads had values from TxDOT or Replica , which reduced the impact of outlier observations. Speed Limit Speed limits came from several sources . For segments within the City of Fort Worth, data was available from the City of Fort Worth. Outside the city, speed limit coverage varied within the NCTOG data, although any known values that were present were incorporated into the network. TxDOT data contained speed limit data, although it only had coverage for on-system roadways. This data was conflated onto the network to fill gaps. After this , OSM speed limit data was FORT WORTH --.,..--- 2050 55 conflated onto the network. Unlike lane count and AADT, no adjustments were needed to the speed limits , as the speed limit values were not affected by differences in data representation . Any segments that were still unknown had their values filled based on the most commonly occurring values for segments of the same name and functional classification. Like lane counts , this process excluded residential streets due to potential outlier observation effects. Any residential road without a known value was assigned the regulatory default of 30 mph. Intersection Control Control was assigned to intersections from several data sources. First , the City of Fort Worth maintains a dataset of signalized intersections. This dataset represented overall intersections that were signalized , so they were simply assigned to the closest intersection location within 30 ft. Next, was the city's traffic signal dataset. However, this dataset contained points for each traffic signal at an intersection, meaning that a single intersection had multiple points. To simplify this , traffic signals were grouped into clusters based on the name of the intersection they participated in , and the centroid of the cluster was obtained. With this , each cluster was represented by a single point, and was assigned to the closest intersection within 30 ft. Finally, OSM data was used. This data contained both signalized and stop (all way only) controlled information. Again, the control information from this dataset was assigned to the closest intersection within 30 ft. fORTWORTH ~ 2050 56 Appendix C: Crash Maps I l,.-- r------ 1 I I l I All Modes Crash Map • Fatal and Sertous Injury Crashes Other Crashes Figure 29 : All Modes Crash Map ___ ....,. I I I 1 I I I I I I I lt_J_ . f ' I . I ,·ooLE £SIGN FORT WORTH ---...----- 2050 57 ---· -·,------ r- 1 I I I I . • I ~ """ ~r,. \_, ~ .,, (] . I ' v-· uf.t,ORQAo rirh• I ,J 1 ~ • LJ 't_· • ! £-l ·- f ~ I • ---- Pedestrian Crashes • Fatal 8 d • n Senous Injury C • ' Other Cra shes rashes ~,.':. :,f"'", . ,. ... Figure 30: Ped • estnan Crashes Map I . --- ,-, I I I I I I I I I I -I ---.. -J_ . TCi OLE £S IGN • I . f0RT WORTH -..._,.-- 2050 58 ---·-·,·-·-·-·-· 4-iy J~;: r-~- (l I ~ ""'" ~~f,h l,_ .,.,, ' --..-,,.- At[i)O •oAo ffrh • ' j ~ ,_1 I 't_ Lzf ·- ~ ~~~ r--------·-.---- 1 I I f I Bicycle Crashes • Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Other Cra shes Figure 31 : Bicycle Crashes Map ,.,,../ ' l Downtown Inset I I I I I I I i I I I --J_ ----r.- O 1 2mi 1-+-t-+-l . . I 4b l 'OOLE ES IGN f 0 RTW0RTH ----....,..--- 2 050 59 -·-·-·,·-·-·-·-· (1 r -· """· )- ~!",~"✓. "• r------------ 1 I I f I Motorcycle Crashes • Fatal and Ser ious Injury Crashes Other Crashes Figure 32: Motorcycle Crashes Map ,.,,,.. ,-, j t _L_ \i o I T I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ------iT-J_ O 1 2mi 1--+++-j I . I . ~ ,·d oLE ES I G N foRTWORTH ----.,.--- 2050 60 r------------- 1 I I f I Motor Vehicle Crashes • Fata l and Serious Injury Crashes Other Crashes ..... O,"l ... Figure 33: Motor Vehicle Crashes Map Downtown Inset I I I f I I I I I I I -----.--...L • ~ . I o 1 2m; Al. ,·o'oLE 1-+-t-+-l .., q E S I G N f0RTW0RTII ---..-- 2050 61 r __ ___._ ____ _ I I I I I Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes • Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Other Crashes .; Figure 34: Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes Map Downtown Inset -,- I I I l I I I I I I I -----,.-J_ 0 1 2 mi 1-+-t-+-l . I ~ l"OOLE _..ESIGM .. I FORT WORTH ---...,.--- 2050 62 j 4 -L }il -·-·-·,--·-·-·--R ·y:J I or j . I • 1 ~~r, • ., "',', ' --"'ct:: r:[_ (1 ~ ' • ,UE1)0 -'0.40 rr··· ,..,,.. t ,J j ~t ~ ' LZ1 --..--Y~:+_~-~ • r __ _... _____ ~_,_ ___ _ I I I l I Railroad Crossing Crashes • Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Other Cra shes Figure 35: Railroad Crossing Crashes Map :i-., o., ~ o , l.,CL_J I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I ----...i..-r:-_j_ 0 1 2mi 1-+++-l . I 1"0,0LE DESIGN ~ I FoRTWORTH --....,.--- 2 050 63 Appendix D: HIN Maps -----·,------·- ~ ...... -~ v:r.,., .... /4-rr ~ ~ , ~~-f,4!:<t7.t:;:'.:J:tt,J,-"I I . v-r( •• j i \. [d L.- [,. ~ r __ _.__ ___ _ I I I l I -Pedestrian High Injury Network ' 7.l Figure 36. Pedestrian High Injury Network Map I I I I I I I I I I I -----77-J_ 0 1 2ml f-+++-1 . ~ ,·doLE ESIGN f0RTW0RTH ---.,..--- 2050 64 ------,------·- r------ 1 I I ' I -Bicycle High Injury Network Figure 37. Bicycle High Injury Network Map ' .. ~ 'ii, "'o "o ' .. ·1 l l, I I I I I I I I I I I ------..--J__ ' ~ mi ~ l'd OLE ESIGN • r I 1 f0RTW0RTH ---.,---- 2050 65 -·-·-·,-·-·-·-·-· r l • 't.f . . Y~ ( ... • AL(1)o •oio r;r' •. ,J i ~t L ../ ·- /,J ~ -~, r __ _.__ ___ _ I I I I I -Motorcycle High Injury Network . 7., Figure 38. Motorcycle High Injury Network Map Downtown Inset I I I I I I I I I I I -----,-..L . O 1 2mi I--++-+, 4b l"Ci OLE E SIGH . ' FORT WORTH -.,---- 2050 66 0 ~ -~~ L I l,-- j r •. 2j ~t . \L....:::.::::: . . , I . J I I r--------~--- 1 I I I I -Motor Veh icle High Injury Network Figure 39. Motor Vehicle High Injury Network Map t o-1- -90 "'c ~ I . _J HINSY~VAN IA•A'l[N llt ......a. Downtown Inset I I I I I I I I I I I -----,r-J__ o 1 2mi 1-+-t-+-i . I . 1·doLE ESIGN ' I i FORT WORTH -.....--- 2050 67 r,-------- 1 I I f I --Commercial Motor Vehicle High Injury Network ' 1, "+ .,., ~. \ ' ~-J Figure 40. Commercial Motor Vehicle High Injury Network Map j I I I I I I J I I I ___ .....,. __ _J_ . ~mi ,+. I r,-r--.---, w 1"0,0LE D ESIGN ' I i f0RT W0RTH ----.,.-- 2050 68 [Qr.---·7 r t , w ~ -'~rt _Jir -·-·-·,·-·-·-·-· ~--,,-/ r-~-- ~ i ' ,., . ,-.-:~:~ r, . 1...! • I "'" ...r(""""--~r,." ",', •. ,, r:[_ J 2 Aj zf ~\G ~ r----- 1 I I f I -Overall High Injury Network Figure 41. Overall High Injury Network Map -,-- I I I I I I I J I I I ------r-J_ . I . ~ mi 4b 1·o'oLE 9ESI GN , I FoRTWoRrn ---.,.--- 2050 69 -Overall High Injury Network Overall Social Vulnerability Index Low D Low-Medium D Medium-High High Figure 42: Overall HIN and the Social Vulnerabilit y Index 0 1 2 ml 1-+++-l . I I ,·ooLE l!ESIGN FORT WORTH ~ 2050 70 Appendix E: Crash Rate and HIN HIN developed in this study was based on the Sliding Windows Analysis which used th e crash frequency to identify locations with high concentrations of crashes . Crash frequency or number of crashes was often used for network screening in safety studies as it can help identify locations that need the most improvement to reduce the numb er of crashes and eventually reach the goal of Vision Zero. Crash rate , which is the number of crashes normalized by traffic volume, is another measure that can be used to identify locations that may merit safety improvement. However, crash rate tends to be impacted by the change in traffic volume, and having a relatively low crash rate doesn't mean those locations are safe. For example, higher volume roadways with large numbers of crashes may have relatively low crash rates but they are exactly where safety improvements are particularly needed as many people depend on those roadways for their daily travel. The traditional way of calculating crash rate also often doesn't consider crash severity which is not consistent with the Safe System approach's principle of focusing on preventing fatal and serious injury crashes . To take into consideration of crash rate and use it as a measure for project location prioritization , we followed the typical way of calculating crash rate per the following formula: t ot a l number of cras he s x 100,000,000 Crash Ra te = ------------------ AA DT x 3 65 x 5 yea r s x ro a d way segm e nt le ngth We then overlaid the roadway segments with medium to high crash rates based on Natural Breaks with the overall HIN map. The results are shown in Figure 43. The overall HIN overlaps with many roadway segments with higher crash rates . There are segments with medium or above crash rates that are not part of HIN as well as HIN segments with rel atively low crash rates. Both the HIN results and the crash rate results , in combination with several other factors such as social vulnerability considerations , public input, overlap with existing projects, etc. will be used as metrics for project location prioritization. This can help make sure locations need the most safety improvement either due to a high number of crashes or a high crash rate will be accounted for. f0RTW0RTH -----.--- 2 050 71 r r 1 )-ll -"\ L o -·-·-·,·-·-·-·-· --~-/ -r-~- r- 1 I I I I ~ "'r, - -~ Vt£*" .... '<"'; r:[_. (l • r:rh• 1 ,J 1 • • Lz.( Crash Rate -Medium -Med ium High -High ' ~~ ' ,,._/ 0 1 2mi 1-+++-l Figure 43: Overall HIN overlay with Segments with Medium to High Crash Rates FORT WORTH -.....,..,- 2050 ~ TdOLE ESIOH 72 •• APPENDIXC Engagement Summary Report FORTWORTH --.,..--- 2050 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Website .............................................................................................................................. 3 Committee Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 3 Open Houses ................................................................................................................................... 4 Community Events ......................................................................................................................... 7 Surveys ............................................................................................................................................ 13 What We Heard ............................................................................................................................ 14 1 Introduction To develop a Safety Action Plan (SAP) that offers targeted strategies and solutions for addressing the safety challenges ex perienced by Fort Worth residents , the City conducted an extensive public and stakeholder engagement process . This ensured that community voices were heard and their feedback meaningfully informed the plan . The SAP development process included a wide range of outreach and engagement efforts: • 1 project website that provided regular project updates, event announcements, and access to final deliverables • 2 newsletters to introduce the project and keep stakeholders informed of ongoing progress • 3 rounds of open houses , including: o In the first two rounds, one in-person open house in each of the 10 City Council districts o In the third round , one in-person and one virtual open house • 5 rounds of advisory committee meetings , each round including: o One meeting with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) o One meeting with the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) • 14 informational meeting announcements to publicize and encourage participation in open houses and committee meetings • 26 community events where staff engaged with residents to encourage participation in the project survey and gather feedback on safety conditions, challenges , and priorities • 273 comment cards submitted by community members at in-person events • 1,100 online survey responses collected from the public f0RTWORTH ~ 2050 All engagement opportunities were widely promoted through a variety of channels, including radio and news media, neighborhood association email lists, social media platforms, brochures, flyers, yard signs, and business cards featuring QR codes linking to project materials. Project Website The project website, hosted and maintained by the City, is avai lable at https://safety-action-plan- cfw.hub.arcgis .com . It can also be accessed via the Master Transportation Plan (M 1M) website at https://www.movingami l lion .org. The site provides comprehensive background information about the Safety Action Plan (SAP), including its key elements, the guiding Vis ion Zero principles , an interactive map showing five years of crash data, and a roadmap and schedule outlining th e development process. A regularly updated section features announcements of upcoming engagement opportunities and the latest findings from the pl an. Serving as a central hub for both the public and stakeholders, the website ensures access to up-to-date information related to the SAP and supports ongoing community involvem ent. Committee Meetings Fort Worth is hom e to a diverse array of voices-including residents , e lected officials, businesses , community advocates, and service agencies. To ensure the Safety Action Plan reflects the city's unique contexts and needs, two advisory committees -Technical Advisory Committee and the Community Advisory Committee -were established. These committees , compos ed of community advocates and agency representatives , played a key role in guiding the planning process. Their responsibilities included: • Shaping the plan's vis ion and purpose • Reviewing preliminary findings and ana lyses • Contributing to messaging st rategies for community engagement • Advising on the development of actionable strategies • Providing input on ongoing plann i ng efforts Together, these advisory groups helped ensure that the plan is both strategic and community-informed . FORTWORTH --.,.....--- 2050 3 Table 1. SAP Technical and Community Ad visory Committee Members Technical Advisory Committee Community 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 M att Larseingue , BNSF Russell Laughlin , Developer (Hillwood) Myron Wilson , Fort Worth ISD Richard Gonzalez, TxDOT Russell Laughlin , Developer (Hillwood) Scott Hall, Tarrant County Tara Crawford , Trinity Metro Tim Huya , BNSF Travi s Clegg , Develop er (Peloton) Victor Vandergriff, Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition Mendes David , District 2 Isaa c Manning, District 3 Rusty Fuller, District 4 Naki a Cole , District 5 Haylee Carr, District 6 Ryan Smith , District 7 Dr. Sharla Horton, District 8 Austin James , District 9 Jacob Wurman, District 10 Dr. Erik Jones, District 11 Matt Dufrene, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee & Blue Zones .. During the development of the Safety Action Plan (SAP), five rounds of committee meetings were conducted . Each round included two separate meetings-one with each committee . Detailed meeting notes from these sessions are available from the City upon request. Open Houses Three rounds of Open Houses were conducted throughout the development of the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan (VZ SAP), held at the beginning , middle , and end of the planning process . All events were promoted approx imately one month in advance through flyers , news releases , social media , yard signs and f 0RTW0R TH ~ 2050 4 • = the project website. At all rounds of open houses , at least one Spanish-speaking staff member was present to support any bilingual needs. The first two rounds were held in coordination with the City's Master Transportation Plan-Move a Million {M1M)-while the third round was conducted independently for the VZ SAP. In total , over 300 participants engaged in the Open Houses, providing 273 comments on VZ SAP. Detailed information related to th ese Open Houses , such as the boards , handouts , and sticky notes provided by the public, is available from the City upon request. Open House Round 1 • Date: June 22 -June 29 , 2024 • Format: In-person events f eaturing informational boards and interactive engagement activities , held at libraries or community centers • Number of Events: 10 (one in each City District) • Purpose: o Introduce the need for a Safety Action Plan in Fort Worth using high-level data o Explain the Vision Zero concept and the Safe System approach o Present initial goals of the VZ SAP and gather public input on transportation safety • Engagement Materials: o Informational boards o Comment cards o Business cards with project website and online survey links Open House Round 2 • Date: October 19 -October 26 , 2024 • Format: In-person events at libraries , schools , or community centers , plus an online open house • Number of Events: 10 in-person events (one per City District) and one online event • Purpose: o Share findings from the existing conditions and safety analysis FoRTWORT H ~ 2050 ZE~H : s o Present the High Injury Network o Solicit feedback on potential safety improvement strategies • Engagement Materials: o Informational boards o Comment cards o Project overview handout o Mapping activities o Paper survey o Project website and on line survey links Open House Round 3 • Date: April 9-10, 2025 • Format: One citywide in-person open house at the Hazel Harvey Peace Center, along with an online open house • Number of Events: 2 (one in -person , one virtual) • Purpose: o Present refined findings from the safety conditions analysis o Reintroduce the High Injury Network o Gather final feedback on proposed safety strategies • Engagement Materials: 0 Informational boards 0 Comment cards 0 Project overview handout 0 Mapping activities 0 Paper survey 0 Project website and online survey links foRTWORTH --..,..--- 2050 6 Figure 1. Some Photos from Open Houses Community Events With support from City staff, the project team conducted outreach at 26 community events to gather input for both the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan (SAP) and the concurrent Moving a Million planning effort. At each event, the team distributed traffic safety surveys , shared project info r mation , and provided links to the Vision Zero website . Community events were intentionally selected to engage a diverse cross-s ection of Fort Worth's population, with a focus on reaching historically underrepresented groups. Many events connected with F0RTW0RTJ·I --.,..-- 2050 7 foRTWORTH ---.,.-- 2050 large numbers of young people, people of color, transit-dependent individuals, non-English speakers , and residents of South and East Fort Worth. Participation levels varied by event. The most highly attended were the Tarrant County Back to School Round-Up , the Tarrant County Harambee Festival , and ArtsGoggle-each drawing w ell over 1,000 attendees and offering substantial exposure for the project. Table 2. Community Event s -Event/Opportunity • • Tarrant County Back to School Round-Up ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Shin e With Lovin g Kindn ess Festival SteerFW Civi c Summit Fort Worth Report: Future of Transportat ion in Tarrant County panel District 10 Town Hall M1M booth at Texas W es leyan Univer sity M1M booth at Te xas Wesleyan University Polytec hni c Neighborhood Associa ti on M1M booth at Tarrant County College South Campus M1M booth at Tarrant County Coll ege Sou th Campu s National Night Out -Historic Southsid e Neighborhood Association Location Tarrant County College South Campus HU'crng D;;io Buddhi st Temple Amphibian St age Texas W es leyan Uni ve rsity Te xa s Motor Speedway Texas W es leya n Uni vers ity Te xas Wesleyan University Ridgl ea Hills El ementary School Tarrant County Colleg e South Campus Tarr ant County College South Campus Glenwood Park V entana Am enity Cen t er Address 5301 Campus Dr Fort Worth , TX 76119 47 17 East Rosedale St , Fort W orth, TX 76105 120 S Main St , Fort Worth , TX 76104 3165 E Rosedale St , Fo rt Worth , TX 76105 3545 Lon e Star Cir, Fort Worth , TX 76177 3165 E Ro se dale St , Fort Worth, TX 76105 3165 E Rosedale St, Fort Worth , TX 76105 68 17 Cumb erl and Rd , Fort W orth , TX 76116 5301 Campus Dr, Fort Worth , TX 76119 5301 Campu s Dr, Fort Worth , TX 76119 910 S Riv erside Dr, Fort Worth , TX 76104 10327 Trail Rid ge Dr, Fort W orth , TX 76126 8 ■ fa,aot Coooty Ha,ambee FesHval ■ Tdolty Metm -Slec,a Vista ■ Tdolty Metm -L, G,ao Pla,a • • Trinity Metro -Central Station Trinity Metro -Dr. Dennis Dunkins Harve st Community Fair William M . McDonald YMCA Sierra Vista Transfer Center La Gran Plaza Transfer Center Fort Worth Central Station Dr. Dennis Dunkins Transit Center Turning Point Church Near Southside (Magnolia Avenue) f 0 RTWOR TH ~ 2050 2701 Moresby St , Fort Worth, TX 76119 1500 E Berry St , Fort Worth , TX 76119 Town Ctr Rd , Fort Worth, TX 76115 1001 Jones St , Fort Worth , TX 76102 4100 E Lancaster Ave, Fort Worth, TX 76103 10700 Old Burleson Rd , Fort Worth, TX 76140 607 W Magnolia Ave , Fort Worth , TX 76104 9 fORTWORTH ~ 2050 Figure 2. Trinity Metro Transfer Station Outreach Figure 3. Tarrant County Harambee Festival 10 FORTWORTH ---.,..-- 2050 Figure 4. ArtsGoggle 11 FORT WORTH --.....-- 2050 Figure 5. Nationa l Night Out Figure 6. Texas Wesleyan University 12 Surveys Online Survey At the beginning of the project, an online survey developed using ESRI Survey 123 were administered to ask for the public 's feedback on safety conditions in the City. The survey was developed in combination with M1M and was posted on the M1M project website. The survey was promoted and distributed via emails , newsletter, social media and engagement events. Some safety-related questions were asked as part of the online survey, besides optional demographic questions on zip code, age group, ethnicity, gender, and residence . Below is a summary of the demographics of survey participants: • Over 20% of respondents were aged 65 and older. • Young adults (ages 25-34) made up nearly 14% of respondents. • Nearly 70% of respondents identified as White or Caucasian . • About 10% identified as Black or African American. • Roughly 12% identified as Hispanic. • A majority of respondents (56 %) identified as women. • About 43% identified as men. Paper Survey In addition to the online survey, the project team developed a brief paper-based version to distribute at community engagement events. A total of 267 paper surveys were collected . The responses were analyzed and integrated into the overall plan development process. FORT WORTH -....,..,- 2050 13 Traffic Safety Survey Age: Z IP code : What are Fort Worth's biggest traffi c safety problems' What are the most dangerous places In Fort Worth (for driving. biking. walking. etc.)? You may list as many places as you wan t. For a chance to w i n $100 grocery gift card, please share your em ail address. The w inner will be notified at the conclusion of t he survey. fORTW0RTH . ---..,-.-- 2050 Fo r more information, visit www.Movins AMillion .ors and click on Safety Action Plan . .1 * Encuesta de seguridad vial Edad: C6digo postal : Cuales son los mayores problemas de seguridad vial de Fort Worth? c,Ct.Jales son las lugares mas peligrosos de Fort Worth (para conducir. ir en blci, caminar. etc.)? Puede enumerar tantos lugares como desee. ~- 2050 Para tener la o portunidad de sanar una tarjeta resalo de $100 p.-ra e l supermerudo. comparta su direccl6n de co rreo elec tr6nico. El ganador sera notificado al final de la encuesta, Para mas informaci6n. visite www.Movins AMillion.ors y empuje el Plan de Acci6n de Segurid ad. Figure 7. Short Paper Survey (English and Spanish) What We Heard Key findings from the engagement events and surveys ar e summarized below. Travel Behavior and Safety Implications • High levels of car dependency: More than 75 % of respondents reported driving every day. This reliance on driving reinforces the need to design streets that reduce crash risks for motorists and better accommodate vulnerable users. • Low walking rates suggest safety or comfort barriers : Over 50% of respondents reported they "Never" or "Almost Never" walk. While this may reflect land use patterns , it may also indicate pe rce ived safety issues such as poor lighting, inadequate crossings , or sidewalk gaps. f 0RT W0 RTH --..,..------ 2050 14 • Limited use of public transit and micromobility : Low reported use of buses , trains, scooters , and wheelchairs suggests that safety concerns-whether real or perceived-may be deterring broader adoption of non -driving modes . Infrastructure Satisfaction and Perceived Safety • Streets and sidewalks are a source of dissatisfaction: o Over 4 0 % of respondents were "Unhappy " or "Very Unhappy " with the condition of Fort Worth 's roads. o More than one-third expressed dissatisfaction with sidewalks , highlighting concerns about safe walking conditions. • Mixed satisfaction with bicycle infrastructure : A significant share of respondents selected "I don 't know/this does not apply" when asked about bike paths , which may point to a lack of visibility or comfort with existing bike facilities . Priorities for Safer Public Transit When asked what would encourage greater use of publ ic transit, respondents most frequently cited: • Access to more destinations • Faster and more direct routes • Increased service frequency While not safety-specific on the surface, these factors reflect a desire for more reliable and secure transit options that minimize exposure to unsafe conditions (e.g ., long waits or walking in unsafe environments). Demographic and Social Vulnerability Considerations • Older adults may be more vulnerable: Over 20% of respondents were 65 or older, a population more susceptible to serious injury in the event of a crash-particularly as pedestrians . • Demographic skew may limit insight into underserved populations : Nearly 70% of respondents identified as White /Caucasian , suggesting further outreach may be needed to fully capture safety concerns of BIPOC or transit-reliant communities who may face higher exposure to traffic violence . Environmental and Systemic Safety Priorities • Environmental concerns are not top-of-mind : Few respondents ranked eco-friendly transportation options as a top priority. While this doesn 't directly signal safety concerns , it may reflect a broader need to frame active and sustainable modes in terms of health , safety, and community benefits. f ORTWORTH ---.,..--- 2050 15 •• APPENDIXD Safe Speed White Paper List of Abbreviations AADT Annual average daily traffic FHWA KSI mph NCHRP NHTSA RTZ SLS SSC TCD TxDOT Federal Highway Administration Killed or serious injury Miles per hour National Cooperative Highway Research Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Road to Zero Speed limit setting Speed safety camera Traffic control device Texas Department of Transportation USLIMITS2 United Stated Limits 2 VRU Vulnerable road users f 0 RTW0 RTH --...,...-- 2050 Page i f0RT W0RTH ---.,..,--- 2 050 Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... i Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Data Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 3 Texas Department of Transportation Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones ............................................. 3 Te xas Transportation Code Section 545 .................................................................................................................. 4 City of Fort Worth Speed Ordinance 22-86 ........................................................................................................... 5 FHWA Report to Congress on Guidance for the Setting of Speed Limits (2023) ............................................ 5 FHWA Safe System Approach for Speed Management.. ................................................................................... 13 National Association of City Tran sportation Officials City Limits .................................................................... 14 Case Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 15 City of Austin , Te xas .................................................................................................................................................. 16 City of Seattle , Washington ..................................................................................................................................... 17 City of New York ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 Recommendations and Next Steps .............................................................................................. 18 ii Introduction The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines a speed limit as "the ma x imum lawful vehicle speed for a specific location ." The purpose of a speed limit is to restrict traffic flow to a speed that is safe for the conditions. High rate of speed is a leading cause of t raffic fatalities and injuries , making speed managem ent essential for road safety. Research shows that th e risk to pedestrians increases significantly as driver speed increases. According to th e National H ighway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),1 13 percent of pedestrians will die or suffer a severe injury if hit by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour (mph), 40 percent at 30 mph , and 73 percent at 40 mph. These statistics highlight the critical need for immediate and sustained efforts to manage speeds effectively and sav e lives. Conventional approach es to setting speed limits typically result in high rates of speed that can be less safe for all users . Furthermore, many drivers default to traveling 5 to 10 mph above the posted speed limit. Safe speed , a key element of the Safe System Approach , rep resents an alternative paradigm for speed limits and speed management. The Safe Syst em Approach is a globally recognized practi ce for reducing and eve ntually eliminating fatalities and serious injuries . The purpose of this White Paper is to provide the City of Fort Worth with a solid overview of the latest research and practices in setting speed limits within the U.S. and recommend the next steps in establishing safe speeds as part of the city's Vision Zero Safety Action Plan effort. Data Findings In Fort Worth, Texas , speeding is both a frequent occurrence and a si gnificant contributor to severe injury crashes. Recent safety analysis from the State of Safety Report (2024) reveals that speeding was involved in 28 .2 percent of all crashes and 35 .8 percent of crashes resulting in killed or serious injuries (KSI). Higher speed greatly increases the frequency and sev erity of traffic crashes , resulting in a high rate of fatalities and serious injuries , especially among vulnerable road users (VRUs) as shown in Figure 1. 1 Natio nal Highway Traffi c Safet y Adm inis tratio n. (2 0 2 3). Pedes trian reso urce guide. https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/s ites /tsm .gov/files/2023-08/2023%20Pedestrian %2 0Resource%2 0Guide.pdf Page 1 FORT WORTH --..,.-- 2050 Figure 1: Different Speeds and their Impact (Graph source : Montgomery County Complete Street Design Guide. Original data source: NHTSA National Pede strian Safety Month 2023 Resource Guide) This link between speeding and severe outcomes highlights the urgent need for effective speed management across the city's road network. These alarming statistics underscore the urgency of implementing effective speed management strategies. The crash data analysis also reveals that roadways with higher speed limits , higher functional classifications, and greater traffic volumes are overrepresented in KSI crashes. This is especially concerning on on -system roadways , which , despite making up a smaller percentage of total crashes , account for a larger proportion of severe outcomes. Addressing these high -risk areas with context-sensitive speed management strategies is essential for improving road safety and protecting the Fort Worth community. The analysis provides valuable insights into the relationship between speed limits and crash outcomes. Roadways with speed limits of 35 mph and above are more likely to result in severe injuries. Lower-speed roadways (30 mph or less) account for a smaller proportion of severe outcomes, reinforcing the need for appropriate speed management on higher -speed roads. Roadways with a speed limit of 40 mph or less have a higher rate of VRU crashes due to higher exposure of VRU on these roadways but a lower proportion of VRU KSI crashes. Conversely, f0RTW0RTH ---.---- 2050 2 roadways with a speed limit above 50 mph have a disproportionate share of VRU KSI crashes , highlighting the vulnerability of non-motorized users on faster roads . Literature Review The primary goal of this White Paper is to provide the city with a solid overview of the latest research and practices in setting safe speed limits and recommend the next steps for doing so on Fort Worth's roadway network. The project team reviewed and summarized the following documents: • Texas Department of Transportation Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones • Texas Transportation Code Section 545.352 • City of Fort Worth Speed Ordinance 22-86 • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Guidance for the Setting of Speed Limits (Report to Congress) • FHWA, Safe System Approach for Speed Management • National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets Texas Department of Transportation Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones The TxDOT Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones contains guidance for setting speed limits on state-owned highways. In the absence of a city-approved , context-sensitive methodology for establishing speed limits, the City of Fort Worth uses TxDOT's procedures. The report recommends that speed limits should be based on spot speed studies , the 85 th percentile operating speed , and the legal minimum and maximum speed. The guide lays out types of speed zones , where the prima facie maximum speed limit should be altered from the statutory speed limit. According to TxDOT, the scope for a speed zone study includes calculating the 85 th percentile , performing a crash study, creating strip maps , and conducting speed zone design. The guide also describes the appropriate authorities for speed zone approval on state highways . In most cases , speed zones (including both statutory and posted speed limits) on state highways within cities should be established by city ordinance based on TxDOT's recommendations . 3 f ORTWORTH --.,.--- 2050 Typically, TxDOT conducts the necessary speed studies and advises the city on appropriate speed limit zoning, even for zones set by city ordinance. Cities with their own traffic engineering staff may also conduct speed studies on state-maintained highways and propose speed zoning changes. However, this process requires TxDOT to review and approve the city's recommendations. Within incorporated cities or towns, the Texas Transportation Commission has the power to adjust speed limits on highways within city limits or override speed limits established by city ordinances for those highways. TxDOT is responsible for conducting studies and providing recommendations to the city, which can then adopt the suggested speed zones through a city ordinance. Key Takeaways: This procedure-which is not required for city-owned streets-requires data collection and case-by-case analysis. It is based on 85 th percentile operating speed, which may result in higher speed limits than other methods. Texas Transportation Code Section 545 Texas Transportation Code Section 545 .352 sets prima facie speed limits based on the roadway context, unless a special hazard exists that requires a lower speed limit. The standard prima facie speed limits are: • 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley • 15 miles per hour in an alley • 70 miles per hour on a highway numbered by the state or the United States outside an urban district, including farm-to-market or ranch-to-market roads • 60 miles per hour on a highway outside an urban district that is not numbered by the state or the United States • 60 miles per hour for school buses that have passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection and are on a highway numbered by the state or the United States, including farm-to-market roads • 50 miles per hour for school buses that have not passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection or are traveling on a highway not numbered by the state or the United States • 15 miles per hour on a beach • 15 miles per hour on a county road adjacent to a public beach, if declared by the commissioners court of the county 4 FORT WORTH ~ 2050 Te xa s Transportation Code Section 545.356 grants municipalities the authority to alter prim a facie speed limits . Specifically, it allows municipalities to declare speed limits as low as 25 miles per hour "if the governing body d etermines that the prima faci e speed limit on the highway is unreasonable or unsafe ." Doing so requires the municipality to report the number of traffic citations, warnings, and crashes each y ear in comparison with the two prior years. Key takeaways: Texas Transportation Code grants authority to the City of Fort Worth to set speed limits as low as 2 5 miles per hour and does not require higher speed limits for collectors and arterials. However, the City needs to develop its own definition of "unreasonable or unsafe" to evaluate when the prima facie speed limits warrant a change. City of Fort Worth Speed Ordinance 22-86 The City of Fort Worth Ordinance 22-86 defers to the Texas Transportation Code regarding prima facie speed limits . It follows the Texas Transportation Code to assume a public street or highway within the city urban district without a speed limit sign would assume a speed limit of 30 mph . It specifies some parks where the speed limits are reduced to 20 mph, and school zones with speed limits mostly at 20 mph but some have 25 or 30 mph . A list of freeways , frontage roads , and streets with dedicated speed limits were also provided, though it is unclear about the rationale behind these specified speed limit values . Key takeaways: Since the current city ordinance follows largely the Texas Transportation Code for speed limit, it has to be revised to reflect any new speed methodology the City plans to adopt. FHWA Report to Congress on Guidance for the Setting of Speed Limits (2023) The FHWA report to Congress Guidance for the Setting of Speed Limits2 synthesizes findings from National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 17-76 , which ex plores methods for determining speed limits and their impact on ro ad safety. This report summari zed si x approaches used domestically and internation ally to set speed limits : 1. Operating Speed: This approach uses the 85th percentile speed , wit h adjustments used to account for existing roadway geometry or crash experience . A revi ew of 31 State 2 Federal Hig hway Adm inistration . (20 12). Guida nce for the Se tting of Spee d Li mits (Repo rt t o Co ngress). U.S . Departm ent of Tr anspo rt atio n. https://highways.dot.gov/s ites/fhwa .dot.gov/files/Report to Congress%20on Guidance for the Setting of Speed Limits O.pdf 5 fORTW0RTH ~ 2050 Websites by the research team found that all 31 States use the op erating speed approach . More than half of the States reviewed consider ro adside developm ent or land use , traffic condition or volume , si ght distances , the max imum or minimum speed allowed in the State , as additional factors , while at least three States also consider alignment or crosssectional factors such as horizontal/vertical curves , lane width, and pavement width . 2. Road Risk: This approach is primarily used in Canada and New Zealand and determin es the speed limit based on the risks associated with the physical design of the road and the expected traffic conditions . Essentially, the speed limits are set according to the function or classification of the roads , and then adjustments to the speed limit are made based on the relative risk introduced by road and roadside design features. Since this method may result in spe ed limits w ell below th e 85th percentile spe eds , addition al enforcement may be needed if countermeasures to reduce operating speeds are not employed . 3 . Expert System: This approach recommends a speed limit based on a computer algorithm that uses knowledge and inference procedures that simulate the judgment and behavior derived from knowledgeable people , i.e., the "ex perts ." The first expert system approach w as developed in the late 1980s by Australia , and currently USLIMITS2 , a Web-ba sed tool d eveloped by FHWA, is used on a limited basis as an ex pert system in the United States . 4 . Injury Minimization/Safe System: This approach sets speed limits based on collision types that are likely to occur, the resulting impact forces , and the human body 's tolerance to withstand those forces . This approach is based on the scientific link between speed limits and serious crash prevention , placing a high priority on road safety. It is used in Australia , the Netherlands , and Sweden but is not commonly used in the United St ates. This may be due to lack of ex posure to this method , or because the resulting low speed limits are not viewed as appropriate by some jurisdictions 5. Citywide of Default : This approach sets speed limits by government actions. The report discusses city efforts to set uniform speed limits for safety, such as a 20 mph speed limit on residential streets. States generally control statutory speed limits , and several U.S. cities have recently campaigned to gain the authority from their state legislatures to set lower citywide default speed limits. For example , Boston , Massachusetts ; New York City, New York ; and Seattle , Washington , now have the ability to set a 25 mph speed limit citywide . Portl and , Oregon , has the authority to set residential streets at 20 mph. Other countries are also implementing citywide speed limits . 6 f 0 RTW0RTH ---....,...-- 2050 6. Slow Zones: This approach is a community -based program to set lower speed limits for specifically designated corridors or areas than the speed limits on surrounding roadways of the same type . For example , New York City has implemented a "Neighborhood Slow Zones Program " to reduce crash frequency and severity and to enhance quality of life by reducing cut-through traffic and traffic noise in residential neighborhoods. Within the 6 Slow Zone area , speed limits are reduced from 25 mph to 20 mph , and traffic calming treatments are added with the intention of changing driver behavior Based on its review of existing speed limit setting practices and factors that were identified that influence operating speed and safety, NCHRP 17-76 developed the Speed Limit Setting (SLS)- Procedure. The SLS-Procedure is designed to apply a set of unique decision rules that consider both driver speed choice and safety to four collapsed Speed Limit Setting Groups (SLSGs): Limited-Access , Undeveloped , Developed , and Full-Access facilities based on roadway types and roadway contexts. The measured operating speed is recommended as the starting point for selecting a posted speed limit using the SLS-Tool , the spreadsheet that accompanies the $LS-Procedure . The tool suggests a speed for a roadway segment based on existing conditions and crash experience , as illustrated in Figure 2 Safety is evaluated using crash data , risk factors , and research linking geometric variables to crash frequency. Context = rural , rura l town, suburban, urban, or urban core/ Type= freeway, major arterial, minor arterial, collector, or local Consideration of drivers' speed selection on the segment/ Consideration of crash risk based on roadway characteristics Calculated value based on consideration of roadway context and type, speed distribution, and safety Figure 2 : Overview of procedure to calculate suggested speed limit (NCH RP Research Report 966 , 2023) 7 foRT WORTH ~ 2050 Step 1. Determine Roadway Context and Type The SLS-Procedure starts with determining the roadway context and type. Roadway conte xt includes Rural, Rural Town, Suburban, Urban and Urban Core and roadway type includes Interstates/Freeways/Expressways, Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Locals. Based on the roadway context and type, the speed limiting setting group (SLSG) a facility belongs to can be identified using the table shown in Table 1. For facilities within the same SLSG , a similar decision process would be employed to determine the speed limit in the following steps . Tabl e 1: Sugge sted SLSG s ba se d on road way contex t and type Context an d Type Frc ways Prin cipa l Arterial Mi.nor Arterial Collector L ocal R uraJ RutaJ 1 own Su burb an Limited- Step 2: Determine Speed Distribution and Crash Rate Ur ba n Core For speed setting purposes within the SLS-Tool , the primary variables of interest related to speed are the 50th percentile and the 85th percentile speed, including: • The 85th percentile speed rounded to the closest 5-mph increment (C85). • The 85th percentile speed rounded down to the nearest 5-mph increment (RD85). • The 50th percentile speed rounded to the closest 5-mph increment (CS0). • The 50th percentile speed rounded down to the nearest 5-mph increment (ROSO). Crashes are considered by comparing the crash rate [crashes/100 million vehicle miles (MVM)] for the segment with the crash rate for similar road sections in the jurisdiction or, if not available, with crash rates from the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS). 8 FORT WORTH ---.,...--- 2050 Step 3: Calculate the Suggested Speed Limit Using the decision rules for each SLSG , suggested speed limit can be calculated bas ed on other safety and other variables . Speed Lim it Setting Group : Limited-Access Table 2 provide s an overvi ew of the v ariables along with th e variabl e value that would t r igger using C85 , RD85 , or CS0 . Tabl e 2: Overview of deci sion rule s for Limited -Access SLSG r.Jr,e int p ac~ 'lfllmb mJ Ira fie ntamoll m-::J iby ra d i1>?11 Sfl'C('d in . Ii El l ck.1 emtrn • Speed Limit Setting Group : Undeveloped Rounded UoWIII 85t h t RD 8.S1 1. mi< lnlcr_sp.a..: s J m1 ·1 in d D' -. .18 - ·t.h /d cs1.g n s~ed ;.>! mp h A ll o he r cs· s and . rad~ > 4 1ii: ixe.d ~ -_ rn h • irk/hr_ w • tr kl hr . -+ Table 3 provides an overview of the variables along with the variable value that would trigger using either C85 , ROSS , or CS0 9 FORT WORTH --..,.--- 2050 Table 3 : Overview of decision rules for Und eveloped area SLSG ( 1. ne'.S . m l:\:l.an [) o mbin. lloD • )> .a. ~-s points per-rmk 1dn· d.cc h ■ -.,. Jl) C e\ potnls pe r 11.ule tun 1vidc:dl L W s9 -tMd .-_000 vdt,'d Round(!d -D iRDSSt Mediu m d 5-l !!I ,s, _I} BC't.:I!' -pcHnl~ per mik tdn·ide J • ~ I _ ac~ss pomts per m1Jc 1uindm edJ mc:di.sa • T" l .. 'lli=_ w11h ny rncchw1 Ly-pc: • F ur or more I am: ·.i th 1r.o m drn1 n 11.md 1ded). ano 1-\Al)l .. ~ • t< V hid • n) nu mber I l:1111.e med 111.ll t~'PC romb-in:itmn "hen Low F0RTWORTH ~ 2050 10 Speed Lim it Setting Group: Developed Tab le 4 : Overview of decision rul es for Deve loped area SLSG. • \'.\-11)' 3111;'. , IL . r l\'I c:d I Bi --l mo~oli ·dJ J Jc la m . 11 i!r 11 0, n c , Ell .Of uas ~m.J.1zeil a1Le ectmns .r nu! 1-h h Hi h abk . ~ ther cells:] ahk. "e d1c:r cells ! ng. pll."Se ot Ill o r rnorc: 0 ltoundoo-D wn 85th UtD~t > -,.401u1d ~ 60 rlnve\ ays/ u ru i ~skil l izc:.cl c:r nulc ane-.s ·with 1md1,• i ed 1Tu.--d ian w2.y I u ns1r.,£1 ahzcd m1 rsecCJ( ns per mite • Four o r more-la□e ith • ide-d r None- Low fORTWORTH --.,..-- 2050 11 Table 5: Decision matrix for sidewalk presence/width, sidewalk buffer, and pedestrian activity combinations for Developed SLSG Speed Limit Setting Group: Full -Access Table 6: Overview of decision rules for Fu/I-Access SLSG Eb cyd is L a.c LL-v11y-m matc,r \,£"1u.clc: fan r , non - S C' cd Ui I raoE1e ,, .. ,.. .. An e p ar km~ p ~sen c lor pc"rc nl r nwre :s 11 a 1-1 1.s;i h .,r M 1um na li z~ FORT WORTH ---.,..--- 2050 12 Table 7: Decision matrix for sidewalk presence /width , sidewalk buffer, and pedestrian activity combinations for Fu/I-Access Speed Limit Setting Group . However, there does not currently exist an accessible database of which specific locations or government entities are actively applying the SLS-Procedure and SLS -Tool in their processes for setting speed limits. Key takeaways: This method relies on collecting multiple pieces of data, bases the recommended speed on operating speed (which may be in excess of what is safe), and requires case-by-case analysis. FHWA Safe System Approach for Speed Management The FHWA Safe System Approach for Speed Management report3 (FHWA 2023) provides a comprehensive guide for practitioners to understand the critical role of speed management in enhancing traffic safety. The Safe System Approach is based on the understanding that human error is inevitable, but traffic fatalities and serious injuries are not. 3 Federal Highway Administration . (2023). Safe System Approach for Spe ed Managem ent. U.S. Department of Transportation https://highways.dot.gov/sites /fhwa .dot.gov/fil es/Safe Syst em App roac h for Speed M anagement.pdf. 13 FORT WORTH ----.----- 2050 The Safe System Approach identifies setting speed limits as the basis of any speed management approach . Potential injury minimization speed limits, varying by road classification , identified by international researchers and road agencies are likely to prevent fatalities and serious injuries and are based on the principles of the Safe System Approach . Although studies have shown that lowering speed limits on higher-speed roadways has a greater impact on operating speed compared to lowering speed limits on lower-speed roadways , the latter can still result in safety benefits. As opposed to other speed management strategies , speed limit changes can be implemented quickly and widely throughout a roadway network. In this document, FHWA recommends the following when it comes to speed limits: • Target speeds (the speeds at which people are expected to drive) should align with the specific road context to balance vehicle mobility with safety for pedestrians, cyclists , and transit users. • When statutory speed limits do not suit a road's traffic or land use context, speed zones can be created , and speed limits set based on engineering studies that consider the local environment. • While the ultimate goal is to align operating speeds with target speeds , incremental target speeds may be needed to gain public support. The FHWA's Safe System Approach for Speed Management report highlights USLIMITS2 , a web- based decision support tool developed by the FHWA, as a resource for determining safe speed limits. The tool helps agencies assess speed limits by considering factors such as roadway characteristics , traffic volume , crash history, and existing speeds . Using USLIMITS2 to set context-specific speed limits aligns with Safe System principles, creating a holistic, proactive, and shared responsibility for road safety. Using these strategies can result in safer roads and increased protection for all road users, particularly those who are most vulnerable. Key takeaways: Like the $LS-Procedure, this method relies on collecting multiple pieces of data and requires case-by-case analysis. National Association of City Transportation Officials City Limits The NACTO report City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets outlines an updated approach to setting speed limits within urban areas. The most prevalent speed limit-setting practice in the US is based on the 85 th percentile of driver speeds, which typically leads to speed limits being adjusted to match observed speeds rather than the desired speed . City Limits 14 f0RTW0RTH -.....,....--- 2 050 describes the issues associated with the conventional percentile-based speed limit approach (Chapter 1 , page 18) and provides an alternative method for setting limits . The guidance focuses on urban streets and is not applicable on limited access roadway s, rural roads , or very low- density streets with limited multimodal use . Below is a summary of the guidance in City Limits for setting safe speeds and includes where in that document more detailed information and instructive visuals can be found . City Limits details three primary tools for setting speed limits in urban areas (Chapter 2 , page 28): Default speed limits: Setting default speed limits on many streets at once. This could be citywide or by street category (minor streets, collector streets, arterial streets, etc.) and help to create uniformity and predictability. (Chapter 2, page 46) Slow zones: Designate zones in sensitive areas . These areas tend to be near schools , parks , and downtowns that have a high density of vulnerable users. (Chapter 2 , page 54) Corridor speed limits: Set corridor speed limits on high prio rity major streets using a Safe Speed Study as outlined in the document. (Chapter 3 , page 58) City Limits provides information about the use of these tools depending on a city's authority to set speed limits and examples of how these tools can be combined . Refer to the Case Studies section below for examples of how US cities are utilizing these tools to set safer speeds. Key takeaways: City Limits provides a policy-oriented approach for setting safe speeds based on research and best practices, with the flexibility to conduct more nuanced analysis and speed setting on individual corridors and locations. Case Studies Cities such as Austin, Texas; Seattle, Washington; and New York City, New York , have successfully applied the methods detailed in the Literature Review. NACTO's City Limits report offers additional case studies specific to setting speed limits for Cambridge and Portland (In Chapter 2 , on page 36). 15 f0RTW0RTH -....,..---- 2050 City of Austin, Texas To build their case for lower speed limits , the Austin Transportation Department (ATD) conducted a multi-year engineering study that complies with state and federal guidelines. ATD diverged from the historic approach of using the observed 85 t h percentile speed as the primary input. ATD, however, determined their recommended speed limits based on the 50th percentile speed measured over several years for hundreds of residential streets throughout Austin as well as context-based data such as bicycle/pedestrian activity, adjacent land use, traffic controls, driveway density, and crash history. In 2020, ATD presented recommendations to the City Council to pass an ordinance to limit downtown and neighborhood streets to 25 mph citywide . The ordinance also set speed limits on several urban core arterial streets. The ordinance also lowered speed limits on specific streets that were studied during the data collection phase . In 2022, ATD overhauled its Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM). While the TCM does not establish speed limits, Section 3 establishes target speeds for city streets based on street classification , walking/biking activity level , and conflict level (see Figure 3). These target speeds shape design and operation decisions and therefore influence the posted speed limit. Street Co ntext Street Level High conflic t density High conflict dens ity Low conflict dens ity Low co nflict density High activity Low act ivity High act ivity Low act ivity Leve l 0 10 m ph 10mph 10 mph 10 mph Level 1 20 mph o r l ower 20mph 20 mph 20-25 mph Le v el2 20 -25 m ph 25 mph 25 m ph 25 -30 mph Lev el 3 25-30 m ph 30mph 30 m ph 30-35 mph Le vel4 30 -35 mph 35 mp h 35 mph 35 -40 mph Figure 3: City of Austin Target Speed 16 FORT WORTH ~ 2050 City of Seattle, Washington Seattle has utilized two of the three tools outlined in City Limits: default speed limits and corridor speed limits. In pursuit of safer speeds across Seattle , the Department of Transportation (DOT) developed two documents ; one describing significant historical events rel ated to changing speed limits in Seattle and the other containing quantitative analysis to support lower speed limits. The second document cited the city's Vision Zero goal to end traffic de aths and serious injuries by 2030, the nature of its built environment, and trends in increased w alking and biking as reasons Seattle needed lower, safer sp eed limits . The case Seattle DOT made to their City Council was compelling , and in November 2016 a new law was enacted that lowered the default speed limit from 25 to 20 mph on 1,250 miles of neighborhood streets and from 30 to 25 mph on 200 miles of arterials. Se attle DOT credits much of the movement's success to the data they were able to reference . A dive rse range of stakeholders including th e transportation director, a member of city council , a representative from the law department, the city traffic engineer, and a public e ngagement specialist were involved in the process . Traffic fatalities in the City of Seattle decreased by 26 percent after the city impl emented comprehensive, citywide speed management strategies and countermeasure s inspired by Vision Zero . City of New York Slow zones and default speed limits are two tools New York City has used for setting safer speeds . The city has designated over two dozen neighborhoods as slow zones as part of its Neighborhood Slow Zones program. The program focuses on residential areas with low traffic volumes and limited through traffic, setting a 20 mph speed limit and introducing traffic calming measures . In 2013, family members of traffic crash victims, City Council members, and local agencies joined forces to petition the state legislature for lower speed limits, but their efforts were unsuccessful. Advocacy of the community, the Mayor's office, and city agencies eventually paid off when in 2014 the state legislature passed a bill allow ing the city to designate a citywide speed limit of 25 mph. To encourage compliance , New York City implemented cameras as part of its automated speed enforcement program. In areas with cameras, speeds dropped by an average of 60%, prompting the city to ex pand the program's active zones from 140 to 750. 17 f ORTW0RTH ---.....-- 2050 Recommendations and Next Steps The successes of cities like Austin , Seattle, and New York City indicate the effectiveness of the tools they have used that are d etailed in NACTO's City Limits: default speed limits , slow zones , and corridor speed limits . For all three tools , the recommendations that City Limits makes for setting speed limits for improved safety are data-driven with the report citing studies that indicated safety benefits . The default speed limit by street category section of City Limits , combined with the precedent developed by the City of Austin , may provide the City of Fort Worth with a streamlined framework for determining speed limits by street category and context. For determining the speed limit for the specific context of major street corridors , City Limits details how to develop a Safe Speed Study to serve as support for the speed limit that is ultimately recommended (Chapter 3, Page 58). Both the SLS-Procedure and USLimits2 are automated tools that rely on a series of inputs by the user. Assuming the user has the required input data readily available , these tools can be used in a matter of minutes. The Safe Speed Study process that NACTO provides requires the user to manually progress through a series of steps that ultimately assess both conflict density and activity level. A matrix (Chapter 3, Page 63) then provides a speed limit recommendation based on these factors. A common theme among the case studies provided here is the use of data to gain the support of decision - makers as well as the community and stakeholders . After educating the appropriate parties on the recommended methods for determining safe speed limits through this report , Fort Worth should begin by prioritizing which of the three tools they would like to pursue. If City Council approval is necessa ry, Fort Worth could follow Austin 's example of proposing both default speed limits and corridor speed limits starting with the most highly ranked streets on the High Injury Network. 18 FORTWORTH ----.-.---- 2050 •• APPENDIX E Truck Traffic Evaluation F0RTW0RTII ____,....---- 20 50 Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 7 Truck-Involved Crashes ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Freight Traffic Trips ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Truck Traffic Origin-Destination (O-D) Analysis .......................................................................................... 11 Freight Trip Duration ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Truck Parkin g ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 20 City of Fort Worth Master Thoroughfare Plan (2016) ................................................................................. 20 USDOT National Frei g ht Strateg ic Plan .......................................................................................................... 21 FHWA Documents ............................................................................................................................................... 22 National Res earc h Reports ................................................................................................................................. 23 Te xas Fr e ight Mobility Plan ................................................................................................................................ 24 NCTCOG Mobility 2045 Update ...................................................................................................................... 25 NCTCOG Regional Freight Planning ................................................................................................................ 26 TTI Performance M easure Summary -Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington TX .................................................. 27 100 Most Congested Te xas Ro ad Segments 2023 Exe cutive Summary .................................................. 27 Fort Worth Ordinance Chapter 22, Articl e IV ................................................................................................ 28 Freight Management: Goals, Strategies, and Case Study ................................................. 31 Common Goal s and Objectives Across FHWA and Related Documents ................................................. 31 Truck Data Collection and Evaluation Methodologies ................................................................................. 31 Strategi es to Reduce Truck Traffic and Congestion ..................................................................................... 32 Integration of Freight Needs with Land Use Pattern .................................................................................... 33 Addres sing Future T r uck Demand and Innovation in Methodologies ...................................................... 33 Freight Data Platforms ............................................................................................................. 34 Freight Analysis Framework ............................................................................................................................... 34 Replica BigMobility Data Platform ................................................................................................................... 35 NCTCOG Travel Demand Model ...................................................................................................................... 35 Comparison of Platforms .................................................................................................................................... 36 Takeaway ............................................................................................................................................................... 36 Innovative Technology Solutions ........................................................................................... 37 2 FORT WORTH ---w--- 2 0 50 Ca se Studi es .......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Case Studies and Recommendations on Truck Route and Restriction Rules .............. .41 General Factors for Identifying and Designating Truck Routes ................................................................. .41 Case Studies .......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Considerations for Adding and Removing Truck Routes ............................................................................ .43 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 47 3 F0RTW0RHI ~ 2 0 50 List of Figures Figure 1: Percentage of CMV and Large Truck Crashes, 2024 (Source: State of Safety Report) .... 7 Figure 2 City of Fort Worth Freight Trips Count, 2023 (Source: Replica) ......................................... 10 Figure 3 City of Fort Worth Freight Origins , 2023 (Source : Replica) .................................................. 12 Figure 4 City of Fort Worth Freight Destinations , 2023 (Source: Replica) ........................................ 13 Figure 5: City of Fort Worth Origin-Destination Pairs , 2023 (Source : Replica) ................................ 14 Figure 6 City of Fort Worth Freight Trip Duration per Minutes, 2024 (Source : Replica) ............... 15 Figure 7 : Short Trip Percentage on Roadways, 2024 (Source : Replica) .............................................. 16 Figure 8 Truck Parking Facilities, 2020 (Source: TxDOT) ...................................................................... 19 Figure 9: Vision Statement for the MTP, 2016 ........................................................................................ 21 Figure 10: Current Fort Worth Truck Routes (Source : City of Fort Worth) ...................................... 30 4 List of Acronyms AID ASCT ATSPM CoFW EIS FAF FHWA GPS ITS MTP NCFRP NCHRP NCTCOG SAP TAFT TTI TxDOT USDOT Automated Incident Detection Adaptive Signal Control Technology Advanced Traffic Signal Performance Measures City of Fort Worth Environmental Impact Statement Freight Analysis Framework Federal Highway Administration Global Positioning System Intelligent Transportation Systems Master Thoroughfare Plan National Cooperative Freight Research Program National Cooperative Highway Research Program North Central Texas Council of Governments Safety Action Plan Transportation Analytical Forecasting Tool Texas A&M Transportation Institute Texas Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation FORT WORTH ~ 2050 5 Introduction The City of Fort Worth's commitment to improving the safety and efficiency of its transportation systems has led to the development of the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan (SAP). As revealed from analyzing crash data and hearing from the community, effective truck traffic management is essential for maintaining transportation infrastructure efficiency and safety. Existing truck traffic and crash patterns are examined and areas for potential improvement are identified . Additionally, it is important to align freight management strategies with broader citywide goals, such as reducing emissions, improving air quality, and supporting economic growth . Integrating these broader objectives will help freight management address current challenges and contribute to the city's long-term sustainability and prosperity. By utilizing a range of data sources and reviewing relevant documents , the City 's existing truck traffic pattern and related policies and programs are assessed . An alternative perspective on managing truck traffic, with an emphasis on harnessing future technologies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the City's transportation infrastructure, are also provided. Utilizing Data Sources: Employ the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) travel demand model and the Replica big mobility data platform to analyze truck demand and travel patterns in relation to land use. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) crash data analysis findings from the State of Safety Report are also considered. Review and Recommendations: Evaluate City ordinances , specifically Chapter 22 , Article IV, and assess potential mod ifications, along with developing strategies to address truck traffic conflicts and educational and enforcement strategies. Develop recommendations on criteria for adding or removing routes from the truck route network and general factors in identifying Designated Truck Routes . Innovative Technology Solutions: Review and develop recommendations on incorporating advanced traffic flow modeling driven by artificial intelligence and real-time data analytics to enhance understanding and management of truck traffic. 6 F0RTW0RTII --..,..-- 205 0 Data Analysis The City of Fort Worth is a critical hub for freight and truck traffic due to its strategic location within major transportation corridors, including IH-35W, IH-20, and IH-30. This report provides an evaluation of truck-involved crashes, current freight traffic patterns, identifying the most congested roads, truck traffic duration , number of trips and key insights and recommendations for improving freight mobility and infrastructure. Truck-Involved Crashes Recent safety analysis from the State of Safety Report (2024), reveals that out of 68 ,936 total crashes from 2019 to 2023, 6 ,193 (9 %) of those involved commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), and 5,943 (8 .6%) of those involved large trucks. The data indicates that the City of Fort Worth has a significantly higher freight vehicle crash share among all crashes than the state average (6.9 %/7.4%) or peer cities such as Dallas (7 .7%/6.6%) or Houston (5.4 %/4.9 %). The results are summarized in Figure 1. 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0 % Percen tage o f CMV and Large Truck Crash e s 9.0% 8.6% Sta t e-w ide Fot t Wo rth Average Au stin 7.7% S.2% 4.8 % Da ll as El Paso ■%of CMV Cras hes ■%o f Large T ruck Cr ashes S.1% 4.8% Ho uston San Anto nio Figure 1: Percentage of CMV and Large Truck Cra shes , 2024 (S ource: State of Safety Report) However, when compared to these other cities in terms of CMV or Large Truck crashes per million commercial vehicle miles traveled (VMT), Fort Worth is the second lowest, only higher than the City of Austin, as shown in Table 1. FOR T WORTH ----...,..-- 2 050 7 The results depicted in Fi g ure 1 and Table 1 in combination show that despite not having a higher large truck crash rate considering the amount of freight vehicle movements within the City, when comp ared to crashes involving other modes , large truck -i nvolved crashes in Fort Worth have a higher sh are than that in the other cities and the statewide average. City of Fort Worth also has the highest share of Freight trips among all trips. Table 1: CMVand Large Truck Crashes per Freight VMT Statewide Fort Austin Dallas El Paso Houston San Average Worth Antonio Total Crashes 2,705 ,297 68 ,936 65 ,747 169,629 76 ,84 0 328 ,787 195 ,898 CMV Crashes 187,59 4 6 ,193 1,711 13,073 3,959 17,782 9,930 % of CMV-lnvolved 6.90 % 9.00% 2.60 % 7.70 % 5.20 % 5.4 0 % 5.10 % Crashes Large Truck Crashes 200 ,215 5,943 2,160 11,239 3,656 16,018 9,362 % of Large Truck 7.40 % 8.60 % 3.30% 6.60 % 4.80% 4.90% 4.80 % Crash Freight Trips 1 4,622,536 229,307 160,270 328,578 106,784 609,195 250 ,383 % of Freight Trips 3.95 % 3.96% 2.72 % 3.75 % 3.2 7% 3.19% 3.14% among All Trips Average Freight Trip 23 36 31 37 25 21 33 Miles1 Median Freight Trip 10 16 9 15 6 8 9 Miles1 CMV Crashes per One Million Freight 1,734 744 340 1,075 1,507 1,410 1,187 TripVMT2 Large Truck Crashes per One Million 1,851 714 429 924 1,392 1,270 1,119 Freight Trip VMT Truck crashes , when they occur, can result in serious injuries and death, in addition to causing disruptions that delay truck travel. Even non-recurring or less severe crashes can still disrupt travel and create delays , impacting freight reliability, consumers , and businesses alike . This trend proposed the need for better freight safety analysis and freight traffic management in Fort Worth. 1 Source: Repli ca. Th ese are typica l daily trips o n a w eekday from Rep li ca. Frei ght trips w ere obtained by filteri ng down to comme rcial ve hi cle (freight) mode and intersecting with the city (trips that sta rted, end ed, o r pa sse d through the se lected city); Rep lica co nfid ence level to th e total trip data -High Certainty, freig ht trip data -M ed ium Certainty 2 Freight Trip VMT are ca lcul ated by multip lying freight trips with ave rage mi les 8 FoRTWoRrn --...,.-- 2050 Freight Traffic Trips The Replica Big Mobility data in Figure 2, reveals patterns of freight movement within Fort Worth . Freight trips are categorized into several trip ranges , each representing the volume of truck trips on specific corridors. Comparing what is shown in this Figure with the City's existing truck ordinance demonstrates that the ordinance does not capture all high freight volume corridors, as illustrated in Figure 2, and has not been updated to incorporate the latest information from the Texas Delivers 2050 -Texas Mobility Freight Plan. High Freight Volume Corridors (6,501-10,000 trips/day): Certain corridors in Fort Worth, such as IH-30, which runs east to the west through the city and merges with IH -20 west of Fort Worth, along with its interchanges with the SW Loop 820, and segments of IH-35 Wand its interchanges with NE Loop 820 and NW Loop 820, experience high freight traffic volumes , ranging between 6,501 and 10,000 trips/day. These routes are critical for city, state , and national logistics and supply chains , serving as primary arteries for freight transportation. While Fort Worth's truck routes include IH-30 from W Loop 820 interchange to the city boundary and IH -35 from N Loop 820 to IH-20, they do not capture all the high freight volume corridors such as IH -30 west of W Loop 820, IH-35W south of IH -20 and north of NE Loop 820, and US 287 in the northern part of the city. Moderate Freight Volume Corridors (4,001-6,500 trips/day): Corridors such as IH -20 W , portions of IH -30, and the west side of Loop 820 fall into the moderate freight volume category, with traffic ranging from 4 ,001 to 6 ,500 trips per day. Although these routes experience less congestion than primary corridors, they remain significant for regional and local freight distribution. Current Fort Worth truck routes do not capture moderate freight volume corridors including IH-20 from the IH -35W interchange to the US 183 interchange, and Loop 820 from the IH-20 interchange to the IH-35W interchange. Lower Freight Volume Corridors (2,501-4,000 trips/day): Corridors including TX 183, TX 170, and major segments of IH-30, IH -20, and IH -35 W, have freight traffic counts between 2,501 and 4,000 trips per day, supporting less intensive freight trips, mostly specific industrial or commercial areas within the city. Among those corridors , TX 183 is captured in the Fort Worth truck routes. The remaining roads that do not fit into the three 9 F0R T W0 RTl·I ----...,.--- 2050 categories with frei ght volume ranging from 306 to 2 ,500 trips per day are represented with the brighter colors on the map. N A ~ : 2023 Freight Trip Counts : (Trips/Weekday) I 1 = Fort Wo rt h Truc k Routes I 1 Less than 1000 1 I -1001 -2500 § ', I --2501 -5000 : -5001 -9892 1 D Fort Wo rt h _o 2 4 s --c:==----• Miles-~.,.~;,----, ---,-1.:r--'----'---[""_-_-~ County Bo undary 1 Figure 2 City of Fort Worth Freight Trips Count, 2023 (Source: Replica) 10 F0 RT W0 RTI-I ---....,..-- 2 0 50 Truck Traffic Origin-Destination (O-D) Analysis This report provides an O -D analysis of freight traffic movement within the city of Fort Worth, Texas , utilizing data from Replica Big Mobility Data Platform . The evaluation focuses on the travel pattern of freight trips across different regions and highlights the most significant routes used for freight trips and movements. Figure 3 shows the origins of freight trips in the city. Most freight trips originate from the industrial and logistic zones located in the northern part of the city, particularly along IH-35W, US -287, and Loop 820. Key hubs include Fort Worth Alliance Airport and the surrounding warehouses and distribution centers , including those operated by Walmart and Verizon. Additionally, storage facilities , such as Amazon UTX7, near Fort Worth Meacham International Airport and railroads serve as important points of origin for freight movements. On the south side of the city, warehouses along IH-35W also produce a significant amount of freight trips , mostly food suppliers such as Tyson Foods and Ben E. Keith Foods . Figure 4 shows freight trip destination areas in Fort Worth, revealing a simil ar pattern as the origin areas , where the industrial and logistic zones in the north side and south side of the city are receiving large volumes of inbound freight. Replica also provides O-D pa i rs data. Figure 5 presents the O -D pairs with more than 100 truck trips during a typical Thursday. According to the data , most trips happen between the industrial and logistic zones around the Fort Worth Alliance Airport in the north to the warehouses near Fort Worth Meacham International Airport. There is one major O -D link with nearly 600 trips per day from the FedEx facility in US-287 & Loop 820 interchange to the Alliance airport, and some trips from/to outside of Fort With city boundary, including areas near the Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport. Out of 6,200 recorded freight trips in Replica , 21 % have origins outside of the city boundary but destinati ons within the City of Fort Worth , 11 F0R T W0RTl·I --..,..-- 2050 N A ~: I I I I ~ \ lilll .._ \' Freight Orig ins (trips/ ! day) CJ Fort Worth ~: ~ County Boundary -1-200 -20 1 -500 -501 -1000 -1001 -2000 0 2 4 --------"'---"---t--b-~'----.,___-=----200 1 -3665 Figure 3 City of Fort Worth Freight Origins , 2023 (Source : Replica) f0R TW0 RTl·I ~ 2 050 12 N A \ 0 2 "'· Figure 4 City of Fort Worth Freight Destinations, 2023 (Source: Replica) §3 ~---e ~- \\ ~ Freight Destinations (trips/day) \. O Fort Wort h " ~ .=-~ County Boundary 1 -150 15 1 -400 --401-900 -901 -1 500 -1501 -3559 '-IL Soun:e : Rei:,lka FoRTWORTH -----...,..-- 2 050 13 N '-!ill] A "'· I I I I I I , J I J I I I I II ,, \( . • 8 • !ill] 1 I/ ~ I ~,'_' I ,1 0 1/ ·1 / ,/1 \ .[! I ,/ I , I \' \\ ~,.- {j " '~ -..: ✓ I 'j ~j 1,"' I 'C I Truck Origin-Destination '-' Links Le ss than 150 ~'>. ' 150 • 250 1 / + More than 250 \ e Origin O Destina tion \I [""_-_-J County Boundary -~T-2~2s--:.,, 4.s 9 rm / □ Foo worth ~-,'t'-__ c:_===i---■-■-•M1le s •1.'.~"---~-~-~'~\\'----~---____ _ Figure 5 : City of Fort Worth Origin -Destination Pairs , 2023 (Source: Replica) f 0 RTW0 RTII ~ 2050 14 Freight Trip Duration In addition to traffic volumes, Replica data also provides information on the duration of freight trips within Fort Worth , as shown in Figure 6. Replica marks a medium confidence level to the data, as the data is collected from fleet management and telematic companies which can be limited . The data indicates that 40% of total freight trips fall within the 10-20 minutes or 20 -40 minutes ranges. Short-distance freight trips (lasting less than 10 minutes) make up 31 % of the total freight trips, and 13 % of trips have durations between 40-80 minutes. Long-distance trips that take more than 80 minutes comprise 12% of total freight trips in Fort Worth . According to Replica data shown in Figure 7, most short trips with less than 20 minutes duration are on local roads instead of interstate and other major highways. I V, Under5min (IJ ..... :, 5-lOmin C .E 10-20min C 0 :;:; 20-40m in <'0 ... :, 0 40-80m in a. ·;: Over 80m in I- 0 • count Over 80m in 27115 Freight Trip Duration (minutes) 10000 40-80min 30308 20000 20-40m in 53718 30000 Number of Tri ps 10-20min 47501 40000 50000 5-lOmin 33792 23.2% 60000 UnderSmin 38739 Figure 6: City of Fort Worth Freight Trip Duration per Minutes, 2024 (Source: Replica) FOR TWORHI --.,..--- 20 50 15 N A ; Figure 7: Short Trip Percentage on Roadways, 2024 (Source: Replica) 50%-75% --More than 75% D FortWorth ;_-_-J County Boundary FOR T WORTl-1 ----.,.-- 2 0 50 16 Truck Parking According to the truck parkin g data from TxDOT's 2020 Texas Statewide Truck Parking Study, as shown in Figure 8, there are six private truck parking facilities within the City of Fort Wor th boundary, four additional private truck parking facilit ies within a 1.5-mile buffer of the city boundary. Out of these 10 private parking facilities , five have less than 25 parking spots , three have 25-49 parking spots , one has 50 -99 parking spots , and one has more than 100 parking spots . Four facilities along IH -35W are experiencing capacity issues as they are over capacity for more than 20 hours per day. No public truck parking facilities are found in or near the Fort Wort city boundary. There are around 10 publicly owned truck parking facilities in the Metroplex area, which include local travel information centers and county rest areas . Key facto r s influencin g parkin g demand include industrial activities such as d istribution centers, warehousing, and manufacturing, that generate truck traffic, major highways w ith hi gh truck volumes require truck stops and rest areas to accommodate long-haul drivers , loc al regulations , land use policies, as well as available parking infrastructure. In addition to short breaks such as eating , refueling, using bathrooms , drivers participating in interstate commerce are required to rest for a period of 8 hours after drivin g a ma ximum of 10 hours under the current federal HOS rules. These regulations resulted in a demand fo r long-term parking spaces , because long -haul drivers must complete a period of re st while en route to a destination . Taken together, these factors can result in complex demand patterns for truck parking along roadway segments. Stretches of a hi ghway that ar e 8 to 10 hours from a key distribution center might be exp ected to have higher parkin g demand because the HOS rules will force drivers originating travel from that center to take an extended rest before resuming driving. Although these factors help determine the total demand for truck parking in an ar ea (i.e ., the latent dem and), other factors help determine how that demand is distributed among the av ai lable park i ng loc ations (i.e ., the demand cho ice). If one stretch of highway has a shortage of parki ng locations , dem and that cannot be met on that stretch of highway will be met by parking locations on nearby stretches of highway.3 The Texas Statewide Truck Study used truck GPS to analyze truck parkin g demand .4 Specifically, The GPS data collected by ATRI represents a sample of trucks on Te xas roadways . Long -haul drivers and large carriers are more likely to be included than independent own er-operators or 3 NCH RP Synth es is 3 17: Dea lin g with Tru ck Parking Demand s. https://on lin epub s.trb.o rg/on li nepu bs/nchrp /nchrp_syn_317 c3.pd f 4 Texas Tru ck Park ing Stu dy, Tx DOT. http s://ftp.t xdot.gov/pub /t xdot/move-t exas -freight/stud ies/tru ck-par kin g/fm al-rep ort.pd f 17 FORT WORTH ~ 2 05 0 regional drivers. TxDOT truck data from throughout the state was compared against the volume of trucks in the ATRI data for the same period to estimate the percentage of trucks captured by the sample in various parts of the state. The resulting percentages were used to develop expansion factors. The study concluded that truck parking demand is typically highest overnight, and facilities often are at or over capacity during these hours. The time period with the greatest demand for truck parking, also known as the peak hour, was determined using truck GPS data. The statewide average peak hour for truck parking is from 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m ., although individual locations may have a different peak hour. Some other states have used FHWA's Truck Parking Demand Estimation Tool to estimate the peak number of trucks requiring parking based on employment and industry data. A recent Truck Parking Study completed by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) utilized the FHWA methodology to estimate current (2019) and future (2040) perk hourly short -term and overnight parking demand along state routes with high truck use .5 The calculated demand is a function of local data on traffic volumes , speeds and percentages of short-and long-haul, and FHWA default parameters for hours-of-service and peaking factors . The corridor level parking demand estimates were adjusted accordingly based on ATRI data and the truck parking supply inventory data. 5 Co nn ec ticut Tru ck Park ing St udy, CTDOT. https://www.transportatio n.gov/s ites /d ot.go v/fil es/2023-12/Tr uck -P ar king-S tu dy.pdf 18 FORT WORTH --.,----- 2 05 0 N A I I I I I I I l o I a : I I I I 2 4 8 ••-==:::::i••••• Mil es-... ;, 0 Figure 8 Truck Parking Facilities , 2020 (Source: TxDOT) / j Truck Parking Facilities Pa r k i ng Spots <25 2s-.49 • 50-99 • 100+ Capac ity Condition ~ Near eapaU)' Over capacity at peak hour • Ovi,r capaClly at non-peak hour • Over Cflpael:y to, 20h+ per day Ownership • Private D Fon Worth j""_ -..! Counly Boundary FO RT WORTH ~ 2050 \. 19 Literature Review This section reviews literature relevant to freight and truck traffic management, focusing on key sources and guidelines from various entities. It begins with the City of Fort Worth 's Master Thoroughfare Plan, which outlines a framework for developing and managing the city's transportation network, emphasizing multi modal and freight movement. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) National Freight Strategic Plan and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) documents provide critical methodologies and best practices for freight management, including traffic monitoring, performance improvement, and land use integration. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) reports offer additional strategies for assessing and managing freight flow and congestion. The review concludes with local regulations from Fort Worth Ordinance Chapter 22, Article IV, and practical case studies demonstrating successful freight and truck traffic management approaches. Together, these sources offer a well-rounded perspective on managing freight systems effectively. City of Fort Worth Master Thoroughfare Plan (2016) The City of Fort Worth's Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP)6 provides a framework for developing and managing the city's transportation network to accommodate current and future growth. The MTP emphasizes a mu ltimodal network that supports freight efficiency while addressing community safety and growth. The MTP 's structured approach categorizes streets based on land-use context and function , applying access management and design standards specific to large vehicles . The vision of the MTP is to provide a complete , connected , and context-sensitive transportation system that supports mobility, healthy living, and economic benefits. This vision is supported by three main goals: mobility, safety, and opportunity which are illustrated in Figure 9. 6 Ci ty of Fo rt W o rth, TX . (2 01 6). M as t er Th o rou ghfa re Pl an. httos://www.fortworthtexas .gov /fil es/ assets / ou blic/v /1/tpw I documents /mto /mto.od f . 20 FORT WO RTH --..,..--- 2 050 Add ress exi sti ng/future co ng estion Provide netwo rk/reg iona l con necti vi ty fo r all modes Safety accomodate all users/modes. Address Safety hazards Safety Figure 9: Vision Statement for the MTP, 2016 Takeaway: Support strateg ic economic development Act as catalyst for redevelopment • Optimize Truck Routes Based on Land Use: Identify designated truck routes that prioritize freight-heavy zones and divert traffic from residential and pedestrian areas . This adjustment reduces truck-pedestrian interactions, lowering crash risks. • Incorporate Freight-Specific Design Standards: Adopt wider turn radii , truck loading zones, and appropriate lane widths along major freight corridors . Having these standards in place reduces crashes , particularly at intersections , as a result of safer navigation . • Preserve Right-of-Way for Future Freight Growth: In areas expected to experience growth , reserve space along key freight corridors in advance . The purpose of this approach is to maintain flow and reduce incidents associated with congestion . • Coordinate with Regional Partners: Collaborate with NCTCOG and TxDOT to align Fort Worth 's truck routes with regional freight corridors. This will promote a cohesive and efficient regional network that minimizes unexpected detours and bottlenecks. USDOT National Freight Strategic Plan The USDOT National Freight Strategic Plan 7 provides national guidelines on infrastructure improvements, congestion reduction , and system reliability. It offers methods that apply locally 7 U.S. Department of Transportation. (2016). National Fr eight Strategic Pl an. https://www.transportation.gov/sites /dot.gov/files /2020-09 /N FSP fullp la n 508 0 .pdf. 21 FORTWORTII --....,..--- 2 05 0 in Fort Worth. The plan emphasizes using data -driven models and integrating land use with freight planning to promote safer and more efficient truck operations . Key recommendations include employing traffic simulation models and performance metrics to identify high-risk areas , which can help Fort Worth prioritize intersection optimization and adjust signal timing to reduce congestion and collision risks . Additionally, the plan encourages advanced data collection methods to inform policy development, aligning freight strategies with both local safety goals and broade r regi onal needs . Takeaway: • Use Simulation Models for Targeted Freight Planning: Apply traffic simulation tools to assess where infrastructure changes , like additional turn lanes or extended green signals , could effectively reduce congestion and crash risk. • Develop Freight-Specific Performance Metrics: Track truck delay times , incident rates , and corridor-level congestion to identify high -risk zones . These metrics provide a foundation for targeted safety interventions. • Integrating Freight and Land Use Planning: Designate truck routes that align with Fort Worth's land -use plans , diverting trucks away from sensitive areas , such as school zones and pedestrian hubs . FHWA Documents FHWA documents provide critical insights into freight and truck traffic management, offering comprehensive strategies for monitoring traffic, forecasting dem and , reducing bottl e necks , and enhancing reliability . Cities like Fort Worth can improve freight route efficiency and safety by leveraging these key areas . These documents include the FHWA Traffic Monitoring Guide 8 , which provid es essential guidelines for tracking and managing vehicle flow and applying performance metrics. The FHWA Freight and Land Use Travel Demand Evaluation 9 focuses on integrating freight considerations into land use planning to improve overall system efficiency and reduce congestion . 8 Fede ral Hig hway Ad mini strati o n. (2022). Traffic Mo ni to rin g Gui de (TMG ) Fi na l Repo rt. https:/ /www.fhwa.dot.gov/poli cyinformation/tmguide/2022 TMG Fin al Report .pdf. 9 Fede ral Highway Adm inistration. (2018). Fre ight and Land Use Trave l Demand Eval uation . https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop18073/fhwahop18073.pdf. 22 FORT WORTH --..,..-- 2050 V ;, ~ ZEfflH I Additionally, the FHWA Methods to Improve Freight Highway Performance 10 details methodologies for addressing bottlenecks and enhancing the rel iability of freight highways. Another significant report, the FHWA Freight Analysis Framework Commod ity Flow Forecast Study 11 , forecasts commodity flows to better understand future truck demand . Key findings from this study highlight substantial growth in freight tonnage , with a projected 40% increase by 2050, emphasizing the need for significant infrastructure investments, particularly in Texas . These documents collectively aim to enhance system performance and reliability, integrating freight considerations into planning and management practices , supporting Fort Worth 's long- term infrastructure goals . Takeaway: • Implement Real-Time Monitoring on Key Freight Corridors: Track traffic volumes, crash data, and congestion trends to quickly identify and address problem areas . • Forecasting Demand to Guide Infrastructure Priorities: Use freight forecasting to identify potential congestion points on Fort Worth 's busiest routes , prioritizing investment to address anticipated growth . • Bottleneck Analysis for Targeted Improvements: Analyze recurring congestion po ints and apply dynamic lanes or adjusted signals to reduce delays and incidents on high-risk segments. National Research Reports The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) reports provide valuable , data-driven strategies for assessing freight flow, evaluating traffic impacts, and managing congestion through innovative freight management approaches. These reports highlight technologies such as dynamic lane management and adaptive signal control, which are relevant for improving safety and flow on Fort Worth 's high-traffic routes. Notable reports include NCH RP Report 739 12 , which explores 1° Federa l Hi ghway Administration . (2022). Methods to Imp rove Fr eight Hi ghway Perform anc e. https:/ / ops .fhwa.dot.gov / pub li cat ions/fhwahop22084/fhwahop22084.pdf. 11 Federal Highway Admini stra ti on . (2022). Fr eight An alys is Framewo r k Commodity Fl ow Forecast Study . https://ops.fhwa .dot.gov/pub lications/fhwa hop22037 /fhwahop220 37 .pdf. 12 National Coop erative Highway Research Prog ram. (20 10). NCH RP Repo rt 739: Innovati ve Strategi es for Mana gin g Fr eight Traffic, and NC FRP Repo rt 739 : Innovative Strategies for Managing Freig ht Traffic. https:/ / nap.nationa lacademies.org/ read/226 59 /c hapte r / 1. 23 FORT WORTH --.,-- 2 050 strategies for managing freight traffic and enhancing flow, and NCFRP Report 196, which offers insights into effective congestion management and freight solutions . Together, these resources equip Fort Worth with actionable methodologies to address congestion , reduce delays , and optimize freight movement. Takeaway: • Adopt Dynamic Lane Management for Freight Routes: Designate truck-only lanes or apply peak-hour lane adjustments to improve flow on freight corridors • Optimize Intersections for Truck Safety: Redesign intersections on primary freight routes to accommodate large vehicles turning, reducing crash risks. • Applying Adaptive Signal Control : Equip key intersections with adaptive signals to adjust timing based on real-time conditions , reducing delays and congestion related incidents . Texas Freight Mobility Plan The Texas Delivers 2050: The Texas Freight Mobility Plan, published in 2023, represents the most recent iteration of the state 's long range freight transportation plan. The plan examines the key trends impacting good movement in Texas , including business and consumer practices, technology adoption , automated vehicles in Texas , energy, international trade, and natural and humanmade disruptions . A key outcome of Texas Delivers 2050 is the designation of the Texas Multimodal Freight Network (TMFN). The network consists of key roadways (the Texas Highway Freight Network [THFN]), railroads, pipelines, ports and waterways, airports and international border crossings . The multi modal network outlines the key corridors that facilitate the efficient and safe movement of goods in Texas and are most critical for focusing investment. At the federal level, the National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) includes highways , railways , waterways and pipelines , ports, airports, border crossings and intermodal facilities . The plan summarized the freight demand on Texas ' multimodal system and discusses designation of the TMFN and the freight demand on that network and examines the roles of the TMFN network in supporting key Texas industries and supply chains . Following the TMFN designation process, the plan provides a high-level evaluation of the conditions and performance of the modes and discusses the issues and challenges affecting the current efficiency and safety of freight movements on the TMFN , covering areas of mobility, safety, asset management, and design . Finally, the plan provides a comprehensive set of strategies and recommendations to ensure the 24 fO RTWORTl·I ---....,...-- 2050 state's economic competitiveness and reputation as a national freight and logisti cs hub is preserved and enhanced . Takeaways: • The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is prominent in almost all the industry cluster supply chain illustrations and has been identified as having the highest mobility, reliability, and safety needs from a freight perspective. Under the policy recommendations, the plan suggests partnerships between the state and local planning partners on strategies to address urban freight congestion and bottlenecks, and developing guidance for local partners on how to update complete streets policies to include the full range of passenger and freight modes. • The plan also includes a key implementation action for TxDOT to explore "bypass" routes, usage incentives, technology enhancements, and the role of land use in freight bottlenecks relief. NCTCOG Mobility 2045 Update The Mobility 2045 Update, adopted in 2022, is NCTCOG 's latest metropolitan transportation plan for the region. It proposed various projects, programs , and policies designed to achieve the plan's four goals of improving mobility, quality of life , system sustainability, and implementation . In its Appendix E, the plan provided freight transportation related policies and programs recommendations in four main action categories of economic growth and education , sustainability and air quality, collaboration and planning, and safety and efficiency.13 Takeaway: • Key policies for freight transportation includes educating public and stakeholders about freight's role in economy, incorporating technological advancements , Improving safety and efficiency through innovation and facility development. 13 NCTCOG. Mob ility 2045 Upd ate, App endix E. https:/ / www.n ctcog.o rg/getm ed ia /3e294f 6e-8081-46 12-8979-ea83c07494b1 /E- Mobility-0ptions _1.pdf 25 F0RTW0RTH -..,...-- 2 050 • Key freight programs recommended include traffic data collection to build accurate travel model, networking planning and outreach activities to ensure the availability of transportation options, and the North Texas Multimodal Operations, Velocity, Efficiency, and Safety (NT MOVES) program to ensure adequate maintenance and enhance safety and reliability of the current freight transportation network. • Specific freight transportation performance measures include vehicle classification counts , facility inventory updates, reduction in annual number of accidents, increased travel speeds for truck and non -truck traffic, improved Truck Travel Time Reliability, Increased number of truck parking locations, etc. NCTCOG Regional Freight Planning NCTCOG's regional freight planning team 14 has done significant work in building a prominent freight transportation network aligning with the metropolitan transportation plan and the transportation improvement programs . The team's work including analyzing freight and land use connection and mitigating environmental impact. Takeaway: • Restrict truck idling: Utilizing Electrified Parking Spaces (EPS) which provide power and climate control through window unit, driver's lounge with amenities, and on -board electric devices to allow drivers to turn off the main engine. • Freight-land use linkage: Analyzing geographic distribution of freight facilities for strategic clustering , and ensuring land uses near freight developments are compatible , including truck parking, intermodal facilities, etc. 14 NCTCOG, Fr eight. https:/ /www.nctcog.org/trans /plan /frei ght 26 FORT WORTH ---....,.,- 2 050 TTI Performance Measure Summary -Dallas-Fort Worth- Arlington TX The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) Performance Measure Summary for the Dallas- Fort Worth-Arlington 15 area provides valuable mobility data from 2005 to 2022, highlighting persistent congestion that impacts freight and truck traffic This report identifies bottlenecks on key freight corridors, such as IH -3 5E in Dallas and IH-35W in Fort Worth, which have experienced increasing delays due to regional economic growth and higher freight demand. In 2022, truck delays rose by 15 % over the previous year, now sitting 1 % above pre-COVID levels , underscoring the growing concern over congestion 's impact on freight movement. The summary also points out TxDOT's efforts to address these challenges through initiatives like the Te xas Clear Lanes program , aimed at relieving major chokepoints in the transportation network. Takeaway: • Focus on Targeted Congestion Relief Initiatives: Apply the Texas Clear Lanes program to reduce bottlenecks on Fort Worth's IH-35W and IH-30 corridors, addressing delays that have exceeded pre-pandemic levels and supporting efficient freight movement. 100 Most Congested Texas Road Segments 2023 Executive Summary The Technical Memorandum on the 100 Most Congested Texas Road Segments 16, prepared for TxDOT, provides an in-depth of critical congestion points across the state, emphasizes the economic and logistical impacts on freight and truck traffic. In the Dallas/Fort Worth region , high-congestion zones such as the IH-35W and IH-30 corridors in Fort Worth are highlighted for their significant delays , especially under rising freight demand and regional growth pressures. These corridors are critical for both regional and national freight movement, but persistent congestion drives up transportation costs, emissions, and delays in goods distribution . TxDOT's Texas Clear Lanes initiative is specifically designed to target these chokepoints , offering relief to improve freight efficiency, reduce costs , and support economic growth . 15 Texas A&M Transportation Ins titute. (n.d.). Da llas-Fort W orth-Arl ington, TX: Performa nce measu re summary. Texas A&M Transportation In stitute. https://st atic.tti .tamu.edu /tti .tamu.edu /documents /umr/con ge stion-data /urban-area s/dall a.pdf. 16 Texas A&M Transportat ion Institute. (2 0 23). Technical memo rand um : 100 most congested Texas road segme nts 2023 executive sum mary. T exas A&M Transpo rtatio n Ins titute. https:/ /static.tti .tamu .edu /tti.tamu .edu /documents /TTl-2023-3.pdf. 27 FoRTWoRTH ~ 2 050 Takeaway: • Prioritize Congestion Mitigation on Key Fort Worth Segments: Congestion mitigation efforts should be prioritized along 100 more congested road segments , aimed at reducing transportation costs and improving freight mobility. Target congestion relief on IH-35W and IH-30 in Fort Worth to alleviate delays , lower transportation costs , and improve freight mobility Fort Worth Ordinance Chapter 22, Article IV The Fort Worth Ordinan ce Chapter 22 , Article IV1 7 outlines local regulations that significantly impact freight and truck traffic management within the city. To balance Fort Worth's rapid growth with the need to handle increased freight traffic effectively, these regulations are tailored to Fort Worth 's unique position as a major transportation hub in North Te xas . The ordinance includes guidelines on stre et designations and standards th at d i rectly influence freight movement and traffic management strategies . This aligns local planning with Fort Worth's broad er transportation and economic goals . Key provisions include the following: • Designated Truck Routes: Specific routes have been established to direct freight traffic through less congested areas , helping to maintain road quality in residential and sensitive zones. These routes , as shown in , are crafted with Fort Worth's distinctive urban layout in mind , aiming to minimize disruptions in key areas such as downtown and near cultural districts. • Traffic Management Standards: The ordinance sets standards that govern freight operations, including restrictions on delivery times in high-traffic areas and guidelines for vehicle sizes on certain streets. These standards are developed with local traffic patterns in mind , promoting safety and efficiency on Fort Worth's roads . • Compliance Measurements: The ordinance includes measures to maintain adherence to standards , with penalti es for violations intended to discourage non-compliance. These measures are essential for maintaining smooth traffic flow, particularly in areas experiencing significant freight-related congestion. 17 Ci ty of Fort W orth , Chapter 22 : Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article IV : Tru ck Traffic. https:/ / code library.amlega l.com/ codes/ttworth/latest/ftworth tx/0-0 -0-24612# JD Ch.22Art. IV 28 FOR T WORTH ~ 2 05 0 • Technological Integration: Recognizing Fort Worth 's commitment to modernizing its infrastructure, the ordinance promotes the integration of advanced traffic management technologies , such as adaptive signal control and Global Positioning System (GPS)-based route optimization . These technologies are particularly beneficial in managing the city 's complex freight traffic and reducing congestion in critical areas . • Economic Impact and Future-Proofing: Fort Worth 's role as a critical node in regional and national freight networks makes efficient freight management essential for the local economy. The ordinance supports this by facilitating timely deliveries and reducing transportation costs for businesses . Additionally, provisions for regular updates allow the ordinance to adapt to future changes in freight traffic patterns , including the ex pected rise in automated freight vehicles. Takeaway: While covering a wide range of truck traffic regulations , Fort Worth Ordinance Chapter 22 , Article IV, could be amended to better align with the city's evolving goals of protecting health , safety, and welfare. • Truck route street designations could be updated to reflect current freight needs and consider future freight volume growth. • Additional regulations of truck parking (e.g . prohibiting commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas during certain hours), loading zone (desi gnated curb space for loading and unloading), and driver rest period (mandatory rest break for truck drivers) could be incorporated into this ordinance. An updated ordinance could effectively strengthen Fort Worth 's freight transportation safety and efficiency. A few recommendations on truck ordinance revisions are provided later in this document. 29 fOR TWORTl·I --.,.---- 2050 N A I [ill) ~ _o 2 s •--====----■ Mi les Figure 10: Current Fort Worth Truck Routes (Source: City of Fort Worth) will Fort Worth Truck Route --Commercial Del ivery Route --Hazardous Material Roule --Truck Roule D FortWorth f"_:-_~ County Boundary FOR T WORTH --....,...-- 2 050 30 Freight Management: Goals, Strategies, and Case Study This section explores the common goals and objectives derived from the reviewed literature, outlining methodologies and strategies for effective freight and truck traffic management. It integrates these findings with practical insights from the Seattle Transportation Plan to offer a comprehensive framework for improving freight systems. Common Goals and Objectives Across FHWA and Related Documents Across the reviewed documents, several common goals and objectives emerge, particularly focusing on freight and truck traffic management. For example: • Effective Freight Planning: Aligning transportation infrastructure with the specific needs of freight-intensive areas while maintaining community livability, as highlighted in the FHWA Freight and Land Use Travel Demand Evaluation. • Safety Improvements: A shared focus across documents on reducing crashes , injuries, and fatal ities , such as FHWA Methods to Improve Freight Highway Performance. • Mobility and Reliability Enhancements: Strategies to improve travel time reliability, reduce congestion , and manage bottlenecks are central themes , supported by USDOT National Freight Strategic Plan and other FHWA guidelines. • Environmental Impact Reduction: Minimizing stops and idle time, improving fuel efficiency, and addressing congestion are emphasized in strategies from various reports , including the FHWA Methods to Improve Freight Highway Performance. Truck Data Collection and Evaluation Methodologies The reviewed documents also converge on methodologies for truck data collection and traffic evaluation : • Permanent and Short-Term Monitoring: As detailed in the FHWA Traffic Monitoring Guide , these methods are critical for collecting continuous and periodic data on traffic volume, vehicle classification, and speed data. 31 f ORT WORTH --.,..---- 2050 • Advanced Technologies and QA/QC: In the 2022 FHWA Traffic Monitoring Guide, these elements emphasize the reliability of data collection and analysis, which is essential for making informed freight planning decisions. • Truck Platooning Research: This research focuses on automated platooning, where trucks use coordinated driving systems to travel closely together, improving traffic flow, fuel efficiency, and safety. Data collection methods include field tests , simulations , and pilot programs to evaluate real-world impacts on Texas highways . 18 • Vehicle Classification Data: FHWA uses methodologies to classify vehicle registration data according to their classification systems. This helps in analyzing transportation policies and technical aspects 19 . • Freight Bottleneck Reporting: States are provided with a guidebook to report truck freight bottlenecks. This involves collecting data on traffic congestion points and analyzing their impact on freight movement20. • Research Partnerships: FHWA collaborates with state transportation departments, local agencies, industries, and academia to conduct research on national significance issues . This partnership helps in gathering comprehensive data and evaluating the effectiveness of various transportation technologies 21 . Strategies to Reduce Truck Traffic and Congestion Effective strategies to mitigate truck traffic and manage congestion are widely discussed across the literature: • Curb Management and Alley Usage: These strategies are highlighted in the Final 50 - Feet-of-Urban -Goods-Delivery report as practical approaches to reducing congestion in urban areas. 18 U.S. Department of Tra nsportation. (2021). Tru ck Platooning Fin al Report https ://h ighways .dot.gov/media/2336 19 Federal Highway Administration (FHA). (2021). Linking FHWA and NHTSA Vehicle Types and Deciphering Various Truck W eight Data : Methodology for Li nkin g Vehicle Types. https://rosap.ntl.b t s.gov/view/dot/63222 20 U.S. Departme nt of Transportation . (2018). Tru ck Freight Bottleneck Repo rtin g Guidebook. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight analysis/perform meas/index.htm 21 U.S. Department of Transportation . (2021). Truck Platooning Fin al Report https:/ /h ighways.dot.gov/ researc h/publ icatio ns/ corporate/F HW A-H RT -20-07 1 32 F0RT W0RTH ~ 2 050 • Technological Solutions: Real-time data and advanced technologies are frequently used to enhance efficiency and reduce delivery times in traffic management. Integration of Freight Needs with Land Use Pattern A key theme in the documents is the integration of freight needs with land use planning : • Freight-Generating Land Use: Planning for freight-intensive areas is essential for managing future demand and verifying transportation networks, according to the FHWA Freight and Land Use Travel Demand Evaluation . Addressing Future Truck Demand and Innovation in Methodologies In the literature, an emphasis is placed on preparing for future truck demand and exploring innovative solutions: • Enhanced Freight Trip Generation Models: Freight activity forecasting and planning are essential using the models discussed in the NCH RP and NCFRP reports. • Infrastructure Investment Needs: In order to accommodate the projected growth in freight tonnage by 2050, the FHWA Freight Analysis Framework Commodity Flow Forecast Study recommends investing in infrastructure. 33 FORT WORTH ---.,..--- 2 050 Freight Data Platforms This section provides an overview of various freight data platforms , including the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF), Replica , and the NCTCOG travel demand models. These platforms are pivotal in transportation planning, offering insights into travel patterns and supporting infrastructure development and policy making. Traditional data collection methods have served as the backbone of traffic analysis for decades; however, innovative technology solutions are set to revolutionize the field , providing more accurate, real-time data that can significantly enhance the predictive power of travel demand models. Freight Analysis Framework The FAF 22 dataset offers comprehensive estimates of freight flows within the United States . Drawing from a variety of sources , including the Commodity Flow Survey and international trade data from the Census Bureau , FAF integrates data from sectors such as agriculture, extraction, utilities, construction , services, and more. This provides a holistic view of freight movements in major metropolitan areas. The dataset includes: • Base Year and Forecasts: Data for the base year 2012, with forecasts every five years from 2020 to 2045. This helps assess long-term trends and planning . • Freight Flow Estimates: Detailed estimates by tonnage , value , and ton-miles provide insights into the volume and economic significance of freight movements. • Commodity Insights: Information on 42 different commodity types, offering a broad perspective on the variety of goods transported. The strengths of the FAF lie in its comprehensive national coverage and its ability to provide detailed freight flow estimates . However, its periodic updates and lack of real-time data can limit its utility for immediate operational decisions. Recent updates have improved FAF's functionality by incorporating new data sources such as satellite imagery and real-time traffic sensors , and by adopting advanced forecasting models that better adapt to evolving trade patterns . FAF data has been effectively used in various projects to influence transportation planning and policy, demonstrating its value in understanding freight movement trends and guiding infrastructure investments. 22 Freight An alys is Framewo rk. httos://www.bts.gov/faf/faf4 34 FORTWORTII ----.-- 2050 Replica BigMobility Data Platform Replica 's platform 23 is designed to support a wide range of analyses and operational monitoring by providing detailed and accurate mobility data . Its focus on freight and truck data includes metrics such as Annual Average Daily Traffic, Commercial Freight Tri p Data , Network Link Volumes, and Hourly Volume Data . Replica 's real-time data capabilities make it particularly valuable for understanding and managing commercial transportation patterns . Replica 's strengths lie in its real-time data provision and detailed traffic metrics , including disaggregated freight information. However, its data coverage might be limited to specific regions, potentially affecting its applicability in less covered areas. Recent enhancements to Replica include the integration of advanced data analytics through machine learning algorithms for improved trend prediction and an expanded geographic coverage to include additional regions and cities . Use cases demonstrate Replica's effectiveness in urban traffic management and infrastructure planning, where its data has been applied to optimize traffic signal timings and assess the impact of new developments . NCTCOG Travel Demand Model The NCTCOG 24 utilizes the Transportation Analytical Forecasting Tool (TAFT) within the TransCAD environment to project vehicle activities, including freight and truck traffic, in the Dallas -Fort Worth area. TAFT four-step process-Trip Generation , Trip Distribution, Mode Choice , and Roadway Assignment-provides a comprehensive approach to estimating travel patterns and demand across different scales . The NCTCOG Transportation Department oversees TAFT's implementation and conducts regional planning studies , offering technical support to the Regional Transportation Council and its technical committees, which form the Metropolitan Planning Organization's policy-making entity. In the realm of truck planning, NCTCOG tracks truck travel trends to guide project prioritization and infrastructure enhancements, critical for long-term planning. This involves assessing truck movements to gauge the impact of potential projects on goods movement. The organization also tackles key truck transportation challenges, including inadequate infrastructure, increasing 23 Th e Repl ica Pl atfor m. The Rep li ca Platform: A Hol ist ic Picture of Mobili ty (repl icahq.com ) 24 North Texas Council of Governments. (2023). 2023 Tran spo rtation Conformity. 2022 Transportation Conformity (nctcog.org). 35 FORT WORTH --.,....--- 2 050 congestion , stagnant productivity, air quality, and safety issues. The growth in trade, particularly following the North American Free Trade Agreement, has intensified truck traffic, underscoring the need for such detailed planning and predictive models. TAFT incorporates adjustments for the Highway Performance Monitoring System , non -recurring congestion , and time-of-day variations to reflect an August weekday scenario , enhancing the model's precision in predicting vehicle miles traveled and other travel metrics for long-term planning. TAFT's strengths include its thorough modeling process and its ability to integrate real - time data with adjustments for factors such as non-recurring congestion. However, the model 's computational demands and adjustments for specific scenarios may not always capture unique local conditions effectively. Recent updates to TAFT involve enhanced integration with real -time data from traffic sensors and GPS devices, as well as advanced scenario analys is capabilities to better evaluate potential projects and policy changes . These improvements have enhanced TAFT's accuracy for long-term planning and truck traffic analysis , supporting NCTCOG's efforts in infrastructure project prioritization and regional planning. Comparison of Platforms Freight Analys is Framework (FAF) offers national freight flow estimates , enabling Fort Worth to understand regional trends and identify high-volume corridors. This data helps inform safety- focused infrastructure measures , especially in areas with significant through-traffic. Replica provides real-time data on congestion and hourly traffic volumes specific to Fort Worth. Monitori ng these insights allows the city to make timely traffic management adjustments on key fre ight routes , reducing both congestion and crash risks. TAFT (NCTCOG Travel Demand Model) is long-term forecasting and scenario analysis aid Fort Worth in anticipating future fre ight demand and prioritizing infrastructure planning. This model supports proactive safety measures by pinpointing corridors where truck traffic is projected to increase . Takeaway Freight Management: Use FAF for broad freight flow trends, Replica for real -time traffic management, and TAFT for long-term infrastructure planning , which allows for a well-rounded approach to truck safety and efficiency in Fort Worth's freight network. 36 FORT WORTH --.,..-- 2050 Innovative Technology Solutions Real-time analytics are increasingly important for modern traffic management systems. These systems use real -time data to dynamically monitor and manage traffic conditions , improving efficiency and safety. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) play a critical role in enhancing traffic flow and reducing congestion . Key ITS components include: • Real-Time Traffic Monitoring: This technology uses live data from various sources to provide real-time traffic updates and predictive analytics . It helps cities manage traffic conditions dynamically by offering insights into traffic flow, congestion , and incidents . Key platforms include Google 's Waze and INRIX, which use crowd -sourced information to improve traffic management and planning. • Adaptive Signal Control Technology (ASCT): ASCT adjusts traffic signal timings based on real -time traffic conditions. This optimization helps to enhance traffic flow, reduce delays , and improve overall efficiency at intersections . Technologies from vendors like Siemens and Econolite are commonly used to dynamically manage signal timings in response to current traffic patterns. • Automated Incident Detection (AID): AID systems utilize sensors and cameras to automatically detect and respond to traffic incidents. This technology allows for quicker response to incidents, minimizing disruptions and improving traffic management. Vendors such as Transcore and Kapsch offer systems that enhance incident detection and response . TxDOT Fort Worth TMC would be responsible for automated incident detection along highway corridors , while Fort Worth could implement these systems on city-managed truck routes and high -traffic areas , enhancing localized incident response and management. • Signal Preemption and Prioritization: These systems adjust traffic signals to prioritize certain types of vehicles , such as emergency vehicles or public transit. Signal preemption involves sensors or communication technologies that detect the approach of priority vehicles , changing signal phases to clear their path. This reduces delays for emergency services and public transit. Providers like Rekor and BlueHalo offer solutions in this area. • Advanced Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM): ATSPM systems monitor and analyze traffic signal performance to assess their effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. They provide detailed insights into signal timing, vehicle delays , and 37 foRTWORTH ~ 2 05 0 operational efficiency, helping agencies optimize signal operations. Vendors such as Miovision and No Traffic offer ATSPM solutions that support traffic signal optimization and performance analysis . • Fort Worth's partnership with TxDOT's Fort Worth District on the TSMO plan could enhance city managed ITS initiatives by providing access to regionally coordinated data and best practices . This collaboration would allow Fort Worth to align signal control and incident response strategies with regional plans , improving both traffic flow and safety on high -demand freight routes . Case Studies Real-Time Traffic Monitoring In San Francisco , Wa ze's platform 25 was integrated into the city's traffic management system through the Waze Connected Citizens Program . This integration prov ided the city with real -time traffic data , enabling more effective congestion management and route optimization . The platform's crowd-sourced information helped San Francisco optimize traffic flow and respond to incidents more efficiently, contributing to a more responsive and adaptabl e traffic management system. Expanding the use of Fort Worth 's existing real -time traffic monitoring for truck traffic could provide better freight movement management. With Fort Worth's growing population and rising demands, the system could reduce congestion and enhance overall mobility within the city. This initiative would align with Fort Worth's objectives of improving transportation infrastructure and operational efficiency. Adaptive Signal Control Systems In Los Angeles, Siemens ' adaptive signal control techno logy 26 was implemented to reduce travel times and improve overall traffic efficiency. The system adjusts traffic signal timings based on real -time traffic conditions, leading to smoother traffic flow and reduced delays . This adaptive 25 Wa ze. (n.d.). W aze for cities: San Franci sco case st udy . Waze Conn ected Citize ns Program. httos://www.waze.com/wiki/USA /W aze fo r Cities 26 Sieme ns Mobi lity. (n.d .). Lo s Ange les adaptive t raffic signa l control case study. Siemens M ob ility. httos ://new.siemens.com /global /en /oroducts /mobility.html 38 FO RTWORTl·I --.....--- 2 050 approach has been crucial in managing the city's heavy traffic, including areas with significant truck traffic. While being utilized in the Alliance Area, implementing adaptive signal control technology in other regions of Fort Worth could optimize traffic signal timings especially along routes frequently used by trucks. This would help reduce congestion during peak hours and improve the efficiency of truck traffic, supporting Fort Worth's transportation goals. Automated Incident Detection In New York City, Transcore 's AID systems 27 have been deployed to enhance the city's incident detection and response capabilities. These systems use sensors and cameras to monitor traffic in real time, allowing for quick identification and management of traffic incidents, including those involving trucks . For Fort Worth, adopting systems like Transcore's AID systems could significantly improve the city's ability to manage traffic incidents, particularly those involving trucks . Quick detection and response could help reduce the impact of accidents on major truck routes, supporting smoother traffic operations and enhanced safety. Signal Preemption and Prioritization Systems Rekor 's signal preemption solutions 28 have been implemented to prioritize emergency vehicles , ensuring they can navigate through intersections quickly and safely. This system detects approaching emergency vehicles and adjusts traffic signals accordingly, which is especially useful in areas with heavy truck traffic. The NCTCOG has announced traffic signal technology system partnerships to help trucks move more efficiently through some of the region 's key freight corridors. The City of Fort Worth , along with other cities in the region and Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, is helping to deploy a Freight Signal Optimization Program across more than 500 traffic signals in their jurisdictions. This technology could be further utilized to enhance emergency response times, particularly in areas with high truck traffic. This could be critical in reducing delays during emergencies and improving public safety in truck-heavy corridors. 27 Tran score . (n.d.). N ew York City automated incid ent detection case study. Transcore Traffic M ana gement So lu tions. https://transcore .com / 28 Rekor Systems . (n.d.). Traffic Solutions: Signal Pr ee mptio n case study. Rekor Systems. https :/ /reko r.ai/traffic -solutions 39 FORT WORTH ~ 2050 ATSPM Miovision's ATSPM solutions 29 are used in various cities to optimize t raffic signal timings and reduce delays by providing comprehensive performance analysis. These systems offer detailed insights into signal operations, which is particularly valuable in managing truck traffic. Fort Worth could expand the use of ATS PM under the Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) policy to optimize traffic signals along key truck routes , reducing delays and improving traffic flow. This could be especially beneficial in managing the city's growing truck traffic. 29 Miovision . (n .d.). case stud ies: ATSPM. Miovisio n. https://m iovis ion.com/case-studies 40 FORTWORnl --.,.--- 2 050 Case Studies and Recommendations on Truck Route and Restriction Rules As requested by the project management team , guidelines and case studies are reviewed specifically on truck route and restriction rules , including criteria for adding/removing truck routes and designation of no -trucking routes. General Factors for Identifying and Designating Truck Routes State and local agencies can designate truck routes or prohibit all trucks , or trucks of particular size or weights, from using roads that are not part of the National Network. General factors for identifying and designati ng truck routes include :30 • Truck Characteristics o Design veh icle dimensions and turning performance o Existing and anticipated usage by oversize/overweight vehicles • Roadway Network Characteristics o Functional classification o Network constraints o Position of roadway in transportation network and connectivity needs o Available alternative routes • Roadway facility characteristics o Lane Width o Shoulder w idth (e.g., TxDOT manual suggests 12-ft width for route utilized by large trucks.31 ) o Traffic-signal spacing 30 Des ign and Ac cess Man age ment Guidelin es for Tru ck Routes: Plannin g and D es ign Gu ide (2020). Chapter 3 -Planning for Truck Routes and Other Related Considerations I Design and Access Management Guidelines for Truck Routes: Planning and Design Guide I The National Academies Press 3 1 Tx DOT Roa dw ay Des ig n M anu al (2 0 22 ). https:/ /ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/crossroads/des/documents/roadway- a nd-hyd ra ul ics-design/ rdw-may-2022.pdf 41 F0R T WORHI ~ 2 050 o Driveway density and design o Median treatment and related features o Aux iliary lanes o Presence of bicycle facility o Height/Weight restrictions (e .g ., TxDOT set routes with vertical clearance lower than 14' not for truck ; . TxDOT indicated in the manual that more than standard connection (driveway) spacing distance [200 ft for under 30 mph , 425 ft for more than 50 mph] is needed for truck traffic.32 ) • Land -use and environmental characteristics o Land use immediately adjacent to roadway o Location relative to land uses generate truck movements o Location relative to environmentally sensitive areas • Operational and safety characteristics o Traffic and truck volume and congestion levels o Pedestrian and bicycle volume o Traffic speed o Split between through traffic vs local traffic Case Studies The City of Cambridge is committed to reducing the adverse impacts of truck noise and vibrations on residents while ensuring the continued delivery of goods and services to bu sinesses and residences in the city. Key criteria for a truck exclusion from a municipal way include, a suitable alternative route is available and one or more of the following:33 • There is at least 5% heavy commercial vehicles • Heavy wheel loads will result in severe deterioration of the roadway 32 Tx DOT Access M ana ge ment M anual (2 011). Access Management Manual : Number. Location . and Spacing of Access Connections 33 City of Cambrid ge. Tru ck Res trict ed Stree t s Li st. https://www.cambridgema .gov/traffic/sustainabletransportation /trucks /truckrestrictedstreetslist 42 FoRTWo m1 ~ 2 05 0 V 1 ; ZEfflHI • Land use is primarily residential and the municipality has requested exclusion only during hours of darkness. Truck restriction (no truck/bus route) criteria of City of Washington D.C. are based on traffic volume , roadway characteristics , network connectivity, safety, functional classification , and stakeholder feedback .34 Legacy request-based truck and bus restrictions of Washington D.C included : • Street must be functionally classified as local • Street must not be a designated truck or bus route • Observed trucks traffic must be 50 % of that on truck routes and not related to construction/temporary cause • Observed truck traffic must not be local deliveries Current approaches that Washington D.C is taking includes: • All streets with "local" functional classification to be through -truck restricted • Only streets with a local functional classification to be through truck restricted, with exceptions for security, land use, or engineering characteristics Considerations for Adding and Removing Truck Routes To meet Fort Worth's evolving urban and residential needs, it is recommended that the city adopt clear criteria for adding or removing truck routes. Suggested criteria based on peer city practices and literature review include: • Traffic Volume and Impact Analysis: Evaluate truck volume on each route using data from platforms like Replica and the NCTCOG Travel Demand Model. Specific thresholds for volume or road wear, as recommended by sources like FHWA's FAF, could be established to identify if truck traffic on certain roads is causing excessive wear, congestion , or conflicts with residential or pedestrian areas. Relevant references : FHWA's FAF or NCH RP studies detail volume-based impacts on roadways , providing quantitative thresholds for assessment. 34 Truck Routes & Restrictions https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx? A= KT AL1uVnc %2FANCSM EedOjm 7 eB 19fHWhRbl2xzGdQgyS4%3D 43 FORTWORnl --..,..,----- 2 05 0 • Industrial and Commercial Land Use Patterns: Prioritize truck routes that align with industrial and commercial zones. Overlay designated truck routes on land use maps to confirm alignment with the most recent zoning changes. This is noted in Fort Worth 's Master Thoroughfare Plan and FHWA guidelines that emphasize strategic alignment of freight routes with land use to avoid residential conflicts. Relevant references: Fort Worth's Master Thoroughfare Plan and FHWA guidelines on land use compatibility for freight routes support route alignment recommendations. • Safety and Crash Data: Analyze crash data involving trucks to identify high-risk areas. Consider thresholds based on crash rates , such as a higher increase in truck-involved incidents on a given route , as suggested by studies from NCH RP reports on crash risk mitigation and adjust or remove truck routes in residential or pedestrian -heavy zones accordingly. Relevant references: NCHRP's crash risk analysis guidelines provide criteria for when to adjust or remove truck routes based on crash frequency and severity. • Resident Feedback: Regularly collect and review resident input regarding truck traffic concerns , especially in residential neighborhoods. Integrate this feedback into truck route planning to reflect community needs. Relevant references : NCTCOG freight planning and public engagement guidelines outline best practices for incorporating public feedback in truck route planning. Considerations for Designated No-Trucking Routes To address resident concerns regarding truck traffic in certain neighborhoods, the city may consider designating specific roads as no-trucking routes. The following guidelines can help determine no-trucking zones: • Residential and Sensitive Areas : Identify residential neighborhoods, school zones , and areas with high pedestrian activity where truck traffic should be minimized. Collaborate with NCTCOG's land use and mobility planning data to pinpoint sensitive areas , applying quantitative thresholds where feasible to assess no-trucking designations. Relevant references: NCTCOG land use data and FHWA safety studies for no-trucking zones in sensitive residential areas can guide data -based truck restrictions decisions. • Alternative Freight Corridors: Designated no-trucking routes should be supported by accessible alternate truck routes that meet infrastructure and capacity needs, avoiding 44 F0RTW0Rnl --....,....-- 2 050 residential disruption. This alignment minimizes rerouting impacts and encourages compliance. Relevant references : Seattle Freight Master Plan's best practices for alternative freight corridors provide insights into managing rerouted freight traffic effectively. • Signage and Enforcement: Install clear signage in no -trucking zones, indicating truck access restrictions. Coordinate with enforcement agencies to monitor compliance and respond to violations , encouraging adherence to no-trucking zones Relevant references: FHWA's guidelines on signage and enforcement in restricted zones . Considerations for Infrastructure Support and Truck Parking Needs Truck parking facilities are critical to supporting safe and legal truck parking in Fort Worth , reducing illegal parking in neighborhoods. Current truck parking availability along key freight corridors shows significant gaps . The following actions are recommended: • Mapping and Assessing Existing Truck Parking Facilities: Utilize TxDOT's Texas Statewide Truck Parking Study to map existing facilities. Identify gaps through analysis, using thresholds from FHWA's Freight and Land Use guidelines on parking facility adequacy to assess parking availability in high-demand corridors. Relevant references: TxDOT's Truck Parking Study or FHWA guidelines support the assessment of truck parking adequacy along key freight routes. • Identifying High-Need Locations for New Truck Parking: Based on current and forecasted freight volumes on major corridors like IH-35W and IH-30, pinpoint locations where additional truck parking facilities could alleviate pressure on existing sites. Consider locations close to industrial hubs , like Alliance Airport and South Fort Worth. Relevant references : Texas Statewide Analysis Model (SAM-V4) projections on future truck demand validate the need for expanded parking facilities in high-need areas. • Enhancing Parking Facility Capacity: Collaborate with private parking providers along IH- 35W, where multiple facilities are currently over capacity, to explore capacity expansion or the development of new facilities. Public-private partnerships could expand truck parking solutions across the city. 45 FORT WORTH ---....,.....- 2 05 0 V i ; ZEffl0 1 Relevant references: FHWA public-private partnership case studies illustrate successfu l collaborations for expanding parking capacity. Incorporating Recommendations into City Ordinance City Ordinance Chapter 22, Article IV could be amended to incorporate criteria for adding/removing truck routes and establishing designated no-trucking zones . Furthermore , this ordinance could include provisions for enforcing no-trucking routes and specifying truck parking locations to better manage truck traffic and alleviate community concerns. Relevant references: FHWA's Freight and Land Use Travel Demand Evaluation and Freight Mobility and Safety Enhancement Guidelines emphasize the importance of clear criteria within city ordinances fo r truck management, supporting these proposed ordinance revisions. 46 FORT WORTH --....,..-- 2 0 50 Summary This truck traffic evaluation presents the current state of Fort Worth's freight movement, including crash data , trip volumes , origin -destination analysis, and trip duration , highlighting the high volume and relatively elevated crash rates of freight traffic within the city. Through reviewing city, federal , and industry literature and analyzing Fort Worth's existing truck traffic ordinance , this report identifies recommendations for improving truck traffic management and safety. It is important to note that, when developing actions and implementing some of the recommendations included in this report, the close coordination between City and other regional partners, such as TxDOT, counties, and NCTCOG is crucial for the success of the implementation. Key recommendations include establishing criteria for adding and removing truck routes to better align freight movement with industrial growth and safety objectives. In addition , the implementation of designated no -trucking zones in residential and sensitive areas to respond to community concerns are recommended. Specific quantitative thresholds from federal and regional studies strengthen these recommendations , supporting data -backed decisions about route adjustments and parking ex pansions. Additionally, the report highlights strategies for technology-driven traffic management, such as adaptive signal control and automated incident detection, which can further support Fort Worth 's goals for freight efficiency and safety. By integrating these targeted recommendations with broader citywide goals like congestion reduction and environmental sustainability, Fort Worth can achieve a balanced approach to supporting freight needs while preserving residents' quality of life . 47 FORT WO RTH ---.,....---- 2050 •• APPENDIXF Corridor and Intersection Prioritization F0RTW0RTH ~ 2 050 Table of Content • • ·r· r· 2 orr, or r1or1 1 ion ........................................................................................... . nterse tion rioriti tion ..................................................................................... 4 1 Corridor Prioritization This section outlines the framework used to prioritize lo cations for implementing safety treatments and projects in the City of Fort Worth as part of the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan (VZ SAP). The framework is designed to support data-informed decision-making and guide the allocation of limited resources toward locations with the most critical safety needs-ultimately helping the City advance toward the goal of zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The table below presents the proposed prioritization metrics , which are grouped into three broad categories: 1. Crash history and roadway characteristics 2. Land use and contextual factors 3. Social Vulnerability considerations By incorporating metrics in these categories , the framework elevates roadways with a high incidence of historical crashes , physical characteristics linked to increased crash risk, proximity to key destinations, and locations within social vulnerability focus areas. Table 1. Corridor Prioritization Framework Category Crash History and Roadway Characteristics Land Use and Context Metric e • • I High crash rate segments Destination Density (schools and parks) Description Weight Segment located on 25% one or more mode- specific HINs Total number of 20% crashes normalized by VMT Number of 15% destinations within 0.25 mile Score • 5 points -segment is part of 3 or more mode- specific HINs • 3 points -segment is part of 2 mode -specific HINs • 1 point -segment is part of 1 mode-specific HIN Based on the comparison with all HIN corridors • 5 points -5th quintil e • 3 points -4th quintile • 1 po int -3rd quintile Based on the number of destinations per mile • 5 points -5th quintile • 4 points -4th quintile • 3 points -3rd quintile • 2 points -2nd quintile • 1 point -1st quintile 2 ~ 2 050 Population Population density 10% Based on the highest Density within 0.25 miles -quintile block group within based on proportional 0.25 miles compared to area overlap other network seg ments • 5 points -5th quintil e • 4 po i nts -4th quintil e • 3 points -3rd quintile • 2 points -2 nd qu i ntil e • 1 point -1st quintile Transit Stops proximity (within 0.5 10% • 5 points -Yes mile) to a transit stop • 0 point -No Social Roadway segments 20% • 5 points -High social Vuln erability that are in vulnerability Ind ex communities with high • 3 points -M edium-High overall social social vuln erabil ity vulnerability Total 100% Based on the prioritization framework, roadway segments were scored using the identified metrics to determine the top project locations. The highest-ranking locations were then selected for Road Safety Assessments (RSAs), which were conducted for the top 10 segments . These assessments helped identify site -specific safety issues and informed the selection of appropriate countermeasures. As a result, a set of capital infrastructure projects was developed to address safety concerns at the evaluated locations. In developing these recommendations, the following factors were considered : • Infrastructure Needs -For example, whether a location meets the signal warrant criteria for a new traffic signal • Capital Replacement -Frequency of equipment failure and the need for system upgrades • Federal/State Legal Requirements -Ensuring compliance with current design and operational standards • Service Deficiencies -Opportunities to improve mobility and traffic operations, particularly through signal enhancements • Leverage Opportunities -Coordination with existing plans and funding sources such as the Bond Program , M aster Transportation Plan, HSI P, grants, and impact fees 3 f0RTWORTH ----.---- 2050 For additional detail on the Road Safety Assessments and recomm ended improvements for specific corridors , pleas e refe r to Appendix G -Corridor Road Safety Assessment. Intersection Prioritization Similar to corridors , intersections were prioritized to identify High Injury Intersections (Hlls) in order to guide investm ent in t arg eted safety improvements where th ey are most needed. The High Injury Intersection (HII) analysis began with a comprehensive review of all intersections within the City of Fort Worth and all intersection-related crashes . A detailed methodology for assigning crashes to specific intersections is provided in Appendix B -State of Safety Report. Each intersection was assigned a severity-weighted score , calculated separately for five modes of travel: • Pedestrian • Bicyclist • Motorcyclist • Motor vehicle • Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) The following table summarizes the injury severity weights used in the scoring. Table 2. Crash weighting by injury severity -Description Weight Fatal injury 3 -Suspected serious injury 3 Suspected minor injury 2 -Possibl e injury 1 Not injured 0 These modes and severity weights align with the methodology used in the High Injury Network (HIN) analysis and the descriptive statistics previously developed . For more on how modes were assigned to crashes , refer to Appendix B -State of Safety Report. 4 foRTWORTH ~ 2050 To classify intersections as part of a modal HII , modal scores were an alyzed to determine a threshold (or cut-off) value . There is no fi xed formula for setting th ese cut-off scores ; rather, they were determined through a blend of data analysis and professional judgment. The goal was to identify intersections that account for a meaningful share of serious injury and fatal crashes without capturing too many locations , which would dilute the result s. This process was conducted separately for each mode . The final HII includes any intersection that met the cut-off for at least one mode. The table below summarizes the cut-off sco res , the number of intersections identified, and the proportion of crashes those intersections represent Table 3. HI/ by mode and their associated cra she s Mode Intersections I Pedestrian ------- Bicyclist Motorcyclist -------- Motor vehicle CMV I Overall * 3 3 3 20 3 110 30 124 105 38 . . . .. . . -. ... . . ,-. .. . .. Percentage 0.49% 0.13% 0.55 % 0.47 % 0 .17% -. Crashes included Total ------ All KIA 194 33 154 4 ,732 194 •II... I . . 94 2 8 124 156 23 . ... . . 48.38 % 20.25 % 36.49 % 18.83 % 13.91 % . . 100% 100% 100% 20 .86 % 100% In addition to scoring intersections based on crash history, each intersection was evaluated for its relationship to the modal High Injury Networks (HINs). Intersections were flagged if they fell along an HIN segment for a given mode. For details on HIN development, refer to Appendix B - State of Safety Report . It is important to note that an intersection's crash score or rank does not need to correlate directly with its presence on the HIN . For instance, a corridor may appear on the HIN due to high non-intersection crash volumes , even if the intersections themselves are not high-ranked . Nonetheless, such intersections remain critical for consideration in safety planning due to their network context. 5 fORT WO RTH ---.,..,--- 2050 - •• APPENDIXG Corridor Road Safety Assessment FORT WORTH . ---r-- 2050 fORTWORTH ----.,.--- 2050 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 Process and Methodology .......................................................................................... 7 Road Safety Assessment ............................................................................................................. 7 Field Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Corridor Context Review ................................................................................................................................... 8 Crash Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Countermeasure Recommendations ....................................................................................... 9 Countermeasure Selection ............................................................................................................................... 9 Crash Modification Factor .............................................................................................................................. 10 Countermeasure Selection Toolbox ............................................................................................................. 10 Countermeasure Combination ...................................................................................................................... 11 Benefit-Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................ 12 Corridor Recommendations .................................................................................... 14 Corridor 1: Ellis Avenue ............................................................................................................ 14 Corridor 2: Evans Avenue ......................................................................................................... 29 Corridor 3: Mark IV Parkway ................................................................................................... 42 Corridor 4: NW 14th Street ...................................................................................................... 53 Corridor 5: NW 26th Street ...................................................................................................... 64 Corridor 6: Pennsylvania Avenue ........................................................................................... 75 Corridor 7: Beach Street ........................................................................................................... 98 Corridor 8: Sharonda le Street .................................................................................................. 14 1 fORTWORTH ---...,..,.-- 2 050 Corridor 9: Sycamore School Road ....................................................................................... 118 Corridor 10: W Seminary Drive ............................................................................................ 136 2 Executive Summary A comprehensive road safety assessment was conducted for ten priority corridors, resulting in safety improvement recommendations supported by a benefit-cost analysis. These recommendations will help guide the City's future investments in safety enhancements, offering a roadmap to assess project costs, benefits, and implementation timelines. The study evaluates each corridor's existing conditions through fieldwork observations and analyzes crash history using data from 2019 to 2023. The ten corridors studied in this project include the following: 1. Ellis Avenue from NW 2i5t Street to NW 28th Street 2. Evans Avenue from E Morningside Drive to E Berry Street 3 . Mark IV Parkway from Meacham Boulevard to Cantrell Sansom Road 4. NW 14th Street from N Main Street to Gould Avenue 5. NW 26th Street from N Main Street to Angle Avenue 6. Pennsylvania Avenue from S Main Street to 8th Avenue 7. S Beach Street from Avenue H to Mitchell Boulevard 8 . Sharondale Street from 6th Avenue to James Avenue 9. Sycamore School Road from South Freeway to W Everman Parkway 10. W Seminary Drive from 6th Avenue to Rector Avenue Our recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance safety along the ten corridors are based on speed management, pedestrian/bicyclist safety, roadway departure, intersection, and crosscutting countermeasures . Each countermeasure is examined alongside a crash modification factor (CMF) and cost-benefit ratios. The table below summarizes the final cost-benefit ratio for each corridor, as well as overall. Tabl e 1 : Cost/Benet,t Su mm ary Corridor Cost Benefit Benefit/Cost 1 ELLIS AVE $2 ,676 ,600 $57,280,000 22.78 2 EVANS AVE $3,401,300 $18,840,000 5.54 3 MARK IV PKWY $5,063 ,400 $92,480 ,000 18.26 4 NW 14TH ST $1,373,000 $66,020,000 48.08 5 NW 26TH ST $1 ,553 ,700 $10,400 ,000 6.69 3 fORTWORTH ----...,.--- 2050 f0RTW0RTH -...,....--- 2050 6 PENNSYLVANIA AVE $3 ,558,400 $109 ,940 ,000 30.90 7 S BEACH ST $1 ,177,100 $20 ,060,000 17.04 8 SHARONDALE ST $764,900 $16 ,880,000 22.07 9 SYCAMORE SCHOOL RD $4 ,854,600 $128,960 ,000 26 .56 10 W SEMINARY DR $4,578 ,300 $164,000,000 35 .82 Overall $28 ,991 ,300 $684,860,000 23.62 4 Introduction As part of the Fort Worth Vision Zero Safety Action Plan (SAP), a data-driven prioritization was conducted to rank roadway segments on identified HINs based on crash history, roadway characteristics, land use , context, and social vulnerability considerations. This prioritization helps the City to better plan and allocate funding for safety improvements at the most needed locations. For details about the prioritization methodology, please refer to Appendix F. Based on the prioritization results , the City identified 10 corridors , as shown in Figure 1, for a more detailed roadway safety assessment and capital project recommendations. These 10 corridors score among the top 15 and are often part of multiple modal HINs. Their extent, functional classification, and modal HIN are listed in Table 2. foRTWORTH ---....,....--- 2050 This report presents the safety assessment methods and analysis conducted on these high-crash corridors and provides recommendations to increase safety. This document will help guide the City's future investments in safety improvements, providing a I) ConidorlD -~ 01--+--+2.5--+--ISml ~ Figure 1: Road Safety Assessment Corridors roadmap to identify capital projects' costs, benefits, and implementation timelines. 5 fORTWORTH ---....,.---- 2 050 Table 2 : Safety Assessment Corridors Sharondale St 6th Ave James Ave Residential Bicycle NW 14th St N Main St Gould Av e Residenti al Ped es trian S Beach St Ave H Mitchell Blvd Major Arterial Motor vehicle 5 Evans Ave E Morningside Dr E Berry St Minor Arterial Motor v ehicle 6 NW 26th St N Main St/ Angle Ave/ Residential Pedestrian Stockyards Blvd Refugio Ave 7 Pennsylvan ia Av e E Pennsylvania Ave 8th Ave Minor Arterial Pedestrian , Motor vehicl e I S Main St 8 W Seminary Dr 6th Ave Rector Ave Major Arterial Bicycle , Pedestrian 9 Mark Iv Pkwy M eacham Blvd Crossover Ramp Major Arterial Motor vehicl e, Comme rcial mot or vehicl e, Motorcycl e 10 Sycamore School South Fwy Sr Nb W Everman Pkwy Minor Arterial Bicycle , Pedestrian , Motor Rd vehicle 6 Process and Methodology This section summarizes the process and methodology used to perform th e safety assessment, develop safety improvement project recommendations , and analyze the expected benefits and costs of proposed improvements. Road Safety Assessment The road safety assessment for the 10 corridors included field data collection , corridor context review, and crash data analyses . Field Data Collection < ,, "' '-" ~ Apps . 0 "' . 0 . , . i"r "' i Fort Worth .. . . . .: Mar ,o-. ,.ve E Mul~.,y St • . r i Mornir:g~ide Elttmenlary . El :, School ti \I Cc During the week of December 2 nd , 2024, project team members conducted field observations of the corridors to collect data on their existing infrastructure, operations , and safety issues . These observations were performed on foot, with team members spending multiple hours examining each individual corridor and recording findings. This fieldwork helped the team to better understand the ex isting conditions of each corridor and to ensure recommendations of tailored safety countermeasures . .. ... Ee\iorn lng ~ Judd St MURNI . . .. • E Bow le St • • • .. ... ' .,.-... ·y(, ~-~ J e E Ocvill S t • • iC) • 9 E Cantey SI ,~ Lowden St • E 'iowle St 111C.t(IE LA E-BOWIF ST . ~ < ., .:.9 i 1 . .-MC The project team collected data via mobile devices (phones and iPads) using the Fulcrum survey app (Figure 2). This provided the ability to review crash data on the map and compare them to conditions observed in the field . Field notes and photos were also logged in ~ ~ C:J ~ ! { . 5' !!? 0 t " . ~ ~ (\ Esri Community Maps Contributors, Baylor Un ... Powe red by Eid + List View Filter Search Record Figure 2 : Fulcrum Survey Photos and Notes Fulcrum to geo-tag observations to the correct locations. These notes helped inform the countermeasure selection process . In -depth field observations of each corridor are provided in the Corridor Recommendations sections . 7 f0RTW0RTH ~ 2050 Corridor Context Review Based on field observations and desktop review, the project team examined the characterization of each corridor to establish a baseline roadway typology. Characteristics such as location, extent, surrounding land uses, roadway width, number of lanes, presence of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and speed limit were considered. Relevant data such as AADT along the corridor were also collected. A review of existing plans and programs was performed to identify any proposed projects along the corridors that should be factored into the safety improvement recommendations. A summary graphic with each corridor's context is provided in the Corridor Recommendations sections. Crash Data Analysis The same crash data used to develop the Fort Worth State of Safety Report and the HIN were collected for each corridor. This included crashes identified as associated with each segment and intersections along the corridor. For methodology on how crashes are joined with roadway segments or intersections, please refer to Appendix B: The State of Safety Report . The project team examined the number and distribution of crashes along the corridor, focusing on key attributes to help identify patterns of crashes as well as potential causes, including: • Crash locations • Crash mode • Crash severity • Crash collision manner • Crash contributing factor • Time of day • Lighting conditions • Speed limit Crash locations were evaluated to determine whether they occurred mid-block or in the influence area of an intersection. The intersections where the most crashes occurred are illustrated with a heat map . Crash modes, including motor vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian were evaluated to inform mode-specific countermeasure selection. 8 foRTWORTH --.,.-- 2050 Crashes in which a person was killed or seriously injured (KSI) were counted and compared to the total number of crashes to determine whether there were any significant differences in their occurrence. Each corridor analysis summarizes the top manners in which crashes occurred. The collision manners include the direction of travel of each party as well as the direction from which the collision occurred. The crash contributing factor describes why each crash happened. Contributing factors include, for example, when one party fails to control their speed, follows too closely, fails to yield the right of way, etc. The top five crash contributing factors are reported for each corridor. Time of day crashes were examined. If a crash occurred at night, the presence or lack of artificia l lighting was explored. If this appears to be a potential safety issue for the corridor, that is noted. The speed limit along each corridor was also considered. If a corridor encompasses multiple speed limits , the crash density is calculated for each speed limit section to determine the correlation between speed and the number of crashes. Countermeasure Recommendations Countermeasure Selection Based on field observations and crash data ana lysis , the project team identified countermeasures applicable corridor-wide as well as noted locations that require specific additional countermeasures. The selection of countermeasures was based on FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures initiative (PSCi)1. This system of countermeasures is categorized into five major areas, including • Speed management • Pedestrian/bicyclist • Roadway departure • Intersections • Crosscutting measures 1 https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures 9 foRTWORTH ---.--- 2050 However, some additional recommended countermeasures not from the PSCi have been provided in cases where they have the potential to provide a reasonable safety benefit for a corridor and its crash profile. Each proposed countermeasure is accompanied by a timeframe for completion to support project implementation . Crash Modification Factor A Crash Modification Factor (CMF) is provided for each proposed countermeasure. This helps to quantify the potential crash reduction and safety benefit of implementing the proposed countermeasure. CMF is a multiplicative factor that indicates the proportion of crashes that would be expected after implementing a countermeasure . CMFs with a value less than 1.0 indicate an expected decrease in crashes . CMFs greater than 1.0 indicate an expected increase in crashes. CMFs are denned in Part D of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), accessible online at the CMF Clearinghouse 2 provided by FHWA. TxDOT also provides pedestrian specific CMFs in the "Texas Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) Countermeasures Background and Application Methodology3 " This study utilizes countermeasures found in the Clearinghouse and TxDOT PSAP. Countermeasure Selection Toolbox Table 3 below provides a CMF for proposed countermeasures and the applicable crash type. It is important to note that a CMF is not always applicable to every crash type. In addition, a few countermeasures do not have an identified CMF, as those countermeasures have not been studied. Table 3: Countermeasure Toolbox Countermeasure Crash Modification Crash Type Factor Neighborhood traffic circles 0 .18 All Install Shared-Use Path 0.25 Bike Install Sidewalks 0.35 Pedestrian Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon 0.40 Pedestrian Install Bike Lanes 0.435 Bike 2 https://cmfcleari nghouse . fhwa .dot.gov / 3 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/tpp/psap-countermeasures-methodology-memo.pdf 10 FORT WORTH ---.,.-- 2050 Install Buffered Bike Lanes 0.47 Bike Install/Upgrade Safety Lighting 0.51 Night Provide intersection illumination 0.62 Night Install Raised Crosswalk 0.54 All Install vertical separation for bike lanes 0.57 All Install speed humps 0.60 All Reconfigure Curb Ramps to meet ADA Standard 0.65 Pedestrian Install Pedestrian Refuge Islands 0 .68 Pedestrian Implement full signalization at intersection 0.73 All Channelized right turn skip striping 0 .75 All Install advance signal, stop, pedestrian or yield signs 0.75 All Install hardened center line 0.75 All Narrow Lanes 0.76 All Convert TWLTL to raised median 0.77 All Install Raised Protected Intersection 0.78 All Intersection Left-Turn Striping 0.79 All Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon/Intersection Control Beacon 0.85 Pedestrian Install backplates with retroreflective borders 0 .85 All Implement leading pedestrian intervals 0.87 Pedestrian Install Pedestrian Crosswalk (High-Visibility) 0 .90 Pedestrian Appropriately timed yellow change intervals 0.92 All Modify Curb Geometrics --All Install dynamic speed feedback signage 0.95 All Install Stop Bar --All Consolidate access points --All "Install pedestrian signal heads --Pedestrian Install Pedestrian Pushbutton" --Pedestrian Install Detectable Warning Strips --Pedestrian Countermeasure Combination Often, a corridor or intersection will have several applicable countermeasures. In this case , a combined CMF is provided, calculated by multiplying together no more than three countermeasures of the same crash type. For example , Table 4 demonstrates a location with foRTWO RTH -....,.,---- 2050 11 seven applicable countermeasures , where multiple countermeasures are applicable to the same crash type . For those countermeasures , a combined CM Fis calculated and applied to crashes of that same type . Countermeasures with no applicable CM F do not count towards the maximum of three . Table 4 : Countermeasures Combination Exampl e Countermeasure Crash Type Original CMF Combined CMF A All 0.65 0.23 B All 0.35 C Pedestrian 0 .87 D Pedestrian 0.40 0 .24 E Pedestrian 0 .68 F Pedestrian -- G Bike 0.47 0.47 Benefit-Cost Analysis Benefit cost analysis compares the overall benefits of recommended improvements to a project's total cost over a specified time period . This benefit-cost ratio (B/C) is provided for each recommended improvement. Higher B/C ratios indicate higher potential returns for safety improvements. This analysis can assist the City's implementation decision-making. The process of calculating the B/C ratio begins with the identification of a horizon year (typically a 20-year project life span). The benefit of a project is the monetized value of crashes 4 that would be prevented over the project's lifespan . The number of crashes prevented is computed assuming a consistent crash rate as traffic grows in the future without safety improvements. The crash modification factor is then applied to calculate future year crashes over the 20-year period with safety improvements . The cost is the total initial cost of the project, which includes the construction cost and an allowance for survey and engineering, and the maintenance cost over a 20-year project lifespan. The cost estimates were developed using bid tab data provided by the City. All costs are in present (2025) values. To calculate the benefits, the following steps were taken : 4 TxDOT crash costs by severity: https ://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot -info/trf/hsip/sii-calculator.xls 12 foRTWORTH ---,.-- 2050 1. Prevention benefits were assigned to each type of crash (K, A, and B). These values were obtained from the TxDOT 2021 SIi Calculator. 2. A crash rate per 100,000 roadway users was calculated for each type of crash from the number of crashes between 2019 and 2023 by using the number of crashes between 2019 and 2023 and dividing by the number of roadway users between 2019 and 2023 (Before Crashes /AADT/365/5) and then multiplied by 100,000. 3. The crash rate was then multiplied by the crash modification factor factors for applied countermeasures. 4 . The new crash rate was then converted to crashes prevented in the build year (assumed 2025) with the following formula : ((Before Crashes Per 100,000 Users -Crashes Modified by CMF Applicable CMF Per 100,000 Users)* 2025 AADT * 365 / 100,000). 5. The crashes were then multiplied by their prevention benefit values to obtain a benefit value per year. 6. A benefit growth rate was then obtained by multiplying the inflation rate (assumed 3 %) by the growth rate . 7. A present benefit value was then calculated by the annuity to present value formula. 8. Annual maintenance costs were calculated using the TxDOT HSIP. 9. For countermeasures with service lives less than 20 years , it was assumed that the full countermeasure installation cost would be incurred each time the service life expired (e.g . paint has a service life of 4 years , and it was assumed that the paint would be reinstalled each 4 years , for a total of 5 times in 20 years). Note that for countermeasures that are hard infrastructure and not in the HSIP, such as curb extensions , a service life of 25 years was assumed . It was further assumed that these costs would be evenly spread over the 20-year lifecycle to obtain an annual reinstallation cost. 10. The annual reinstallation cost was then added to the annual maintenance cost from the HSIP for each countermeasure to obtain a final annual maintenance cost. 11. A present annual maintenance cost was then calculated by the annuity to present value formula . 12. The present annual maintenance cost was added to the installation cost to obtain a present cost value. 13. The benefit/cost ratio was then obtained by dividing the present benefit value by the present cost value . 13 foRTWORTH ----..------ 2050 Corridor Recommendations The following section of this report provides details on each corridor's existing conditions , crash history, and includes observations from field work, recommended improvements , and benefit- cost analysis results. The numerical position assigned to each corridor is solely for identifi cation purposes and doesn't represent priority. Each of the 10 corridors was treated with the same level of importance. 1. Ellis Avenue from NW 21st Street to NW 28th Street 2. Evans Avenue from E Morningside Drive to E Berry Street 3 . Mark IV Parkway from Meacham Boulevard to Cantrell Sansom Road 4 . NW 14th Street from N Main Street to Gould Avenue 5. NW 26th Street from N Main Street to Angle Avenue 6. Pennsylvania Avenue from S Main Street to 8th Avenue 7. S Beach Street from Avenue H to Mitchell Boulevard 8 . Sharondale Street from 6th Avenue to James Avenue 9 . Sycamore School Road from South Freeway to W Everm an Parkway 10. W Seminary Drive from 6th Avenue to Rector Avenue Corridor 1: Ellis Avenue Ellis Avenue, running south to north between NW 21 st Street to NW 28th Street is part of the Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN) and the Motor Vehicle HIN . Context This corridor functions as a minor arterial and is lined with residential properties as well as commercial developments. Rodeo Park is located at the northern extent of the Ellis Avenue study area . All Saints Catholic School is located at the southern extent. The corridor is part of the Historic Stockyards District. The roadway is 0.86 miles in length and consists of four lanes , with unmarked parallel parking. The sidewalks on both sides of the roadway are mainly continuous for the entire length of the corridor. The speed limit is 30 mph. Every intersection on this corridor is stop-controlled: main , side street or all-way. The typical pavement width ranges from 52 to 58 14 foRTWORTH ---,.--- 2050 feet, while the right-of-way width ranges from 80 to 86 feet. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this corridor is 2 ,5305 . Crash History From 2019 to 2023, 139 total crashes ~- occurred on Ellis Avenue between NW 2ist Street and NW 28th Street. About 47% of overall crashes c,,_ Como,, HOR l HWUT 11TH SUHI--- w ~ 1/) :::; ..., w I i ••Ollll•J1t11•Z j ! f0RTW0RTH ----..........- 2050 occurred at dusk or at night, indicating the need for additional lighting on this corridor. Seventy-eight percent of the crashes occurred at intersections, making intersection-related recommendations a focus of this evaluation. There was one crash involving a bicycle, which was a KSI crash , and one crash involving a motorcycle. There were six crashes involving a pedestrian, one of which was a KSI crash. Overall, there were three severe injury crashes and 20 crashes that resulted in minor injuries. Crash Density ot---+---isoo ft 0 l"OOLE OIS IO N Table 5 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for Figure 3: Crash Map of the Elli s Avenue Corridor the Ellis Avenue corridor. Table 6 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports of crashes on Ellis Avenue. Table 7 summarizes the KSI crashes (three) that occurred on this corridor. 5 2019 TPP Statewide Traffic Count Map 15 fOR T WORTH -----.--- 2050 Table 5: Ellis Avenue Intersection Related Crashes by Collision Manner Intersection Angle Crash One Motor Vehicle Opposite Direction Same Direction Total (closest reported) NW 21st ST 5 ---------5 NW 22nd ST 6 ---------6 NW 23rd ST 1 3 2 6 NW 24th ST 9 3 2 1 15 W EXCHANGE AVE 1 6 1 ---8 NW 25th ST 12 4 2 4 22 NW 26th ST 5 ------4 9 NW 27th ST 2 ---------2 NW 28th ST 53 4 3 4 64 (OTHER) 1 1 ------2 TOTAL 95 21 8 15 139 Table 6: Ellis Avenue Top 5 Contributing Factors Contributing Factor # of Crashes ' Fail ed to Yield Right of Way -Stop Sign 46 Driver Inattention 31 None 15 Disregard Stop Sign Or Light 14 Failure to Control Spe ed 13 Table 7: Ellis Avenue KS/ Crashes Summary Intersection Intersection Type Collision Manner Contributing Factors NW 25 t h ST All Way Stop-One Motor Vehicle ; Going Pedestrian Failed To Yield Right Controll ed Straight (pedestrian crash) Of Way To Ve hicle Main (Ellis Ave) Stop- Unsafe Speed ; NW 28th ST Angle ; Both Going Straight Failed To Yield Right Of Way - Controlled Stop Sign 16 Fail ed To Stop At Prop er Pl ace ; NW 28 th ST Main (Ellis Ave) Stop-On e Motor Vehicl e; Goin g Controlled Straight (bicycl e crash) Field Observations and Recommendations Corridor-Focused Recommendations Driver Inattention ; Disregard Stop Sign Or Li ght The following field observations and corresponding safety improvem ent recommendations were made along Ellis Avenue. These observations pertain to the entirety of the corridor and are not segment-specific, unless otherwise noted. Speed Management Ellis Avenue is striped for four lanes with unmarked on-street park i ng on either side of the road. The wide road design , especially at times of low traffic or on segments without parked vehicles , encourages higher travel speeds. • It is recommended that the corridor be right-si zed based on the Stockyards Transportation Study prepared for the City of Fo rth Worth in September 2023 • It is recommended that the road be narrowed from a four-lane to three-lane cross -section with formalized buffered on -street parking on either side. • Curb extensions and lighting improvements are recommended at intersections to help formalize on-street parking , shorten crossing distance , and improve pedestrian visibility. • In the short term , in the absence of a road diet, it is recommended that speed feedback signs be installed to discourage speeding . Pedest r ian Facilities There is a mid-block crosswalk between NW 21 st St and NW 22nd St at the Boys & Girls Club and All Saints Catholic School that is signed as a school crosswalk with high visibility markings. However, the crossing is missing curb ramps and a connection to the existing sidewalk on the street's eastern side , where the Boys & Girls Club is located . • It is recommended to install new curb ramps at this crossing. • Along with the recommended right-sizing of the street, curb extensions and a median refuge island with in -street pedestrian crossing sign should be constructed to shorten pedestrian crossing distan ce. 17 fORT WORTH --.,.--- 205 0 It appears there is street-level lighting at this crossing ; However, upgrades to lighting conditions are recommended in the Stockyards Transportation Study. There is a midblo ck crosswalk about 225 feet south of the NW 28 th Street intersection (see Figure 4). • Recommend removing this crosswalk since it is close to the intersection and does not have compliant ramps or connections to the existing sidewalk . Figure 4 : Midblock Crosswalk at Boys & Girls Club and All Saints , Missing Curb Ramp (left); Midblock Crosswalk about 225 ft South of NW 28th Street intersection (right) Sidewalks on both sides of the corridor are narrow and intermittent gaps of sidewalk connectivity were observed. • It is recommended that the sidewalks are widened and to construct sidewalk where gaps exist along Ellis Avenue . • It is recommended to reconstruct non-compliant pedestrian facilities including sidewalks and curb ramps in alignment with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Bicycle Facilities Ellis Avenue is designated as a bike route ; however, no bicycle facilities were observed. In order to ensure bicycle safety along the corridor, • The proposed right-sizing of Ellis Avenue is expected to improve Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), per the Stockyards Transportation Study despite not including dedicated and protected bicycle lanes . 18 fORTWORTH ---.,.-- 2050 • The cross-section of the proposed lane reconfiguration can be repurposed to add protected bicycle lanes , but this was not supported by the public, per the Stockyards Transportation Study. Conversely, the roadway can be narrowed, and the bike lanes can be sidewalk-level , or the sidewalks can be widened to create a shared-use path . Other From the Stockyards Transportation Study, it is recommended to implement metered parking for all permitted on-street parking on Ellis Avenue between 26th Street and 23 rd Street. Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations and recommendations were made at specific intersections along Ellis Avenue. NW 21st Street This is an all way stop-controlled intersection with ramps on all corners for existing sidewalks. All Saints Catholic School is located on the intersection 's southwest corner and the Boys & Girls Club on the southeast corner. Table 8: NW 21st St ree t Int ersec ti on Rec ommendation s Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are angled Curb Ramp toward intersection traffic. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bars are faded. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection . Remark existing stop bars. Issue: There are long crossing distances . There is insufficient lighting at this inters ection . Other Crossing Recommendation: Install curb extensions on all corners . Install median crossing Characteristics island on Ellis Ave. Install school crossing signs with downward pointing arrows . Install/upgrade lighting. 19 foRTWORTH ---,.----- 2050 NW 22nd Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection with ramps on three corners for existing sidewalks. A post office is located on the intersection 's southeast corner and a fire station is located on the northeast corner Table 9: NW 22nd Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are angled toward intersection traffic. There is no curb ramp or sidewalk on the northeast Curb Ramp corner. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Install new curb ramp on northeast corner of intersection . Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bars at controlled crossing are faded. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high -visibility crosswalks on eastern and western leg across NW 22 nd St. Mark new stop bars. Other Crossing Issue: Th ere are long crossing distances . Characteristics Recommendation: In sta ll curb extensions on NW 22 nd St for crosswalks. Issue: There is no sidewalk on the northeast corner of the intersection. Sidewalk Recommendation: Install a sidewalk on the east side of Ellis Ave from NW 22 nd St and connect to existing sidewalk to the north. NW 23rd Street This is an all way stop-controlled intersection with commercial uses on three of the corners . Table 10: NW 23rd Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant or are missing. Curb ramps Curb Ramp are angled toward intersection traffic. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Install new curb ramp on northeast corner of intersection. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bars are faded or missing. Crosswalk Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. Remark existing stop bars. Other Crossing Issue: There are long crossing distances. There is a crest curve for southbound Characteristics traffic at this intersection . 20 F0RTW0RTH -....,....-- 2050 Recommendation: Install curb extensions on all corners . Issue: There is no sidewalk on the southwest corner of the intersection. Recommendation: Install new sidewalk on the west side of Ellis Ave from NW 23 rd Sidewalk St and connect to existing sidewalk to the south. Reconstruct sidewalk on northeast corner of intersection. Issue: The northeast corner of the intersection has a vacant building with parking at Access the intersection. Management Recommendation: Recommend eliminating parking at intersection if property gets redeveloped . Lighting Improve lighting to increase visibility {Stockyard Transportation Study). Wayfmding Install uniform parking wayfinding signage (Stockyard Transportation Study) NW 24th Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection with sidewalks on all approaches. All corners of the intersection have commercial uses or are used for parking. All approaches appear to be used for on-street parking, on both sides of the street. Figure 5 : Parking lot at northeast corner of intersection The on-street parking is not striped as such. There is some signage for the parking limits, mainly on the northern and eastern legs of this intersection. Table 11 : NW 24th Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Recommendation: Reconstruct and widen existing curb ramps. Widen standing space to improve comfort and safety of pedestrians waiting to cross . 21 foRTWORTH --.,.---- 2050 Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Crosswalk Recommendation: Mark crosswalks on eastern and western side of intersection. Mark stop bars on NW 24th St. Issue : There are long crossing distances. Parked cars obstruct sight lines. Crossing may be difficult to see or anticipate due to roadway curvature. There is insufficient lighting. Other Crossing Recommendation: In stall curb extensions on all corners . Restrict parking at/near Characteristics intersection . Install advance pedestrian warning signs . Study intersection for all-way STOP control, if warranted . If stop sign is warranted , install crosswalks across Ellis Ave at this intersection. Install /upgrade lighting. Issue: Sidewalks lack sufficient buffer and are narrow. Sidewalk on northwest corner Sidewalk is limited by retaining wall. Recommendation: Narrow travel lanes to create buffer on street (utilizing paint, bollards , etc.). Widen sidewalk. Lighting Improve lighting to increase visibility (Stockyards Transportation Study) West Exchange Avenue This is an all way stop-controlled intersection with sidewalks on all approaches. All corners of the intersection have commercial uses. Sidewalks are located at the back of curb and are constrained by buildings and utilities. All approaches appear to be used for on-street parking , on both sides of the street. The on -street parking is not striped as such. This intersection is in the Historic Stockyards District. There was a pedestrian non-KSI crash at this intersection. Tab le 12: West Exchange Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues & Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant and are not aligned with Curb Ramp crossing. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Widen crosswalk or assess curb ramps for improved alignm ent. Issue: Crosswalk markings and stop bars are faded . Crosswalk Recommendation: Remark crosswalks on all approaches as high visibility. Remark existing stop bars on all approaches. Lighting Improve lighting to increase visibility (Stockyards Transportation Study) Traffic Calming Construct bulb-outs (Stockyards Transportation Study) 22 foRTWORTH --.,.-- 2050 NW 25th Street This is an all way stop-controlled intersection with sidewalks on all approaches . Two of the four corners of the intersection are parking lots . The northwest corner belongs to the Fort Worth Police Department. All approaches appear to be used for on -street parking, on both sides of the street. The on -street parking is not striped as such. There was a fatal crash at this intersection. Table 13: NW 25th Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant and are angled toward Curb Ramp intersection traffic. Recommendation: Recons t ruct ex isting curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked . Stop bars are faded . Vehicles are stopping past Crosswalk stop signs and encroaching into crosswalk area . Recommendation: Mark high-visibility crosswalks. Remark existing stop bars on all approaches. Other Crossing Issue: There are long crossing distances . Parked cars obstruct sight lines . Characteristics Recommendation: In stall curb extensions. Restrict parking in advance of crosswa l k. Issue: Sidewalks are available at all legs but are overgrown, cracking, and narrow. Sidewalk Recommendation: Reconstruct wider sidewalks. Reconstruct driveways with level sidewalks. Extend sidewalk from this intersection to the north to connect to the Trinity Trails System on the east side of Ellis Ave. Lighting Improve lighting to increase visibility (Stockyards Transportation Study) NW 26th Street This is an all way stop-controlled intersection. This intersection is above Marine Creek and the sidewalks here tie into the Trinity Trails Systems . This intersection is a bridge structure running between 200 and300 feet north and south of this intersection . Table 14: NW 26th Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant but are limited by bridge structure. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . 23 f0RT W0RTH ---.,..--- 2050 Issue: Crosswalks across Ellis Ave are unmarked. Crosswalks across NW 26t h St are faded, eastern crosswalk is skewed. Stop bars are missing on Ellis Ave. Crosswalk Recommendation: Mark new high-visibility crosswalks and remark existing crosswalks as high visibility and with better alignments. Mark new stop bars and remark existing stop bars. Issue: There are long crossing distances. There is insufficient lighting at this intersection. The Fort Worth Branch Trail crosses diagonally from northwest to Other Crossing southeast , creating a two-stage crossing Characteristics Recommendation: Install curb extensions , particularly on southwest curb. Install median crossing island on southern leg. Install/upgrade lighting. Consider treatments appropriate for trail crossings . Issue: Sidewalks lack sufficient buffer and have too much cross-slope. There is excessive vegetation on northeast corner of intersection that is blocking the sidewalk. Where the Fort Worth Branch Trail meets the sidewalk to become a Sidewalk sidepath on the northwest and southeast side, it is narrow (-7ft) and does not support shared operations. Recommendation: Remove obstructions on the northeast corner and construct a sidewalk on the east side to tie to existing sidewalk to the north. Wayfinding In stall uniform parking wayfinding signage (Stockyard Transportation Study) NW 27th Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection with three legs and few sidewalks. The left side of this intersection is Rodeo Park . It appears that vehicles use both sides of NW 27t h Street for on-street parking. The on-street parking is not striped as such. Table 15: NW 27th Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue: Curb ramps are missing. Recommendation: Install new curb ramps. Issue: Crosswalk is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. There is uneven pavement at this intersection . Recommendation: Convert this intersection to a STOP controlled intersection. Mark high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches. Mark new stop bars on all approaches. Resurface the crosswalk area. 24 FoRTWORTH ----.....,..-- 2050 Issue: There are long crossing distances. There is a desired path on the left sid e of Ellis Ave to the existing Trinity Trails System. Other Crossing Recommendation: Convert this intersection to a STOP controlled intersection . Install Characteristics curb extensions to shorten crossing distance and improve pedestri an visibility. Create an additional trail head here. Con sider treatments appropriate for trail crossings - such as raised , protected intersection. Issue: No sidewalk on the left side of Ellis Ave and no sidewalk on the southeast corner of Sidewalk this intersection. Existing sidewalks appear near and are overgrown. Recommendation: Install new sidewalks and reconstruct existing sidewalk. NW 28th Street There was a fatal crash at this intersection, where Ellis Avenue is stop-controlled and NW 28th Street is not. There is a signal nearby at Main Street at NW 28t h Street. There are existing sidewalks on all approaches. Table 16: NW 28th Street Intersection Recommendation s Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps lead to NW 28 t h St , no crosswalk . Curb Ramp Recommendation: Remove curb ramps on east side crossing NW 28th St since there is not crosswalk here . Install curb ramps on west side . Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked across Ellis Ave . Stop bars on Ellis Ave are faded. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks . Remark existing stop bars. Install mid-block crossing across NW 28th St on the west side of the intersection. Issue: There are long crossing distances. South leg of intersection is unnecessarily Other Crossing wide. In sufficient pedestrian lighting. Recommendation: Install curb extensions to shorten crossing distance and improve Characteristics pedestrian visibility. Install median pedestrian refuge island on NW 28t h St for mid- block crossing. Install or upgrade lighting. Wayfinding Install uniform parking wayfinding signage (Stockyard Transportation Study) Recommendation Implementation Table Table 17 below summarizes the corridor and intersection recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance safety along the Ellis Avenue corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that accounts for whether the recommendation is an 25 fORTWORTH ----.,.-- 2050 ideal Short-(1-3 years), Mid-(3-5 years), or Long-(5+ years) term project based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit, and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in the fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Table 17: Recommended Countermeasures for Ellis Avenue Corrido r6 Timeframe Location Recommendation Estimated Estimated Cost CMF (Construction) Intersection Instal l/refresh high-visibility crosswalks 0 .6 $29 ,568.00 Short Intersection Install advance signal , stop or yield signs 0.75 $400.00 (1-3 years) Intersection In sta ll Stop Bar 0 .33 $1 ,860.00 Segment Narrow Lanes 0 .76 $4,140.00 Intersection Install Curb Extension --$300,000 Intersection Install median pedestrian refuge 0.44 $8 ,200 Medium Intersec tion Reconfigure Ramps to meet ADA --$108 ,500 .00 Standard (3-5 yea rs) Intersection Provide intersection illumination 0.62 $45 ,000 Segment In stall Buffered Bike Lanes 0.47 $232,630.00 Segment Install Additional Lighting 0.58 $559,786.50 Segment Install Continuous Sidewalk 0.35 $257,321.50 Long Intersection (5+ years) Install Raised Protected Intersection 0.78 $70,000.00 $1,384,776.00 Benefit-Cost Analysis The estimated benefit-cost ratio for Ellis Avenue is 21.48 (Table 18). Table 19 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type , and Table 20 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resulting from the implementation of the proposed safety countermeasures . Table 18 : Ellis Avenue Corridor -Final Co st-Benefit Ratio Table 19: Cost Results for Ellis Avenue Corridor 6 Note that the intersection of NW 26th Street and Ellis Avenue is accounted for in both corrido rs' benefit/cost. 26 foRT WORTH --.,..-- 2050 foRTWORTH -----,.--- 2050 Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost Install/refresh high-visibility $16.00/FT 1,848 4 $29,568.00 $7 ,392.00 crosswalks Install advance signal, stop or yield $100.00 4 6 $400.00 $60.00 signs In stall median pedestrian refuge $4,100.00 2 25 $8 ,200.00 - Curb extension $10,000.00 30 25 $300,000 - Reconfigure ramps to meet ADA $3,500.00 31 25 $108 ,500.00 - Standard Install additional lighting $186,595.50 3 15 $559,786.50 $28,289.00 Ins tall continuous sidewalks $134.86/FT 1,908 10 $257 ,321.50 $25,732 .00 Install Stop Bar $60.00 31 4 $1 ,860.00 $465.00 Raised Intersection $70,000.00 1 25 $70,000.00 - Narrow Lanes $27.60/20 LF 150 25 $4,140.00 - Provide intersection illumination 7 $11,250 4 15 $45 ,000.00 $2 ,650.00 Total $1 ,384,776.00 $64,588.00 Lifecycle Cost (20 years) $2,676,600 Table 20: Benefit Results for Ellis Avenue Corridor Crash Severity Prevention Benefit # of Crashes Total Benefit Prevented K -Fatal $3 ,700,000 0 $0 A -Severe Injury $3,700,000 12 $37,000,000 B -Non-Incapacitating or Suspected $520,000 39 $20,280 ,000 Minor Injury Total Benefit: $57,280,000 7 Uni t cost for illumination was provided in the Stockyards Transportation Study 27 Corridor 2: Evans Avenue Evans Avenue runs north to south between E Morningside Drive and E Berry Street. It is on the MotorVehicle HIN . Context Evans Avenue functions as a minor arterial and is lined with residential properties as well as medium commercial developments. Morningside Elementary School is located north of these locations on Evans Avenue. The roadway consists of four lanes and is approximately 0.5 miles in length . There are continuous sidewalks on both sides of the roadway for the entire length of the corridor. A Trinity Metro bus route runs near this corridor. The speed limit is 30 mph. The typical pavement width ranges from 45 to 48 feet, while the right-of-way width is approximately 80 feet. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this corridor is 5,034, according to the 2019 TxDOT count. A project to convert E Berry St at l-35W from a four-lane undivided roadway with a center lane to a divided roadway, although not on this corridor, may impact the corridor; it is the ne xt intersection west on E Berry Street from Evans Avenue. Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the Evans Avenue corridor to understand the contributing factors and identify focus areas for countermeasures . 29 F0RTW0RTII ---......--- 205 0 From 2019 to 2023, 94 total crashes occurred on Evans Avenue between E Morningside Drive and E Berry Street. About 33% of overall crashes occurred in limited lighting cond itions , demonstrating the need for additional lighting on this corridor. Eighty percent of the crashes occurred at intersections , making intersection -related recommendations a focus of this evaluation. There was one fatal crash reported on the corridor, occurring at the intersection of Evans Avenue with Baker Street. There were two crashes involvin g pedestrians , one occurring at E Bowie Street when a vehicle was turning right, and the other near Baker Street when a vehicle was going stra ight. Overall, there was one fatal crash , one severe injury crash , and 13 crashes resulting in minor injuries . . "'' • ""'"'" """"" FORTWORHI --..,.-- 20 50 Figure 6 shows the spatial distribution of crashes along the Evans Avenue corridor. Table 20 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the Evans Avenue corridor. Table 21 shows the top 1ive contributing factors as noted in the crash reports for Evans Avenue . Table 22 summarizes the KSI crashes (two) that occurred on this corridor. UST l[lll lflUt , •, 0 500ft Jt\. ,__ _ __... __ __, Q;I ,·ooLE 01 SI GH Figure 6 : Crash Map of the Evans Avenue Corridor Table 20: Evans Avenue Intersection Related Crashes by Collision Manner Inte rsection One Motor Oppo site Intersection Angle Crash Same Direction (closest reported) Vehicle Direction Total E BERRY ST 12 2 15 21 50 VICKI LN ---2 ------2 30 E BOWIE ST ---1 1 1 3 BAKER ST 5 2 6 1 14 E LOWDEN ST 2 1 ------3 GLEN GARDEN DR 3 2 1 ---6 E CANTEY ST 1 1 ------2 JUDD ST ------------0 E MORNINGSIDE DR 9 1 3 1 14 TOTAL 32 12 26 24 94 Tabl e 2 1: Evan s Avenu e Top 5 Contributing Factors Number of Contributing Factors crashes Driver Inattention 27 Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Turning Left 13 Failed To Control Speed 13 None 11 Disregard Stop And Go Signal 9 Tabl e 2 2: Evan s Avenu e KS/ Cras hes Su mmary Intersection Intersection Type Collision Manner Contributing Factor Same Direction; Bot h Goin g Had Been Drinking; Driver E BERRY ST Sig nali zed Straigh t -Rea r End In atte ntion BAKER ST Side Stop-Controlled Angle ; Both Going Straight (fatality) Disregard Stop And Go Signal Field Observations and Recommendations In November 2024, project team members conducted field observations of the corridor to better understand the existing operations and challenges . These observations are grouped into two categories: corridor-focused and intersection-focused. Corridor -Focused Recommendations The following field observations were made along Evans Avenue . These observations pertain to the entirety of the corridor and are not segment-specific, unless otherwise noted. 31 fORTWORTII --.,.--- 20 50 Speed Management Traffic volumes on the corridor were observed to be relatively low, and travel speeds appeared to exceed the speed limit. Based on these observations , the corridor appeared to be designed to accommodate higher volumes , and , in the absence of that, the corridor fosters faster travel speeds. • To better manage speeds along the corridor, it is recommended that the corridor be studied for a road diet. If the road is converted from a four-lane to a three -lane cross -section, the reserved right-of-way can be used for improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bicycle Facilities It was observed that there are no bicycle facilities on Evans Avenue. To ensure bicycle safety along the corridor, • It is recommended that buffered bicycle lanes be installed . The extra right-of-way from a potential road diet can be repurposed into directional bike lanes with vertical delineation. Conversely, the roadway can be narrowed , and the bike lanes can be sidewalk -level , or the sidewalks can be widened to create a shared use path (see pedestrian facilities recommendations). Pedestrian Facilities There were few observed opportunities for pedestrians to cross Evans Avenue , except at signalized intersections. Evans Avenue is four lanes wide and with observed travel speeds , the corridor is generally unsafe for pedestrians to cross between signalized intersections without additional improvements. With the recommended road diet, opportunities can be created for mid -block crosswalks at minor stop -controlled intersections. These improvements can include curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs). Existing sidewalks are narrow, and it is recommended to widen them. With the road diet, an 8-to 10-foot-wide shared use path could be built on the western side of Evans Avenue. The shared use path would preclude the need to add directional bike lanes on the roadway, as it would serve both cyclists and pedestrians . Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along Evans Avenue: 32 f ORTWORTH ---,..-- 2050 East Morningside Drive This is a signalized intersection with crosswalks and ramps on all corners. There are no bicycle facilities at this intersection. There is a slope difference between East Morningside Drive and Evans Avenu e that causes some cars to "bottom out" on the western leg of the intersection. Table 23: Ea st Morningside Drive Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Issue : Curb ramps on west side of intersection do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb Ramp Curb ramps are angled toward intersection traffic. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Crosswalk Issue : Crosswalk markings and stop bars are faded. Recommendation : Remark existing crosswalks and stop bars. Issue: There are long crossing distances . Evans Avenue is wide with two lanes and two parking lanes. Ped es trian signals are not in auto recall. APS/audio signa l missing or Other inaudible. Ped estrian push buttons are difficult to access and far from the curb ramps. Crossing Pedestrian push button on southwest corner is damaged/missing. Characteristics Recommendation : Install curb extensions on Evans Avenue to formalize parking and shorten crossing distance . Put pedestrian signal on auto recall. Impl ement LPI. Re locate and upgrade or repair pedestrian pushbuttons . Issue : Sidewalk heading west on East Morningside Drive appears to be narrow (<4 ft Sidewalk wide). Sidewalk is overgrown. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair sidewalk. Schedule maintenance to cut grass . Bicycle Facility Issue : There are bike arrows/ sharrows on East Morningside Drive. Recommendation : In sta ll standard bike lane on East Morningside Drive. Issue: Driver speeds appear to exceed speed limit. Street designed for higher speeds. Speed Recommendation: Study for road diet. Install traffic calming measures on East Management Morningside Drive such as roundabout, speed humps, chicanes, pinch points, and/or narrow travel lanes (may require additional study). 33 f0R TW0RTII ---...,.-- 2050 Figure 7 : Faded markings and slope difference between pavement of both roads (le~); overgrown sidewalk (right) Judd Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection with ramps on all corners for existing sidewalks . There are no bicycle facilities at this intersection. Table 24 : Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue : Curb ramp on southeast corner of intersection appears to not be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are angled toward intersection traffic. Curb ramps on north side of intersection are overgrown with grass and appear to conflict debris. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: No crosswalk markings on any leg of intersection. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on eastern and western leg across Judd St. Mark new stop bar. 34 fORTWORTII --...,.-- 2050 Figure 8 : Overgrown Curb Ramp East Cantey Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection with compliant ramps on all corners for existing sidewalks . Table 25: East Cantey Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Crosswalk Issue : No crosswalk markings on any leg of intersection . No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation: Install new high -visibility crosswalks on eastern and western leg across East Cantey St. Mark new stop bar. Sidewalk Issue: Sidewalks are on both sides of both streets except for the south side of the eastern leg on East Cantey Street. Sidewalks appear narrow in some locations Recommendation: Install new sidewalk on the south side of East Cantey St on the eastern leg of this intersection. 35 f0RTW0RTH ----.,..-- 20 50 f 0RT W0Rnl ---..--- 20 50 Figure 9: Sidewalk Ends Glen Garden Drive This is a side-stop intersection with ramps for crossing the side street at all four corners. Table 26: Glen Garden Drive Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Curb Ramp Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue : Crosswalks are unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Crosswalk Recommendation: Mark crosswalks on eastern and western side of intersection. Mark stop bars at stop controlled approaches. Sidewalk Issue : Sidewalks seem to be narrow (<4 ft wide). Sidewalk is overgrown. Recommendation : Reconstruct sidewalks to be wider. Schedule maintenance to cut grass. 36 East Lowden Street This is a side-stop intersection with ramps for crossing the side street at all four corners Table 27: East Lowden Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Curb Ramp Iss ue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant and are not aligned with crossing. Reco mmendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Iss ue: Crosswa lks are unmarked . No stop bar at controlled crossing . Crosswalk Recommendation: Mark crosswalks on eastern and western side of intersection. Mark stop bars at stop-controlled approaches. Is sue: Sidewa lks seem to be narrow (<4 ft wide). No continuous sidewalk on East Lowden St. Sidewalk Rec ommendation : Reconstruct sidewalks to be wider on Evans Ave . Determine which east-west sidewalk connections should be prioritized to complete connections . Baker Street As noted on the corridor's crash map (Figure 6), there is a concentration of crashes that occur at this intersection, i ncluding one fatal crash. Table 28 : Baker Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant and are ang led toward intersection Curb Ramp traffic. Recommen dation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked . No stop bar at controlled crossing. Crosswalk Recomm endati on : Mark high-visibility crosswalks on eastern and western side of intersection. Mark stop bars at stop-controlled approaches. Issue : Both approaches of Baker Street are wide with on street parking. There is also insufficient Other Crossing pedestrian lighting. Characteristics Reco mmen dation: Install curb extensions at intersection to shorten crossing distance across Baker St. Install/upgrade lighting. Is sue : No sidewalk on northeast corner. Existi ng sidewa lk on western side is at back of curb. Re commen da tion: Install new sidewalk on northeast corner of intersection on Baker St to Sidewalk connect to existing sidewalk . Cons ider reconstructing sidewa lk along Evans Avenue with a buffer. 37 f0R TW0Rnl ~ 2050 East Bowie Street This is a T-shaped side -stop intersection with sid ewa lks along both roadways . Table 29 : East Bowie Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Iss ue: Curb ramp s do not app ea r to be ADA compli ant and are angled t oward intersec ti o n traffi c. Curb Ramp Curb ramp o n northeas t co rn er is pointed toward Evans Av enue w ith o ut a mar ked c ro sswa lk. Rec o mmen datio n : Rec on stru ct o r repair ex isting cur b ramp s. Issue: Crosswal k acro ss Ea st Bowie Street is unmarked . No stop bar at controlled cro ss in g. Crosswalk Recomme nd ati on: M ark high -visibility crosswalk on eastern side of interse ction. Mark new stop bar on East Bowie St. Issue : Existing sid ewa lk o n w es t ern sid e is at back of curb . Sid ew alk Recommendati o n : Reco nstru ct/wid en sid ew alk on eas t ern sid e to and maintain buffer from roa dway. Co nn ect t o t he ex istin g wid er sid ew alk o n th e no rtheas t side. Vicki Lane This is a T-shaped side -stop intersection with sidewa lks along both roadways. Table 30: Vicki Lane Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Cur b Ramp Issue : Curb ramp s do not ap pea r t o be ADA compli ant an d are angled t o w ard intersec ti o n traffi c. Rec ommen dation : Recons t ruct o r rep air ex isting curb ramp s. Iss ue: Cros swalk is unma r ked. No stop bar at contro ll ed cross ing. Cro ssw alk Reco mmendati on: M ark hi gh-visibility crosswalk on eastern side of inte rsection. M ark new stop bar on Vicki Ln. Sid ew alk Issue : Existing sid ewa lk o n w es t e rn sid e is at ba ck of cur b. Rec ommen dati on: Rec on st r uct/wid e n sid ew alk on eas t e rn sid e. East Berry Street T here was a fata l crash at th is intersection. T his is a signa li zed intersection with crosswalks , ramps , stop bars and accessible pedestrian push buttons on all co rners. Pedestrian signals are on auto ca ll for Evans Ave nue , but not for East Berry Street. Th ere are no bicycle facilities at this intersection. 38 F0RTW0RHI --.,..--- 20 50 fORTWORTII -...--- 20 50 Table 31: East Berry Street Intersection Re commendations Category Issue & Recommendation Curb Ramp Issue : Curb ramp on wes t sid e of inte rsec tion is not ali gned w ith cross in g. Recommendation : Recommen d w ide ning th e curb ra mp t o ali gn w it h crosswa lk. Cross w alk Issue : St o p bars are fa de d . Recommendation : Remark ex istin g stop bars. Access Issue : Multipl e d r iveways near intersec tio n in crease poten tial for conflic t betwee n motor ve hicl es M anage ment and pedestrians/bicycl ists. Recommendation: Cons id er co nso li da tin g driveways near in t ersection. Figure 10: Driveway entrance at intersection 39 Recommendation Implementation Table Table 32 below summarizes the full list of corridor and intersection recommendations offered to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the Evans Avenue corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe, which accounts for whether the recommendation is an ideal Short-(1-3 years), Mid -(3-5 years), or Long-(5+ years) term projects, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Table 32: Recommended countermeasures for Evans Avenue corridor Estimated Estimated Timeframe Location Recommendation Cost CMF (Construction) Intersection Install/refresh high-visibility 0.6 $23,760.00 Short crosswalks (1-3 years) I nte rsecti on Install Stop Bar --$780.00 Intersection Install Buffered Bike Lanes 0.47 $132,545.00 Intersection Curb extension --$80,000.00 Intersection Reconfigure ramps to meet ADA --$182 ,000.00 Standard Medium Segment Install additional lighting 0.58 $5 ,331.30 (3-5 years) Segment Install continuous sidewalks 0.35 $726,245.43 Intersection Install pedestrian push button --$1,790.00 Total : $1,152,451.73 Benefit-Cost Analysis The estimated benefit-cost ratio for Evans Avenue is 5.54 (Table 33). Table 34 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type and Table 35 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resulting from the implementation of the proposed safety countermeasures. 40 F0RTW0RTII -.,.-- 2050 F0RTW0Rnl ---.,.--- 20 50 Table 33: Evans Avenue Corridor -Final Cost-Benefit Ratio Table 34 : Cost Results for Evan s Avenue Corridor Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost Install/refresh high-visibility $16 .00/LF 1,485 4 $23,760.00 $5 ,940.00 crosswalks Install Stop Bar $30.00 26 4 $780.00 $195.00 Install Bike Lanes $541.00/50 LF 130 4 $132,545.00 - Curb extension $10,000.00 8 25 $80,000.00 $33,136.25 Reconfigure ramps to meet $3,500.00 28 25 $182 ,000.00 - ADA Standard Install additional lighting $5,331.30 1 15 $5,331.30 - Install continuous sidewalks $134.86 /LF 5,385 10 $726,245.43 $366.57 Install pedestrian push $447.50 4 10 $1,790.00 $72,624.54 button Total $1,152,451.73 $112,441.36 Lifec ycle Cost (20 years) $3,40 1,30 0 Table 35: Benefit Results for Evans Avenue Corridor Prevention # of Crashes Crash Severity Total Benefit Benefit * Prevented K -Fatal $3 ,700,000 1 $3 ,700,000 A -Severe Injury $3,700,000 1 $3,700,000 B -Non-Incapacitating or $520,000 $11,440,000 22 Suspected Minor Injury Tota l Benefit: $18 ,84 0 ,000 41 Corridor 3: Mark IV Parkway Mark IV Parkway runs south to north between Meacham Boulevard and Cantrell Sansom Road. It is on the Motor Vehicle High Injury Network (HIN), Commercial Motor Vehicle HIN and Motorcycle HIN. Context Mark IV Parkway functions as a major arterial and is lined with industrial uses . The United States Postal Service (USPS) has a distribution center on the southeastern end of the corridor. FedEx Freight operates on this road, and both OHL and Amazon have distribution centers at the corridor's northern end . The roadway consists of four to six lanes , with a grass median with curb breaks at major driveways. The median changes in width with mostly unmarked left turn lanes. The intersection at Loop Road is eight lanes , with a decorative stamped concrete median and islands . The corridor is approximately 1.61 miles in length . There are few, if any, sidewalks present, though there are sidewalks on both sides north of 1-820. The intersection at Cantrell Sansom Road is a two-lane roundabout. The speed limit on the corridor is 40 mph. The typical pavement width, outer curb to outer curb including median width, ranges from 82 to 98 feet, while the right-of-way width is approximately 120-124 feet. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this corridor is 10,668 , according to the 2022 TPP Statewide Traffic Count Map. The intersection at Meacham Boulevard is part of the 2022 Bond Design Meacham Boulevard Phase II (West) project. This will convert the existing two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway from l -35W to Blue Mound Road . Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the Mark IV Parkway corridor to understand the contributing factors and identify focus areas for countermeasures. From 2019 to 2023, 208 total crashes occurred on Mark IV Parkway between Meacham Boulevard and Cantrell Sansom Road . About 18% of overall crashes involved a commercial vehicle and about 81 % of those crashes occurred at intersections. Two -thirds of the overall crashes occurred at intersections, making intersection -related recommendations a focus of this evaluation. There were four crashes involving a motorcycle, all resulted in serious injuries and one resulted in a fatality. This fatal crash occurred 42 fORTWORTII --.,.-- 205 0 near Cantrell Sansom Road . There was one crash involving a pedestrian. Overall, there was one fatal crash , four severe injury crashes, and 23 crashes that resulted in minor injuries. Figure 11 shows the spatial distribution of crashes in the Mark IV Parkway corridor. Table 36 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the Ellis Avenue corridor. Table 37 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports on Mark IV Parkway. Table 38 summarizes the KSI crashes (five) that occurred on this corridor. Most of the reported KSI crashes occurred while vehicles were going straight. '1 I ! I • _ _j CUIIREll SUl !i Otl lOJ.D ----=--,----• •· Creshes • KSI \ \_ \ Figure 11: Crash map of the Mark IV Parkway corridor f0RTW0RTII -....,...-- 20 50 t -------.' • 1'001:E ~ ...... \( ) 43 FoRTWORTII -....,...--- 20 50 Table 36 : Mark IV Pkwy Collision Manner Intersection One Opposite Same Intersection (Closest reported) Angle Crash Motor Direction Direction Total Vehicle MEACHAM BLVD 1 5 4 23 33 FRANKIN DR 1 1 ------2 GREAT SW PKWY 17 3 4 5 29 PROVIDENCE DR ---------2 2 NORTHEAST PKWY ---2 1 5 8 NE LOOP 820 SERVICE RD 19 3 63 28 113 CANTRELL SANSOM RD 2 7 ---9 18 (OTHER/ UNKNOWN) 2 ---1 ---3 TOTAL 42 21 73 72 208 Table 3 7: Ma rk IV Pkwy Top 5 Contributing Factors Contributing Factors Number of Crashes Driver Inattention 48 Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Turning Left 42 None 34 Failure To Control Speed 28 Other 16 Table 38 : Mark IV Parkway KS/ Crashes Summary Intersection Intersection Collision Manner Contributing Factor Type GREAT SOUTHWEST PKWY Side Stop-Angle; Both Going Straight Other Controlled (motorcycle crash) Opposite Direction; One Failed To Yield Right Of Side Stop- GREAT SOUTHWEST PWKY Straight-One Left Turn Controlled Way -Turning Left (motorcycle crash) NE LOOP 820 SERVICE RD Signalized One MotorVehicle; Going None-hit fixed object Straight (motorcycle crash) 44 One Motor Vehicle; Going Driver Inattention-hit NE LOOP 820 SERVICE RD Signalized Straight fixed object One MotorVehicle; Going Speeding -Overlim it ; CANTRELL SANSOM RD Roundabout Straight (motorcycl e, Driver Inattention -hit fatality) fi xed object Field Observations and Recommendations In November 2024, project team members conducted field observations of the corridor to obtain a better understanding of the existing operations and challenges. These observations are grouped into two categories: corridor-focused and intersection -focused. Corridor-Focused Recommendations This corridor sees heavy industrial uses , with multiple distribution centers including USPS , Amazon, DHL and FedEx. These generate significant truck volumes and minimal pedestrian and bicycle volumes. Most freight vehicles were observed to ex it properti es along the corridor and head north toward the freeway. Access Management Driveway and street crossings were observed to be unsafe given the high speeds and high truck volume. Failure to yield was a contributing factor to one of the KSI crashes on this corridor. • It is recommended to study access points and consider signalization to limit turning movements. Given the wide medians along this corridor, positive offset left turn lanes should be considered to improve visibility at unsignalized access points. Left turn acceleration lanes can also be added along the corridor to account for speed differential between entering traffic and through traffic and allow for trucks to accelerate before entering the travel lanes. • There are some raised pavement markers (RPMs) present at turn bays , however, it is recommended to replace these and add both turn lane striping and signage to improve visibility. Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along Mark IV Parkway: 45 f 0RTW0Rnl ~ 2050 Meacham Boulevard This is a signalized intersection. The USPS has a distribution center on the northeast corner of this intersection. There are only sidewalks to the first driveways, between 100 to 250 feet from the intersection. There are pedestrian bush buttons and pedestrian signal heads for a crosswalk across Mark IV Parkway. Table 39 : Meacham Boulevard Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Existing substandard curb Curb ramp ramps on northeast and northwest corners . Trucks run over northwest corner. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalk markings are faded. Stop bar is faded. Crosswalk Recommendation : Remark existing high-visibility crosswalk across Mark IV Parkway. Remark existing stop bar. Issue: There is insufficient space for pedestrians because the existing median blocks Other Crossing the crosswalk. Th ere is insufficient lighting. Pedestrian signal is not on auto recall. Pedestrian pushbuttons are difficult to access. APS /a udio signal missing or inaudible . Characteristics Recommendation: Reconstruct median nose as a median crossing island . Install/upgrade lighting. Impl eme nt LPI. Relocate pedestrian pushbutton . Sidewalk Issue: Sidewalks are narrow and do not provide enough space for pedestrians waiting. Recommendation: Widen sidewalks at intersection . 46 F0RTW0RHI ~ 2050 Figure 12: Northwest corner of intersection , tire tracks indicate vehicles are driving over existing curb ramp and corner (left); view of crosswalk, median blocks crosswalk-no refuge (right) Franklin Drive This is a side stop -controlled intersection. This driveway serves as a controlled, gated entry to the USPS distribution center on the east and serves multiple businesses on the west. There are no sidewalks on Franklin Drive or Mark IV Parkway at this location. Adding a sidewalk or shared use path on the west side of Mark IV Parkway would be challenging for several reasons including the presence of large trees, utilities, drainage, and a slight grade change behind curb and gutter. Table 40: Franklin Drive Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Oth er Crossing Recommendation : Rep lac e RPMs present at the left turn lane into the USPS driveway Characteristics and add turn lane striping and signage . Add a stop bar on Franklin Drive. Great SW Parkway This is a side stop-controlled intersection. To the west is the FedEx freight distribution center and to the east are smaller industrial plots. There is a sidewalk on the intersection's northwest corner. This sidewalk ends at the bridge over Little Fossil Creek. Remark existing stop bars and install new stop bars on Mark IV Parkway at signal. Sight distance is sufficient at this intersection and 47 fORTWORTII -.y-- 205 0 the intersection is already laid out for a four-way stop or signalized condition. Median is present on all four approaches . Local business owner reported high number of crashes occurring when cars turn from Great SW Parkway onto Mark IV Parkway. Table 41: Great SW Parkway Intersection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Issue: Heavy truck volumes from all directions and presence of some pedestrian Other Crossing infrastructure Characteristics Recommendation: study f easibility of signalizing this inte rs ection and accommodate U-turn movements . Install pedestrian pushbuttons and signals with th e new signal. Issue: There is a sidewalk further east on the south side of Great SW Parkway but not Sidewalk at the intersection, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross. Recommendation: Install new sidewalk on Great SW Parkway to intersection . Install shared-use path on Mark IV Parkway to intersection. Crosswalk In stall new high -visibility crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps for all corners and leg s of interse ction Providence Drive This is a side stop-controlled intersection, just past the bridge over Little Fossil Creek. This bridge has a flood gauge and is equipped with warning signs and flashers that warns users not to enter the area when flooded. The median noses at this intersection are tapered to accommodate larger vehicles turning in or out, but there is no formal left turn lane onto Providence Drive . This section of Mark IV Parkway has high speed traffic, freight vehicles, and minimal sidewalk connectivity. Providence Drive serves industrial uses and has a sidewalk on the north side. There is a sidewalk on the west side of Mark IV Parkway that ends at the bridge over Little Fossil Creek . There is an existing stop bar on Providence Drive and curb ramps for this crossing but no crosswalk. Table 42: Providence Drive Intersec tion Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Sidewalk Issue: Sidewalk provided along bridge across creek t north of inte rsection is adjacent to travel lanes with no provided buffer. Recommendation: Install 5' minimum sid ewalk with buffer alon g bridge , vehicular travel lan es may be shifted 48 f 0RTW0RTII ~ 20 50 Northeast Parkway This is a side stop-controlled intersection, with Northeast Parkway serving as the eastern leg of this intersection. Northeast Parkway exists to the west and stops at Superior Parkway before Little Fossil Creek. At the intersection on Mark IV Parkway, it appears the western leg of the intersection is gravel. Table 43: Northeast Pa rkway Inte rsection Recommendations Category Issue & Recommendation Other Crossing Recommendation: Replace RPMs present at the left turn lane onto Northeast Parkway and add turn lane striping and signage. Install stop bar on Northeast Characteristics Parkway. Issue: There are no sidewalks present Sidewalks Recommendation: Install a new shared-use path on the eastern side of Mark IV Parkway to cross at Northeast Parkway Issue: No crosswalk present Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new, ADA compliant curb ramps and high -visibility crosswalks NE Loop 820 Service Road This is a signalized intersection. Half of all the crashes on the Mark IV Parkway corridor occurred at this intersection, as most vehicles enter or exit 1-820. Table 44: NE Loop 820 Service Road Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue: Crosswalk markings , across southern and western leg , are not high-visibility. Crosswalk Southwest corner slip lane is missing crosswalk , but there is no sidewalk to the immediate south. Recommendation: Remark existing crosswalks with high-visibility markings. Issue: There is long crossing distance on the southern leg crosswalk. NE Loop 820 Service Rd is only eastbound , so there are no left turns heading southbound on Oth e r Crossing Mark IV Parkway. Sidewalks are vulnerable to traffic, essentially walkin g on a raised Charact eristics median with no separation from traffic. 49 f 0RTW0Rnl --..,.-- 2 0 50 Recommendation: Extend median for a pedestrian refuge to the southern leg crosswalk, like there is north of 1-820. Impl ement LPL Consider narrowing U-turn slip lane to provide additiona l buffer for pedestrians . Figure 13: Sidewalk under 1-820 Recommendation Implementation Table Table 45 below summarizes the full list of corridor and intersection recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the Mark IV Parkway corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that reflects whether the recommendation is an ideal Short-(1-3 years), Mid-(3-5 years), or Long-(5+ years) term projects, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Tabl e 45: Recommended countermeasures for Mark IV Parkway corridor Timeframe Location Recommendation Estimated Estimated CMF Cost Install /refresh high-visibility $5,344.00 Short Intersection 0.6 crosswalks (1-3 years) Intersection Install Stop Bar --$420.00 50 f ORTWORTII ----,.--- 20 50 Segment Install Left Turn Lane Striping 0.79 $2 ,910.00 Intersection Install median pedestrian refuge 0.44 $8 ,200.00 Reconfigure ramps to meet ADA --$21,000.00 Medium Intersection Standard (3-5 years) Segment Install additional lighting 0.58 $10,662.60 Intersection Install Pedestrian Pushbutton --$2,872.00 Segment Install continuous sidewalks 0.35 $67,432.26 Long Intersection Implement full signalization at .3 5 -.73 $150,000.00 (5+ years) intersection 0.35 Install Shared Use Path Segment $1,406,636 .93 $1,675,477.79 Benefit-Cost Analysis The estimated cost-benefit result for Mark IV Parkway is 18.26 (Table 46). Table 47 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type and Table 48 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resulting from the implementation of the proposed safety countermeasures. Table 46: Mark IV Parkway Corridor -Final Cost-Benefit Ratio Tabl e 4 7 : Co st Results for Mark IV Pa rkway Corridor Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost Install/refresh high-visibility $16 334 4 $5 ,344.00 $1 ,336.00 crosswalks Install Stop Bar $30 14 4 $420.00 $105.00 Install Left Turn Lane Striping $291 /50 LF 10 4 $2 ,910.00 $727.50 Install median pedestrian $4,100 2 25 $8,200.00 - refuge Reconfigure ramps to meet $3,500 6 25 $21,000.00 - ADA Standard 51 fORTWORTII ~ 20 50 FoRTW0RTl-1 -----....,..... 2050 Install additional lighting $5 ,331.30 2 15 $10,662.60 $633.13 In st all Pedestrian Pushbutton $1 ,4 36 2 10 $2 ,872 .00 $287 .2 0 Install continuous sidewalks $134.86 500 10 $67,432.26 $6 ,743.23 Implement full si gnalization $150,000 1 10 $150,000.00 $18 ,900.00 at inters ec tion Install Shared Use Path $269.73 5,215 10 $1,406,636.93 $140,663.69 Total $169 ,3 95 .75 $1 ,675,477.79 Lifecycle Cost (20 years) $5,063,400 Table 48 : Benefit Results for Mark IV Parkway Corridor Crash Severity Prevention # of Crashes Total Benefit Benefit 1* Prevented K -Fat al $3 ,700,000 2 $7,400 ,000 A -Severe Injury $3 ,700,000 14 $51 ,800,000 B -Non-Incapacitating or Su spected $520,000 64 $33 ,280,000 Minor Injury Total Benefit: $92,480,000 1 Cost obtain ed from Tx DOT 202 1 SIi Calcul ator 52 Corridor 4: NW 14th Street NW 14th Street runs northeast to southwest between N Main Street and Gould Avenue. It is on the Pedestrian HIN. Context NW 14th Street functions as a residential street with commercial use near the northeastern section of the corridor. Rufino Mendoza Elementary School is to the southwest end of the corridor. The roadway consists of two lanes , with unmarked on street parking. The corridor is approximately 0.49 miles in length. There are sidewalks present on both sides , but they are not continuous along the full length of the corridor. The Nw 14th St Cmhes • KSJ / Non·KSJ Co<-/ Crasho.n,;ty FO RT WORTH -...,--- 205 0 speed limit is 30 mph. The typical pavement width ranges from 28 to 34 feet, while the right-of-way width is approx imately 60-80 feet. 0 500ft A,. 1----~>---'----1 .._, l'OOLE DI! SICi N The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this Figure 14: Crash map of the NW 14th Street corridor corridor is 314, according to 2023 Replica Model Data . 53 Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the NW 14th Street corridor to understand the contributing factors and identify focus areas for countermeasures . From 2019 to 2023, 21 total crashes occurred on NW 14th Street from N Main Street to Gould Avenue. Despite the low total number of crashes , about a quarter resulted in severe injury or minor injury. Eighty- six percent of crashes occurred at intersections , making intersection-related recommendations a focus of this evaluation . There were two crashes involving a pedestrian , both at N Main Street and both classified as a KSI crash . Both KSI crashes happened at night in dark lighting conditions demonstrating the need for additional lighting to improve pedestrian visibility on this corridor. Figure 14 shows the spatial distribution of crashes in the NW 14th Street corridor. Table 49 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the NW 14th Street corridor. Table 50 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports on NW 14th Street. Table 51 summarizes th e KSI crashes (two) that occurred on this corridor. Table 49: NW 14th Street Collision Manner, if noted Intersection One Motor Opposite Same Angle Crash Total (Closest reported) Vehicle Direction Direction N MAIN ST 3 3 ---1 7 ELLIS AVE 2 ---------2 N HOUSTON ST ---2 ------2 CLINTON AVE 1 ---------1 LEE AVE 2 1 ---1 4 CIRCLE PARK BLVD 4 ---------4 LINCOLN AVE ------------0 GOULD AVE ------1 ---1 TOTAL 12 6 1 2 21 Table 50 : NW 14th Street Top 5 Contributing Factors Contributing Factor Number of Crashes Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Stop Sign 7 Driver Inattention* 6 None 3 54 f0RTW0Rnl --.,.-- 2050 Faulty Evasive Action 3 Failed To Control Speed 2 Tabl e 5 1: NW 14th St reet KS/ Cra shes Summ ary Intersection Intersection Type Collision Manner Contributing Factors Main (NW 14th St) One Motor Vehicle; Driver Inattention ; Failed To Yield N MAIN ST Going Straight Stop-Controlled (pedestrian crash) Right Of Way -To Pedestrian Main (NW 14t h St) One Motor Vehicle; Driver Inattention; Pedestrian N MAIN ST Going Straight Failed To Yield Right Of Way To Stop-Controlled (pedestrian crash) Vehicle ; Intoxicated -Alcohol Field Observations and Recommendations In November 2024, project team members conducted field observations of the corridor to obtain a better understanding of the existing operations and challenges . These observations are grouped into two categories: corridor-focused and intersection -focused. Corridor-Focused Recommendations The following field observations were made along 14th Street. These observations pertain to the entirety of the corrido r and are not segment-specific, unless otherwise noted . Most intersections along 14th Street are stop controlled, but intersecting approaches do not have to stop. • It is recommended to study intersections along the corridor for all-way stop control. Lanes are not clearly marked, due to the residential street. For wider intersections like those present at Circle Park Blvd or Clinton Ave, sign and mark for on street parking to narrow the travel lanes to encourage slower speeds. Pedestrian Facilities While sidewalks are present on both sides of 14th Street, they are not continuous for the full length of the corridor. The sidewalks are narrow and overgrown in many places. • It is recommended to widen the existing sidewalk, fill sidewalk gaps, and remove or relocate obstacles , like utilities and landscaping. 55 f0RTW0RHI -.....,...--- 2050 • It is recommended to daylight intersections to improve pedestrian visibility by restricting parking in advance of marked crosswalks. This can be achieved either through paint or by installing curb extensions at intersections. Bicycle Facilities 14th Street is a designated as a bike route, however, no bicycle facilities were observed . Because of the surrounding residential land use , observed low speed along the corridor, and presence of on- street parking, • It is recommended to treat the corridor as a bike boulevard and install sharrow pavement markings. Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along NW 14t h Street: N Main Street This is a main stop-controlled intersection, so only NW 14t h Street has stop signs. There is a Trinity Metro bus stop on the southeast and northwest corners of this intersection. This intersection falls between two signalized intersections on N Main Street and is within walking distance of MG Ellis Park and Marine Park as well as MG Ellis Elementary School. The crosswalk on the intersection's northern side is signed as a school crossing. Both of KSI crashes on the NW 14th Street corridor occurred at this intersection and involved a pedestrian . Based on the proximity to the school and other signals on this corridor, it is recommended to study this intersection for full signalization. Table 52 : N Main Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps are not aligned with crossing . Missing curb ramps for southern leg. Curb ramp Recommendation : Reconstruct existing curb ramps . Install new curb ramps for proposed crosswalk across the southern leg. Issue: Crossing across southern leg is unmarked . Crosswalk Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalk across the southern leg to match existing crosswalks. Other Crossing Issue : There is lon g crossing distance across the western leg, almost 50 ft to cross two Characteristics lane s. There is parking that blocks the sidewalk. There is insufficient lighting. 56 f0RTW0RTII ---,.-- 20 50 Ellis Avenue Recommendation: Install curb extensions at this crosswalk and narrowing the lanes to match the neighborhood street width of the rest of the corridor. Regrade and delineate sidewalk and driveways to keep a clear pedestrian route. Install/upgrade lighting. This is a main stop -controlled intersection, so only NW 14th Street has stop signs. This intersection is approximately 160 feet, stop sign to stop sign, from the N Main Street intersection. Ellis Avenue is a parallel route to N Main Street. It is recommended to study the intersection for all way stop-control, especially given the proximity to the N Main Street intersection . There is a sidewalk on all approaches. Table 53: Elli s Avenue Intersection Recommendation s Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant or are missing. Curb Ramp Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Install new curb ramps on northeast corn er and for crossing of Ellis Ave. Crosswalk Issue: Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing . Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars. Issue: There is long crossing distance across Ellis Ave . There is insufficient lighting. Other Crossing There is parking that blocks the sidewalk. Recommendation : Install curb extensions on all corners . Limit parking at the Characteristics intersection. Install/upgrade lighting. Regrade and delineate sidewalk and driveways to keep a clear pedestrian route . Issue : Sidewalk on northeast corner and heading north on Ellis Ave is overgrown Sidewalk with grass. Recommendation: Recon struct or repair sidewalk. N Houston Street This is side stop-controlled intersection. There is a sidewalk on both sides of NW 14th Street and to the south on both sides of N Houston Street. Table 54 : N Hou ston Street Inte rsection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are present on all four sides, but only the south side has ramps in two directions. There are no 57 FORTWORTl-1 ---..,...---- 2 050 ramps on the opposite to complete the crossing. There is a utility pole and landscaping that may be impacted if curb ramps are reconstructed . Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramp . Relocate or remove obstacle in order to construct new curb ramps. Issue : Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars on N Houston St. Other Crossing Issue : There is insufficient lighting. Characteristics Recommendation: Install/upgrade lighting. Clinton Avenue This is a main stop-controlled intersection, so only NW 14th Street has stop signs. There is a sidewalk on both sides of Clinton Avenue up to this intersection. The sidewalks continue to the north and connect to Marine Park. However, there is a sidewalk gap on NW 14th Street. Table 55: Clinton Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Missing curb ramps on NW 14th St. Curb ramps only accommodate Curb Ramp pedestrians along Clinton Ave . Recommendation: Install curb ramps to cross Clinton Ave on southeast leg. Issue: Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars on NW 14th St. Issue: There are no sidewalks on either side of NW 14t h St at this intersection. Sidewalk Recommendation : Install new sidewalk along NW 14th St to connect to existing sidewalks, both sides. Lee Avenue This is a main stop-controlled intersection, so only NW 14th Street has stop signs. Table 56: Lee Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue: Existing curb ramps only on western leg of intersection . Recommendation: Install new curb ramps for other legs. 58 f 0RTW0RTH --.,..-- 2 0 50 Crosswalk Issue: Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bar. Other Crossing Issue : There is concern about drivers not yielding. There is insufficient lighting. Characteristics Recommendation : Restrict parking in advanc e of crosswalk. Install /upgrade ligh t ing. Issue: There are no sidewalks on either side of NW 14t h St at this intersection , to the northeast. There is sidewalk on Lee Ave but not necessarily to the intersection. Sidewalk Recommendation: Install new sidewalk along NW 14th St to connect to ex isting sidewalks , both sides. Install new sidewalk on Lee Ave to connect to existing sidewalk and to intersection . Circle Park Boulevard This is a main stop -controlled intersection , so only NW 14t h Street has stop signs . This street consists of two one -way pairs , which leaves large intersections for turning vehicles . To the north, Circle Park Boulevard leads to Circle Park, Northside Library, and JP Elder Middle School and to O akwood Cemetery to the south . Tab le 57: Circle Park Bou levard Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue : Ramps are only for crossing NW 14th St not Circl e Park Blvd. Recommendation : In stall new curb ramps for crossin g Circl e Par k Blvd . Crosswalk Issue : Crossing is unmarked . No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalk. Mark new stop bar. Issue: There is long crossing distance , about 160 ft to cross Circle Park Blvd . Becaus e of th e one -way pairs of Circle Park Blvd , th ere is conc ern about drive r turning movements and spe eds since drivers do not hav e to stop . There is insuffici ent li ghting. Other Crossin g Recommendation : In st all curb exten sion s and median crossing island to shorten Characteristics cros sin g distanc e and provid e ped es trian refuge. In stall RRFB for crosswalks across Circl e Park Blvd . Install advanced pede strian warning signs . Remove obstacle or widen standing space to improve comfort and safety of pedestrians waitin g to cross . Install /upgrade lighting. Study the interse ction control here -all w ay stop or roundabout. Constrain inter section width, restrict turning radii. Sidewalk Issue : No sidewalk within intersection (crossing Circle Park Blvd). Recommendation: Provide separated , accessible route across intersection. 59 f0RTW0RTII ---..,.-- 20 50 Speed Management Lincoln Avenue Issue : Observed driver speeds appear to exceed speed limi ts . Recommendation: In stall speed feedback signs. Install traffic calming measures such as roundabout, speed humps, chicanes, pinch points or narrow travel lanes (may require additional study). This is a main stop-controlled intersection, so only NW 14th Street has stop signs. Table 58 : Lincoln Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Missing curb ramps. There is a utility conflict (catch basin and utility pole) on the southwest corner. Curb Ramp Recommendation : Install new curb ramp on southeast corner and across western leg , if feasible . Crosswalk Issue : Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalk. Mark new stop bar. Issue : There is a sidewa lk gap on the south side of NW 14t h St here and a sidewalk Sidewalk gap on the northeast side of Lincoln Ave. Recommendation : In sta ll new sidewa lk to connect to existing sidewa lks. Gould Avenue This is an all way stop -controlled intersection. Rufino Mendoza Elementary School is on the southwest corner of this intersection. Table 59: Gould Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Missing curb ramps for some crossings. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Ins tall new curb ramps. Issue: Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Existing stop bars are faded and too close to crosswalk. Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on two legs. Mark new stop bars. Remark existing stop bars at least 4 feet from crosswalk. 60 f 0 RTW0RTl-1 --,.-- 20 50 Other Crossing Characteristics Issue: There is long crossing distance across Gould Ave. Parked cars obstruct sight lines . Recommendation : Install curb extensions . Install school crossing signs with downward pointing arrows. Restrict parking close to intersection. Recommendation Implementation Table Table 60 below summarizes the full list of corridor and intersection recommendations offered to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the NW 14th Street corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that reflects whether the recommendation is an ideal Short-(1-3 years), Mid -(3-5 years), or Long-(5+ years) term project, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit, and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Table 60: Recommended countermeasures for NW 14th Street corridor Timeframe Location Recommendation Estimated Estimated CMF Cost Segment Install dynamic speed feedback 0 .95 $6 ,000.00 signage Intersection Install/refresh high-visibility Short 0.6 $24,480.00 crosswalks (1-3 years) Intersection Install advance signal , stop or yield 0 .75 $400.00 signs Intersection Install Stop Bar --$450.00 Intersection Install median pedestrian refuge 0.44 $16,400.00 Intersection Curb extension --$100,000.00 Medium Intersection Reconfigure ramps to meet ADA (3-5 years ) --$105 ,000.00 Standard Segment Install additional lighting 0.58 $31,987.80 Segment Install continuous sidewalks 0 .35 $305,468.13 $590,185.93 Benefit-Cost Analysis The estimated cost-benefit result for NW 14th Street is 48.08 (Table 61). 61 f ORTWORTII ---,.--- 20 50 Table 62 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type and Table 63 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resu lting from the i mp lementation of the proposed safety countermeasures . Table 61 : NW 14th Street Corridor -Final Cost-Benefit Ratio Table 62 : Cost Results for NW 14th Street Corridor Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost Instal l dynamic speed feedback $3 ,000.00 2 10 $6 ,000.00 $600.00 signage Insta ll /refres h high-visibility $16.0 0 1530 4 $24,480.00 $6,120.00 crosswa l ks Install advanc e sign al, stop or $100.00 4 6 $4 00.00 $60.00 yi eld signs Insta ll St o p Bar $30.0 0 1 5 4 $450.0 0 $112.50 Install median ped estrian $4 ,100.00 4 25 $16,400.00 - refuge Curb extens io n $10,000.00 10 25 $1 0 0 ,000.00 - Reconfi gure ramp s to meet $3 ,500.00 30 25 $105,000.00 - ADA Standard Install additi o na l lighting $5,331.30 6 15 $31 ,987 .80 $1 ,69 9.39 Install co ntinuous sidewa l ks $134.86 226 5 10 $305,468.13 $30,546.81 Total $590,185.93 $39,138.70 Life cycl e Co st (20 yea rs) $1 ,3 73 ,000 Table 62: Benefit Results for NW 14th Street Corridor Crash Severity Prevention Benefit # of Crashes Total Benefit Prevented K -Fatal $3,7 00,000 0 $0 A -Severe Injury $3,700,000 17 $62 ,900 ,000 B -Non -Incap acitating or Susp ected $520,000 6 Minor Injury $3 ,120,000 Total Benefit: $66 ,020,000 62 f 0 RTW0Rnl ~ 20 50 Corridor 5: NW 26th Street NW 26th Street runs east to west between N Main Street to Angle Avenue. It is on the Pedestrian HIN. Context NW 26th Street functions as a residential street with commercial use at the eastern end. This corridor intersects with Ellis Avenue at Rodeo Park and ends in the Historic Stockyards District. The roadway consists of two lanes, and has unmarked, on-street parking. The corridor is approximately 0 .50 miles in length . There are intermittent sidewalks present on both sides. The speed limit on the corridor is 30 mph. The typical pavement width ranges from 26 feet in residential area (two lanes) to 48 feet in commercial area (four lanes), while the right-of-way width is approximately 68 feet. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this corridor is 192, according to 2023 Replica Model Data . Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the NW 26t h Street corridor to understand the contributing factors and identify focus areas for countermeasures . From 2019 to 2023, 43 total crashes occurred on NW 26th Street from N Main Street to Angle Avenue . About half of the overall crashes occurred at dusk or at night demonstrating the need for additional lighting on the corridor. Eighty-one percent of those crashes occurred at intersections, making intersection- related recommendations a focus of this evaluation. There was one crash involving a bicycle which occurred at N Main Street. There were two crashes involving a motorcycle at Lee Avenue and Main Street. There were six crashes involving a pedestrian, five of which occurred at N Main Street. Most occurred due to driver inattention and the failure to yield right of way to the pedestrian. Most happened when vehicles were turning left. Overall, there were no fatal or severe injury crashes; five crashes resulted in minor injuries. 64 FoRTWoRrn ~ 205 0 Figure 15 shows the spatial distribution of crashes in the NW 26t h Street corridor. Nw 26th St Crashes Non·KSI • Non-KS! Corridor Crash Density :... z :E N a, --1 ::c (/) --1 CUNtO .. l 'l'ENUI • • ----HORTH MAIN STREET "' "'; 0 Figure 15: Crash map of the NW 26th Street corridor & ,·ooLE DESIGN Table 63 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the NW 26t h Street corridor. Table 64 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports of crashes on NW 26t h Street. There were no KSI crashes reported on th is corridor. 65 f0RTW0RTII ~ 20 50 Table 63: NW 26th Street Collision Manner, if noted1 Intersection One Motor Opposite Same Angle Crash Total (Closest reported) Vehicle Direction Direction N MAIN ST 7 8 3 10 28 ELLIS AVE 5 ------1 6 N HOUSTON ST ---2 ------2 CLINTON AVE 2 ------3 5 ROSS AVE ------------0 LEE AVE ---1 ------1 PROSPECT AVE 1 ---------1 ANGLE AVE ------------0 TOTAL 15 11 3 14 43 Table 64 : NW 26th Street contributing factors , if noted Contributing Factor Number of Crashes Driver Inattention 13 Failed To Control Speed 9 Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Stop Si gn 5 None 4 Disregard Stop Si gn Or Light 4 Field Observations and Recommendations In November 2024, project team members conducted field observations of the corridor to gain a better understanding of the existing operations and barriers. These observations are grouped into two categories: corridor-focused and intersection-focused . Corridor-Focused Recommendations The following field observations were made along 26th Street. These observations pertain to the entirety of the corr idor and are not segment-specific, unless otherwise noted . 1 Crash es reported at Ma in St may hav e a lso b een lab e le d as Stockyard s Blvd whe n re ported 66 FORT WORTII ---.--- 2050 Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks on both sides of the corridor but there are significant gaps. • It is recommended that a new sidewalk be constructed to fill in the gaps along the corridor. • Crosswalks are recommended at each stop-controlled intersection. Bicycle Facilities There is bicycle signage along 26th Street, however, no bicycle facilities were observed along the corridor. Given the connection to the Trinity Trails System at Ellis Avenue and the residential use along the corridor, • It recommended to treat the corridor as a bike bouleva rd and install sharrow pavement markings . Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along NW 26t h Street. N Main Street This is a signalized intersection. The eastern leg of this intersection is Stockyards Boulevard , part of the Historic Stockyards District. All legs of the intersection have adequate crosswalks. Stop bars are present and are spaced adequately from the crosswalks. On the eastern leg there are channelized turn lanes with islands , crosswalks , and pedestrian push buttons. Table 65: N Main Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalk markings are faded. Crosswalk surface uplifted. Stop bar at Crosswalk controlled crossing are faded . Recommendation: Repave crosswalk surface area and remark existing crosswalks. Remark existing stop bars. Issue : Ped es trian push buttons are difficult to access. Pedestrian signal not on auto Other Crossing recall. Insufficient space for pedestrian s waiting to cross due to obstacle (fire Characteristics hydrant within pedestrian walkway on northeast corner island) or narrow sidewalk (northwest corner has mast arm and pillar within curb ramps}. 67 FORT WORTII ---.,..--- 20 50 Ellis Avenue Recommendation: Implement LPI. Relocate fire hydrant , mast arm and pillar and widen standing space to improve comfort and safety of pedestrians waitin g to cross. Con si der w id ening islands on east side to shorten crossing distance as w e ll. Install curb exte nsions on west side to shorten crossing distance and provide more waiting space for ped es trians . Curb extensions will help fo r malize the on street parking on the western leg of the intersection . This is an all way stop-controlled intersection . This intersection is above Marine Creek and the sidewalks here tie into the Trinity Trails Systems. This intersection is a bridge structure running about 200-300 ft north and south of this intersection 2. Table 66 : Ellis Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue : Cu rb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant but are limited by bri dge structure. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair ex isting curb ramps. Issue: Crosswalks across Elli s Ave are unmarked. Crosswalks across NW 26th St are faded , Crosswalk eastern crosswalk is skewed. Stop bars are missing on Ellis Ave. Recommendation : Mark new high -visibility crosswalks and remark existing crosswalks as high visibility and better alignment. Mark new stop bars and remark existing stop bars . Issue : Th ere are long cross in g di sta nces . Th ere is insufficient lighting. Other Crossing Recommend ation : In sta ll curb exte nsion s, particula r ly on so uthwest curb. Install median Characteristic s crossing island o n southern leg. In stall /up gra d e lighting. Consider treat ments appropriate for trail cross in gs . Issue: Sidewalks lack sufficient buffer and have too much cro ss-s lope. There is excessive Sidewalk vegetation on northeast corn er of intersection that is blocking the sidewa l k. Recommendation : Remove obstructions on the northeast corner and construct a sidewalk on the east side to tie to existing sidewalk to the north . N Houston Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection. The northern leg of this intersection is a driveway to a parking lot for the Rodeo Park fields and trail system . There are ramps present on all corners . Th e ramps on the north side are isolated and do not connect to any sidewalks . 2 This intersection is also on the Elli s Avenue corridor 68 FoRTWORTII --...,.-- 2 050 Table 67: N Houston Street Intersection Recommendation s Category Issues and Recommendations Crosswalk Sidewalk Clinton Avenue Issue: Crossing is unmarked . Stop bar is unmarked. Recommendation : Mark new high-visibility crosswalk. Install mid-block crosswalk to cro ss NW 2 6t h St. Mark new stop bar on N Houston St and park driveway. Issue: There is a sidewalk gap on the north side of NW 26th St at this intersection . There is a parallel route using the trail system in Rodeo Park. It would be challengin g to build and provide an accessible route on the north side within this block. Recommendation: Install sidewalk from ramps at intersection up park driveway to trail system. Install new sidewalk on north side of NW 26th St , if feasible. Consider narrowing travel lanes to accommodate sidewalk width. This is a main stop -controlled intersection , so only NW 26th Street has stop si gns. Table 68: Clinton Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue: Missin g curb ramp on south eas t corn er. Recommendation : Install new c urb ramp . Issue : Crosswalk is unmarked . No stop bar at controlled crossing. Crosswalk Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on NW 26t h St. Mark new stop bars on NW 26th St. Issue : There is long crossing distance and conce rn about drive r yie lding. There is Othe r Crossin g insuffici ent li ghting. Recommendation: Install curb extensions to shorten cro ssin g distance and preve nt Ch aract er istic s parkin g at intersection . Study inte rse ction fo r STOP control and consid e r convertin g to an all way stop . Install/upgrade lighting . Issue : Sidewalk on southeast corner is overgrown. There is a sidewalk gap on both sides of NW 26th St to the east. Sidewalks are narrow and do not provide enough space for pedestrians . Sidewalk Recommendation: Reconstruct narrow, overgrown sidewalk on the south side of NW 26t h St and construct new sidewalk to fill sidewalk gap and connect to existing sidewalk toward N Houston St. Consider narrowing travel lanes to accommodate sidewalk width. Widen sidewalks. 69 FORT WORTH ---..,.-- 205 0 Speed Management Ross Avenue Issue : Starting at this intersection heading westbound , there is a steep uph ill that may encourage speeding . Observed driver speeds appear to exceed speed limit. Recommendation : Consider traffic calming elements and advanced warning signs for crosswalks and stop signs. This is a main stop-controlled intersection , so only NW 26th Street has stop signs . There are sidewalks present on both sides of Ross Avenue and on both sides of NW 26th Street on the eastern leg of this intersection. Table 69 : Ross Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. There are steep grades on Curb Ramp all approaches. Recommendation : Recon struct or repair existing curb ramps to accommodate ADA and manage slope challenges . Issue: Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks across NW 26t h St. Mark new stop bars . Issue : There are steep grades on all approaches that may encourage speeding or lack of yielding to drivers and pedes trian s. Northbound traffic on Ross Ave are coming over a hill downhill and do not have to stop at this inters ecti on . There is Other Crossing insuffici ent lighting. Characteristics Recommendation : Consider traffic calming elements and advanced warning signs for crosswalks and stop signs . Study intersection for STOP control and consider converting to an all way stop . Install/upgrade lighting, add additional lightin g on northwest corner of intersection . Issue: There is a sidewalk gap on NW 26 t h St on the western leg of this Sidewalk intersection. Existing sidewalks at this intersection have too much cross slope. Recommendation: Install new sidewalks on NW 26t h St to fill sidewalk gap . Regrade existing sidewalks. 70 FoRT WORTH -.,..-- 20 50 Lee Avenue This is a main stop-controlled intersection, so only NW 26th Street has stop signs. There is only sidewalk: on the east side of Lee Avenue heading south. Table 70: Lee Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Existing curb ramp on southeast corner does not appear to be ADA Curb Ramp compliant. Missing curb ramps on remaining corners . Recommendation: Reconstruct curb ramp on southeast corner. Construct new curb ramps on other three corners. Crosswalk Issue : Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalk. Mark new stop bars . Issue : There are steep grades on all approaches that have poor sight lines of this intersection . Crossing may be difficult for drivers to see or anticipate due to Other Crossing roadway curvature . Runway crest on southbound and westbound approaches obstruct vi ew of intersection. Characteristics Recommendation : Study intersection for STOP control and consider converting to an all way stop. In stall advance yield or stop markings and signs in advance of crosswalks. Issue : There is a sidewalk gap on NW 26th St at this intersection. Grade on northwest corner of intersection presents challenge for installing sidewalk. Sidewalk Existing sidewalk appears narrow, about 3 ft wide. Recommendation: Install new sidewalks on NW 26t h St to fill sidewalk gap. Reconstruct existing sidewalk to be wider. Prospect Avenue This is a main stop-controlled intersection, so only NW 26th Street has stop signs . Table 71: Prospect Avenue Intersection Recommendation s Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue: Existing curb ramp on northeast corner is not aligned with crossing. Other corners do not have curb ramps. Recommendation : Reconstruct existing curb ramp . Install new curb ramps. Issue : Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars. 71 foRTWOR TH ---..,..-- 2050 Issue : Crossing may be difficul t for drivers to see or anticipate du e to roadway curvature . There is insufficient lighting. Other Crossing Recommendation : Restrict parking in advance of crosswalk . Study intersection for Characteristics STOP control and consider converting to an all w ay stop . In stall advance yi eld or stop markin gs and signs in advance of crosswalk. Install /upgrade lighting. Sidewalk Issue: There is a sidewalk gap on NW 26t h St at this intersection . Recommendation : Install new sidewalks on NW 26 th St to fill sidewalk gap. Angle Avenue This is a main stop-controlled intersection, so only NW 26th Street has stop signs . Angle Avenue diverges and becomes Refugio Avenue . There is a sidewalk on the southeast corner at this intersection . Table 72: Angle Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Ex isting curb ramp on southeast corner is not fully ADA compliant. Other Curb Ramp corners do not have curb ramp s. Recommendation: Rec onstruct or repair ex isting curb ramp. In sta ll new curb ramps. Crosswalk Issue : Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars. Sid ewalk Issue : There is a sid ewalk gap on NW 26th St at this intersectio n. Recommendation : Install new sidewa lks on NW 26t h St to fill sid ewalk gap . Recommendation Implementation Table Table 73 below summarizes the full list of corridor and intersection recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the NW 26th Street corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that reflects whether the recommendation is an ide al Short -(1-3 years), Mid -(3 -5 years), or Long -(5+ years) term project, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Note: The intersection of NW 26th Street and Ellis Avenue is accounted for in both corridors ' benefit/cost analysis . 72 f 0RTW0RHI ~ 205 0 Tab le 73: Recommended coun t ermeasures for NW 26th Street corridor Timefrarne Location Recommendation Estimated Estimated CMF Cost Intersection Insta ll /refres h high-visibility 0.6 $21,760.00 crosswalks Short Intersecti on Install advance signal, stop or yield 0.75 (1 -3 years) $2,000.00 signs Intersection Install Stop Bar --$750.00 Intersection Relocate Fire Hydrant and Mast -- $25,000.00 Arm Medium Intersection Install median pedestrian refuge 0.44 $4,100.00 (3-5 years) Intersection Curb extension --$100,000.00 Intersection Reconfigure ramps to meet ADA -- $87,500.00 Standard Segment Install additional lighting 0.58 $93,297.75 Segment Install continuous sidewa l ks 0.35 $335 ,138.33 $669,546.0 8 Benefit-Cost Analysis The estimated cost -benefit resu lt for NW 26th Street is 6.69 (Tab le 74). Table 75 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type and Table 76 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resu lting from the implementation of the proposed safety countermeasures. Ta ble 74 : NW 26th Street Corridor -Fi na l Cost -Benefit Ratio ~'@:SY\~&■,GIMMl@I·~ $10,400,000 $1,553,700 6.69 Table 75 : Cost Results for NW 26th Street Corridor Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost Install /refresh high- $16 1360 visibility crosswalks 4 $21,760.00 $5,440.00 Insta ll advance signal, st op $1 00 20 6 $2,000.00 $300.0 0 o r yield signs 73 fO RT WORTH ---.,.-- 2 050 f0RTW0RTII --.,..-- 20 50 Install Stop Bar $30 25 4 $750.00 $187.50 Relocate Fire Hydra nt and $25,000 1 25 $25,000.00 $- Mast Arm In sta ll median pedestrian $4,100 1 25 $4,100.00 $- refuge Curb extension $10,000 10 25 $100,000.00 $- Reconfigure ramps to meet $3 ,500 25 25 $87,500.00 $- ADA Standard Install additional lighting $1 86 ,595.5 0 /MI 0.50 Ml 15 $93,297.75 $4,764.89 In stall continuous $134.86 2485 10 $335,138.33 $33,513.83 sidewalks Total $44,206.22 $669 ,546.08 Lifecycle Cost (20 years) $1 ,553 ,700 Tabl e 7 6 : Benefit Res u lts for NW 26th Street Corridor Crash Severity Prevention # of Crashes Total Benefit Benefit* Prevented K -Fatal $3,7 00,000 0.00 $0 A -Sev ere Inju ry $3,700,000 0.00 $0 B -Non-Incapacitating or Suspected $520,000 20.00 $10,400,000 Minor Injury Total Benefit: $10,400,000 74 Corridor 6: Pennsylvania Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue runs east to west between S Main Street and 8 th Avenue. It is on the Pedestrian HIN and Motor Vehicle HIN . Context Pennsylvania Avenue functions as a minor arterial with mostly commercial uses . There is a large medical campus that includes Cook Children's Medical Center and Harris Methodist Hospital at the corridor's western end. The roadway consists of three to five lanes with marked on-street parking at the eastern end. The corridor is a designated bike route and there are directional bike lanes present for much of its length , though these are intermittent. There are continuous sidewalks present on both sides of the road . A Trinity Metro bus route runs on this corridor. The corridor is approximately 1.04 miles in length . The speed limit is 35 mph. The typical pavement width ranges from 50 to 60 feet, while the right-of-way width is approximately 80 to 84 feet. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this corridor is 12,250, according to the 2023 NCTCOG Travel Demand Model. Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor to understand the contributing factors and identify focus areas for countermeasures. From 2019 to 2023, 124 total crashes occurred on Pennsylvania Avenue between S Main Street and 8th Avenue . Forty-eight percent of the crashes occurred at intersections, making both intersection-related recommendations and corridor-focused recommendations focuses of this evaluation. Four crashes involved a pedestrian, two of which occurred at S Jennings Street when vehicles were turning left. Overall , there were no fatal crashes , there were four severe injury crashes , and 24 crashes that resulted in in minor injuries. Figure 16 shows the spatial distribution of crashes in the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor. Table 77 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor. Table 78 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports on Pennsylvania Avenue . Tables 79 summarizes the KSI crashes (four) that occurred on this corridor. 75 f 0 RTW0RTII --.,.-- 20 50 trtf AVfHUt.- • 1 0 \II M S"IIIUHT AVC H\lf .,, ~~ ~... \ ... ,;. \ SOUTH MENOHIOH STRECl Norl""KSI • Non-KSI Con1dor Crash Density w ~ 5 z ct ::'., ~ z z w Cl. Figure 16: Crash map of the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor f'I Ull'Nlll ltlUU 0 500ft E) l'OOLE O(IS IGN FoRrW01m1 ----.....-- 2050 76 FORT WORTH ~ 2050 Table 77 -Pennsylvania Avenue Collision Manner, if noted Intersection Angle One Motor Opposite Same Other Total (Closest reported) Crash Vehicle Direction Direction S MAIN ST 5 1 ------1 7 GALVESTON AVE 1 1 ---------2 ST LOUIS ST ---1 ---------1 S JENNINGS ST 3 2 1 ------6 GRAINGER ST ---------------0 HEMPHILL ST 10 1 3 ---3 17 TRAVIS AVE ---------------0 LIPSCOMB ST ---------------0 ALSTON AVE 5 ------1 1 7 COLLEGE AVE 7 ---1 ---1 9 (N +S) FU LTON ST ---1 ------1 2 SADAMSST 1 ------------1 S HENDERSON ST 7 ---18 ---18 43 5th AVE ------1 ------1 SLAKE ST ---1 ---------1 6th AVE ---1 ---------1 S BALLINGER ST ---1 1 ------2 7th AVE ---------------0 SSUMMITAVE 1 ---------2 3 8th AVE 4 1 9 ---5 19 (UNKNOWN) 1 ---1 ------2 TOTAL 45 11 35 1 32 124 Table 78 : Pennsylvania Avenue Top 5 Contributing Factors Contributing Factor # of Crashes Driver Ina ttention 30 Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Turning Left 25 O t her 17 Disregard Stop And Go Signal 17 Non e 15 77 Tabl e 7 9 -Pennsylvania Avenue KS/ Cra shes Summary Intersection Intersection Type Collision Manner Contributing Factors One Motor Vehicle ; S JENNINGS ST Signalized Turning Left (pedestrian None crash) Angle; Both Going Failed To Stop At Proper Place; HEMPHILL ST Signalized Straight Failed To Control Speed ALSTON AVE Side Stop-Angle ; One Straight-One Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Stop Controlled Left Turn Sign COLLEGE AVE Side Stop-Angle; One Straight-One Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Stop (N + S) Controlled Left Turn Sign Field Observations and Recommendations In November 2024, project team members conducted field observations of the corridor to obtain a better understanding of the existing operations and challenges . These observations are grouped into two categories: corridor-focused and intersection-focused . Corridor-Focused Recommendations The following field observations were made along Pennsylvania Avenue . These observations pertain to the entirety of the corridor and are not segment -specific, unless otherwise noted. This corridor is in a dense are a with intermittent direction al bikes lanes but continuous sidewalks. It also has a Trinity Metro bus route . There are north -south bus routes that intersect with this corridor, as well. Corridor recommendations focus on improving transit, pedestrian , and bicyclist accommodations. Road Diet and Access Management It is recommended that the corridor be studied for a road diet, to reduce it to a three-lane section between S Henderson Street and 8th Ave . The need for maintaining on-street parking along the corridor should also be considered. The removal of a travel lane or on -street parking would create space for bicycle facilities and amenities like bus stops . For remaining parking, it should be reconfigured as to not obstruct pedestrians and cyclists. 78 f 0 RTW0RTtl ~ 2050 As part of the corridor study, property access should also be assessed to reduce turning conflicts. Driveway consolidation or turn restrictions should be implemented where necessary. Where driveways can be converted to right-in-right-out, raised medians can be installed to restrict traffic and calm traffic. Pedestrian Facilities It is recommended to reconstruct driveways so that sidewalks remain level , which establishes pedestrian right of way. Many of the intersecting streets create T-intersections and do not have marked crosswalks across Pennsylvania Avenue. • It is recommended to study the corridor for mid-block crossing opportunities at regular intervals with a focus on bus stop locations. • Bus stop locations should also be evaluated for relocation or consolidation so that they are located adjacent to crosswalks and in areas where there is ample right-of-way for bus stop amenities. There are multiple crosswalks along Pennsylvania Ave in front of the medical centers , between 5th Ave and 7 th Ave. • It is recommended to create an accessible pedestrian route to these crosswalks , across driveways , and to the parking deck access points. These crossings should be marked with high visibility paint and appropriate signage so that drivers yield to pedestrians . Bicycle Facilities Intermittent directional bikes lanes were observed east of the corridor limits at South Freeway and end at the S Henderson Street intersection. Between these two, bicycle facilities transition between bike lanes and sharrow. The bike lanes are often adjacent to on-street parking. • To ensure bicycle safety along the corridor, it is recommended that buffered bicycle lanes be installed along the corridor; buffered by on-street parking is preferred . Directional bike lanes should have high visibility intersection crossing and driveway crossing markings and appropriate signage. 79 FORT WORTH --.,--- 2050 • Where bus stops exist along the directional bike lanes , it is recommended to construct floating bus stops with appropriate pavement markings and signage to better manage pedestrians crossing the bike lane. Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along Pennsylvania Avenue: S Main Street This is a signalized intersection. There are sidewalks and bike lanes on all approaches. There are curb extensions at the intersection to shorten crossing distances and to delineate marked, on- street parking on all legs of the intersection. All pedestrian signals are visible, and all pedestrian buttons are easily accessible with audible feedback. Table 80 -S Main St Intersection Recomm endations Category Issues and Recommendations Crosswalk Other Crossing Characteristics Galveston Avenue Issue : Crosswalks are red -brown brick bordered by gray brick. Crosswalk markings are not high visibility. Recommendation : Remark existing crosswalk with high-visibility markings. Issue: Signal timing results in relatively long delays for pedestrians. Pedestrian signal not on auto recall. Recommendation: Implement LPI. Put pedestrian signal on auto recall. This is a side stop -controlled intersection. There are sidewalks on all approaches and directional bike lanes adjacent to on-street parking on Pennsylvania Avenue. There are curb extensions on the southern side of the intersection to delineate marked, on-street parking. Tabl e 81 : Galveston Avenue Intersection Recommendation s Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue : Curb ramps not aligned with crossing and are angled toward intersection traffic. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps on north side of intersection. Reset tactile paves to match direction of crossing. Issue: Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing, north leg. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north and south leg of intersection. Mark new stop bar on north leg. 80 foRTWORTH ---...--- 205 0 Other Crossing Characteristics St Louis Avenue Issue : Parked cars obstruct sight lines. Currently there is paint on the northern corners . Recommendation : Install curb extensions on north side of intersection . This is a side stop-controlled intersection. There are sidewalks on all approaches, except northeast side of St Louis Avenue . There are directional bike lanes adjacent to on -street parking on Pennsylvania Avenue. There is a mid-block crosswalk on the western side of this intersection. Table 82 : St Louis Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant and are not aligned with Curb Ramp crossing. Curb ramp on southwest corner does not face existing crossing mark i ngs. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: Crossings on north and south side of intersection across St Louis Ave are Crosswalk unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north and south legs. Mark stop bars on St Louis Ave. Issue: There is long crossing distance and concern about drivers yielding for the mid-block crossing. On-street parking is delineated by paint. There is insufficient Other Crossing lighting. Characteristics Recommendation : Install curb extensions for mid-block crossing on west side of intersection . In sta ll RRFB for mid-block crossing. Install curb extensions on other corners to delineate on-street parking. Install /upgrade lighting. S Jennings Street This is a signalized intersection. There are sidewalks on all approaches. There are directional bike lanes that transition to sharrow conditions for right-turn lanes on the Pennsylvania Avenue approach. There are sharrows on the southern leg and directional bike lanes on the northern leg. There is some on-street parking near this intersection. There was a KSI crash at this intersection. 81 ------------------------- FoRTWORTII -....,.-- 2050 Table 83: S Jennings Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : There is long crossing distance. There is concern about driver speeds and Other Crossing turning movements. Pedestrian signal is not on auto recall. Audible pedestrian announcement was malfunctioning on southwest corner pushbutton. Characteri stic s Recommendation : In sta ll curb extensions to shorten crossing distances and formali ze on-stree t parking. Put pede strian signa ls on auto recall. Issue: Sidewalk on northwest and southwest corners are narrow, less than 4 feet wide. Sidewalk Recommendation : Widen sidewalks on approach to intersection, install buffer from roadway. Issue : Bicycl e facility does not provide enough separation from traffic. Bicycl e Facility Recommendation: In stall buffered bike lane, paint separation. Bike s must remain protected through right turn lanes. Rec omm e nd installing bike bo x to advance bikes ahead of vehicl es at this intersection . Issue : Driveway access points are close to intersection that increase potential for Access conflict between motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians or bicyclists . Management Recommendation : Consolidate driveways or move access further from intersection. Grainger Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection. Grainger Street is the southern leg of the intersection. The northern leg is a gated driveway for Tarrant County Academy of Medicine. Th ere are sidewalks on all approaches and directional bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue adjacent to on - street parking. Table 84 : Grainger Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue : Missing curb ramps at northern driveway, sidewalk is flush with driveway. Recommendation : Install detectable warning surfaces . Crosswalk Issue : Crossing is unmarked . No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation : Install high-visibility crosswalk. Mark new stop bar. Other Crossing Characteristics Issue : Parking may obstruct sight li nes. 82 f oRT WORTH ~ 2050 Recommendation: Install curb extensions on the south side of Pennsylvania Ave at Grainger St to formalize parking . Issue: Sidewalk is too narrow, pinch point, on southeast corner due to a wooden Sidewalk retaining wall. Recommendation: Reconstruct or widen sidewalk using curb extension space. Hemphill Street This is a signalized intersection. There are sidewalks and directional bike lanes on all approaches. The bike lanes are adjacent to on-street parking or drop at the turn lanes. It is recommended to provide separation from turn lanes and parking lanes . Push buttons with sound are present on all four crosswalks. There is a bus shelter on the southeast corner of this intersection. There was a KSI crash at this intersection. Table 85 : Hemphill Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps are not aligned with crossing. North side curb ramps are not aligned with crosswalk . There is only one ramp provided to cross to the south . East Curb Ramp side ramp is missing and there is a right only lane that makes it difficult to cross . Recommendation: Widen crosswalk or assess curb ramps for improved alignment. Construct new curb ramps. Issue : There is concern about drivers yielding. Pedestrian signal activates at same Other Crossing time as left turn vehicles (from Hemphill St onto Pennsylvania Ave). Characteristics Recommendation : Implement LPI. Install curb extensions to delineate on-street parking and provide more waiting space for pedestrians. Issue: Sidewalk on northeast corner is narrow due to building face and mast arms Sidewalk and pedestal pole in middle of sidewalk. Recommendation : Widen sidewa lk and relocate obstructions. Travis Avenue This is a side stop-controlled intersection. Travis Avenue is the southern leg of the intersection. The northern leg is a driveway to a parking lot. 83 FoRTWoRT11 ~ 205 0 Table 86: Travis Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: The bike lanes are adjacent to on-street parking or paint buffered from curb Bike Facilities Recommendation: Install buffered bike lanes , using paint to separate parking from the travel lane. Other Crossing Characteristics Issue: The crossing here is unmarked. There is no stop bar at the controlled crossing Recommendation: install a new, high-visibility crosswalk . Install new stop bar Issue: The surface of the crossing is uneven. Crosswalk Recommendation: Repave crosswalk , install high-visibility crosswalk striping. Lipscomb Street This is a side stop -controlled intersection. Travis Avenue is the northern leg of the intersection. The southern leg is a gated driveway to a parking lot. There are sidewalks on all approaches. There are directional bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue. Table 87: Lipscomb Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : The bike lan es are adjacent to on-street parking or paint buffered from curb Bike Facilities Recommendation: Install buffered bike lanes, using paint to separate parking from the travel lane. Other Crossing Issue: The crossing here is unmarked. There is no stop bar at the controlled Characteristics crossing Recommendation: install a new, high-visibility crosswalk. Install new stop bar Crosswalk Issue : The surface of the crossing is uneven. Recommendation: Repave crosswalk, install high-visibility crosswalk striping. Issue: The curb ramps here do not appear to be ADA compliant. The curb on the Curb Ramps northeastern corner has a large radius. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair the existing curb ramps and to decrease the northeast corner curb radius. Alston Avenue This is a side stop -controlled intersection. Alston Avenue is the southern leg of the intersection. The northern leg is a driveway to a parking lot. There are sidewalks on all approaches. There are 84 F0RTW0RHI ---.,.-- 2 0 50 directional bike lanes on Pennsylvania Ave. The bike lanes are adjacent to on-street parking. There was a KSI crash at this intersection. Table 88: Alston Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant and are not aligned with Curb Ramp crossing . Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Widen crosswalk or assess curb ramps for improved alignment. Crosswalk Issue: Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalk . Mark new stop bar. Issue: Observed pedestrians crossing to the parking lot on north side of intersection from the south side . There is long crossing distance. Parked cars Other Crossing obstruct sight lines . Characteristics Recommendation: Install mid-block crossing with median crossing island and appropriate crossing signage . Install curb extensions to delineate on-street parking and provide more space for pedestrians to wait to cross . Issue: Sidewalk is uplifted or cracked, particularly on southwest side of Sidewalk intersection. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair sidewalk. College Avenue This is a side stop -controlled intersection with offset northern and southern legs (College Avenue). The southern leg of College Avenue is very wide, about 50 feet. There are sidewalks on all approaches. There are directional bike lanes on Pennsylvania Ave. The bike lanes are adjacent to on-street parking . There was a KSI crash at this intersection. Table 89 : College Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue: Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are not aligned with direction of crossing. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: Crossing is unmarked (north and south legs). Stop bar at controlled crossing is faded (north and south legs). Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars. 85 FoRTWORTH -...,..-- 205 0 FoRTWoRTH --.,.--- 2050 Other Cro ss ing Issue: Parkin g obstructs view of crossing . Recommendation : Install curb extensions to delin eate on-stree t parking and Characteristics shorten cro ss ing di stanc e on Colle ge Av e. Issue: Bike lane on northern side of intersection is in conflict with pull in parking Sidewalk spaces (see Figure 2). Sidewalk shifts around parking here and is narrow. Bicycle Facility Recommendation : Reconsider parking layout on this corner and remove conflict with pedestrians and bicyclists. Reconstruct wider sidewalk /pedestrian route for a more direct route. Figure 17: Westbound directional bike lane and pull-in parking conflict 86 Fulton Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection. Fulton Street is the northern leg of the intersection. There is no southern leg. There are sidewalks on all approaches. There are directional bike lanes on Pennsylvania Ave. The bike lanes are adjacent to on-street parking. It is recommended to study intersection control to determine the benefit of limiting Fulton Street to be right-in, right- out only. Table 90: Fu lton Street Intersec tion Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are not aligned Curb Ramp with direction of crossing. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Crosswalk Issue: Crossing is unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossing. Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalk. Mark new stop bar. Other Crossing Issue : Parking obstructs view of crossing. There is insufficient lighting. Recommendation: Install curb extensions to delineate on-street parking. Characteristics In sta ll /upgrade lighting. S Adams Street This is a side stop -controlled intersection. The southern leg of S Adams Street is very wide, about 50 feet, and leads to Trimble Technical High School. It is recommended to widen sidewalks on S Adams Street to better accommodate pedestrians. There are sidewalks on all approaches. The sidewalk on the intersection's southeast corner runs along the building face in front of parked cars . It is recommended to adjust parking to on-street instead and to widen the existing sidewalk on the southeast corner. There are directional bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue. The bike lanes are adjacent to on-street parking. Table 91 : S A dams Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue : Curb ramps are missing . Existing ramps are angled toward intersection traffic. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Widen crosswalk or assess curb ramp for improved alignment. Install new curb ramps . Issue: Crossings are unmarked. No stop bars at controlled crossing . 87 FoRTW0 1m1 ~ 2050 Recommendation : Install new high -visibility crosswalks . Mark new stop bars . Issue: There is concern about drivers not yielding . Parking obstructs view of crossing . Th ere is in sufficient lighting. Other Crossing Recommendation : Install curb extensions to delineate on-street parking and to shorten cro ss ing distance. In stall mid -block crosswalk across Pennsylvania Avenue Characteristics with RRFB and pedestrian crossing signs with downward pointing arrows. Install advance warning signs . Res trict parking in advance of crosswalk . Install /upgrade lighting. S Henderson Street S Henderson Street makes an $-curve approach to this signalized intersection. Because of the curve , the crosswalks on the north and south sides are skewed . S Henderson Street has slip lanes for right-turn movements. There are sidewalks present on all approaches. The westbound directional bike lane drops at this intersection; no bike facilities are available west of this intersection . At this intersection the cross -section converts from one travel lane in each direction, with a center turn lane and directional bike facilities to two travel lanes in each direction, a center turn lane , and no bicycle facilities . Table 92 : S Henderson Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are not aligned Curb Ramp with direction of crossing. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: There is concern about turning movements and about multiple threat conditions. Vehicles are traveling fast on the slip lanes and conflict with pedestrians crossing. Pedestrian signal not on auto recall. Signals are only on recall Other Crossing for crossing Pennsylvania Ave , not S Henderson St. APS/audio signal missing or inaudible. Pedestrian pushbutton is difficult to access. Characteristics Recommendation: Implement LPI. Install curb radius reduction . Remove slip lane on northwest corner and bring right turn lane up to intersection. Consider removing southbound right turn slip lane. Put pedestrian signal on auto recall. Upgrade or repair pedestrian signal. Relocate pedestrian pushbutton . Issue : Sid ewalk lacks sufficient buffer. Sidewalk Recommendation : Reconstruct sidewalk to widen or install buffer from roadway. 88 FOR T WORTH ~ 2 050 Bicycle Facility 5th Avenue Issue : Bicycle facilities end at this intersection. Recommendation: Adjust width of travel lanes and need for center turn lane toa separated bike lane. This is a side stop-controlled intersection. 5th Avenue is the southern leg of the intersection . The northern leg is a driveway to a parking lot. There are sidewalks on all approaches. There is a mid- block crossing of Pennsylvania Avenue at this intersection. Table 93 : 5th Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are not aligned with direction of crossing . Ramp on southeast corner directs pedestrians out into intersection. Missing curb ramp on north side of intersection at mid-block Curb Ramp crosswalk . Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Widen crosswalk or assess curb ramps for improvement alignment. Remove obstacles and install new curb ramp on north side for mid-block crosswalk . Issue: No yield bar at mid-block crossing. Crosswalk missing on south leg Crosswalk Recommendation : Mark new yield bar. Install high-visibility crosswalk on south leg of intersection. Issue : There is concern about lack of driver yielding. Existing RRFB is activated by detection only and detection does not seem to be working. There is insufficient Other Crossing lighting. Characteristics Recommendation : Install median crossing island. Install in-street pedestrian crossing sign. Install advance yield or stop markings and signage. Upgrade RRFB with push buttons. Install/upgrade lighting. Issue: Sidewalks lack sufficient buffer. Sidewalk Recommendation: Reconstruct sidewalk to widen or install buffer from roadway. 89 FORT WORTH --.,..-- 2 050 Figure 18: Existing mid-block crosswalk, activated by detection only S Lake Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection. The southern leg is a one-way exit. The northern le g is slightly offset and has some on-street parking. There is a bus shelter on the southern side of Pennsylvania Ave between 5t h Avenue and S Lake Street. There is not enough sidewalk in front of this bus shelter. It is recommended to narrow and shift lanes and construct a floating bus stop to allow enough space for pedestrians to wait and walk. Amenities for the bus stop on the northern side of Pennsylvania Avenue are also recommended; currently there is only a bench and small sign. There is a mid -block crosswalk across Pennsylvania Avenue at this intersection. Table 94: S Lake Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Missing curb ramp on south side of intersection at mid-block crosswalk. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. In sta ll new curb ramp on south side for mid-block crosswalk . Issue : Crosswalks across S Lake St are unmarked. Mid-block crosswalk markings are faded. No yield bar at mid-block crossing. 90 FOR T WOR TH ----......--- 2050 Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks . Remark existing crosswalk with high-visibility markings . Mark new yield bar. Issue: Fiv e lane typical section creates long crossing distance for mid -block crossing . Turn lane is unused at this intersection. Crossing lacks appropriate Other Crossing crossing signage. Existing pedestrian crossing signs at northeast corner are Characteristics damaged. Recommendation : Install median crossing island . Install in-stre et pedestrian crossing sign. Replace existing crossing signs. 6t h Avenue This is a signalized intersection. The southern leg is the entrance to Texas Health and Cook Children's. Table 9 5 : 6th Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair ex isting curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalk markings faded and not high visibility. Stop bars at controlled Crosswalk crossing is faded. Recommendation : Remark existing crosswalk with high-visibility markings. Remark existing stop bars. Other Crossing Issue : Pedestrian push button instructions are faded on signs . There is long Characteristics crossing distance . Signage for medical center overhangs Pennsylvania Ave and may distract drivers from paying attention to pedestrians . Recommendation : Impl ement LPI. Put pedestrian signals on auto recall. Install new signs for pedestrian push buttons. Add pedestrian refuge island . S Ballinger Street This is a side stop-controlled intersection. The northern leg is S Ballinger Street. The southern leg is gated access to the Texas Health Medical Labs . This intersection is a little over 100 feet from the 6 th Ave signalized intersection. Some freight traffic was observed turning onto S Ballinger Street. Danone has a production site at the end of this street. 91 FORTWORTII ~ 20 50 Table 96: S Ballinger Street Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant or aligned with crossing. Missing curb ramp on south side of intersection . Curb Ramp Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Consider realignment of existing curb ramps on north side for improved alignment with crosswalks. Install new curb ramps on south side. Issue: Crosswalk is across S Ballinger is unmarked. Existing crosswalks are not high Crosswalk visible markings . Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Remark existing crosswalk with high-visibility markings. Issue : Five lan e typica l section creates lo ng crossing distance for mid -block Other Crossing Characteri stics crossing . Crossing may be difficult for drivers to anticipate. Th ere is insuffici ent lightin g at the crossings . Recommendation : Install median crossing island. Install in -s treet pedes trian crossing sign. In sta ll advance pede strian warning sign s. Install /upgrade lighting. Issue : Sidewalks are narrow and lack buffer on northwest corne r of intersection. Sidewalk Recommendation: Reconstruct sidewalk to wider or install buffer from roadway. 7t h Avenue and S Summit Avenue 7t h Avenue is a signalized intersection. S Summit Avenue is a side stop-controlled intersection. This intersection is 25 feet from the 7 th Ave signalized intersection. S Summit Avenue is a low volume four-lane road serving some freight traffic. Table 97: 7th Avenue & S Summit Avenue Intersection Recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant or aligned with crossing. Missing curb ramp on south side of inte rsection . Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair exis ting curb ram ps . Cons i der rea li gnment of existing curb ramps on north side for improved alignment with crosswalks . Install new curb ramps on south side. Issue: Crosswalk is across S Summit Ave is unmarked . There is no crosswalk on the western side of 7 t h Ave across Pennsylvania Ave because of the gas station's driveway. 92 fOR T WORTII ----..,..-- 205 0 Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Remark existing crosswalk with high-visibility markings. Issue: There is long crossing distance and intersection distance given the proximities of these two streets and wide access for gas station. There is concern about lack of driver Other Crossing yielding. No pedestrian signal. Pedestrian signal not on auto recall. Characteristics Recommendation : Install curb radius reduction on northside, may require modeling freight turning movements. Evaluate pedestrian crossing time. Implement LPL Put pedestrian signal on auto recall. Issue: Sidewalks lack sufficient buffer. Sidewalks to the northeast of the intersection are Sidewalk narrow and feature not buffer. Buffer may not be feasible or be limited due to obstructions. Recommendation : Reconstruct sidewalk to wider or install buffer from roadway. Issue: Gas station on northeast side of these intersections features multiple wide access Access points. There multiple driveways increase potential conflict between motor vehicle Management drivers and pedestrians/bicyclists. Recommendation : Consolidate driveways and provide an accessible pedestrian route. 8 th Avenue This is a signalized intersection. There is a bus shelter on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue between S Summit and 8th Avenues. It is recommended to improve the bus stop on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue. There is no existing crosswalk or pedestrian crossing movement permitted on the south side of this intersection across 8th Avenue. Tabl e 98 : 8th Avenue Interse ction Recomm endations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Crosswalk Issue : Missing curb ramp on southwest corner. Curb ramps on northwest corner are narrow and appear to not be ADA compliant. Pedestrian signal pole and power pole limit ramp adjustment on this corner. Recommendation: Install new curb ramp on southwest corner. Consider relocating poles and reconstructing ramp on northwest corner. Issue: Crosswalk is unmarked on west side of intersection . Existing crosswalk marking on north side and stop bar are faded . There are no yield markings for the right turn slip lane. 93 FoRT WoRTH --.,...------ 205 0 Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Remark existing crosswalk with high-visibility markings. Remark stop bar. Ins tall new yield markings for slip lane. Issue: There is long crossing distance and concern about lack of driver yielding. Right slip turb lane allows for high-speed turning. There is insufficient space for pedestrians waiting to cross due to obstacles and narrow sidewalks . Signal timing results in relatively lon g delays for pedestrians. Long queues were observed for southbound lefts onto Pennsylvania Ave, which may cause risky behavior Other Crossing endangering pedestrians crossing on the eastern crosswalk . There is inadequate Characteristics crossing time for east-west pedestrian movements. Pedestrian pushbuttons are difficult to access. Recommendation: Prohibit Right Turn On Red . In stall curb radius reduction or alternative design of right turn slip lane . Remove obstacle or widen standing space to improve comfort or safety or pedestrians waiting to cross. Put pedestrian signals on auto recall. Implement LPI. Consider full signal retiming . Issue: Sidewalk on raised island on southeast corner are narrow. Sidewalks on Sidewalk northwest corner are narrow and have moderate cross slopes. They also have some tire marks. Recommendation: Reconstruct sidewalk to wider or install buffer from roadway. Issue : When traffic is dense, vehicles move along 8th Ave at normal speeds . Speed Management However, when less traffic is present higher speeds were observed . Recommendation: Dependent on traffic volumes, study road for road diet. Issue: The southwest corner of the intersection has driveway access in/at the Access Management intersection. This creates risk for motorists as well as pedestrians. Recommendation : Consider relocating access to Pennsylvania Ave only instead. Recommendation Implementation Table Table 99 below summarizes the full list of corridor and intersection recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that reflects whether the recommendation is an ideal Short-(1-3 years), Mid-(3-5 years), or Long-(S+ years) term projects, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit, and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. 94 FoRT Woim , ---.,..-- 205 0 FORT WORTH --.,.-- 205 0 Table 99: Recommended countermeasures for Pennsylvania Avenue corridor Estimated Estimated Timeframe Location Recommendation CMF Implementation Cost Install Detectab le Intersection --$1,000.00 Warning Strips Intersection Install Rectangu lar Rapid 0.40 $60,044.00 Flashing Beacon Intersection Imp lement leading 0 .87 $26,880.00 pedestrian intervals Short Intersection Install Pedestrian Signs --$114,288.51 (1-3 years) Install advance signal, 0.75 $40,000.00 Intersection stop or yie ld signs Intersection Insta ll Yield Bar --$300,000.00 Intersection Instal l Stop Bar --$1 ,200.00 Intersection Insta ll /refresh high- 0.90 $53,313 .00 visibility crosswalks Segment Consolidate access points --$100.00 Segment Install additional lighting 0 .51 $1,700.00 Segment Install buffered bike lanes 0.47 $270,500.00 Install continuous Segment 0 .35 $233,315.62 sidewa lks Intersection Modify Curb Geometrics --$24,930.00 Medium Insta ll median pedestrian Intersection 0 .68 $5,744.00 (3-5 years) refuge Insta ll Pedestrian Intersection --$1,500.00 Pushbutton Intersection Install pedestrian signal $570.00 -- heads Intersection Reconfigure ramps to 0 .65 $24,160.00 meet ADA Standard Long Remove Slip Lane $231,000.00 Intersection -- (5+ years) To t al: $1,390,245.1 3 95 Benefit-Cost Analysis The estimated cost-benefit result for Pennsylvania Avenue is 30.90 (Table 100). Table 101 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type and Table 102 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resulting from the implementation of the proposed safety countermeasures . Table 100: Penn sylvania Avenue Corridor -Final Cost-Benefit Ratio Table 101: Cost Results for Penn sylvania Avenue Corridor Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost Install Detectable Warning $500.00 2.00 25 $1,000.00 - Strips Install Rectangular Rapid $15,011 .00 4 .00 10 $7 ,304.40 $60,044.00 Flashing Beacon Consolidate access points $6,720.00 4 .00 25 -$26,880.00 $1,852 ,000. Remove Slip Lane 00 0.06 25 -$114,288.51 Install Curb Radius $10,000.00 4.00 25 -$40,000.00 Reduction Curb Extension $10,000.00 30.00 25 -$300,000.00 Impl ement lea ding $200.00 6.00 10 $120.00 $1,200.00 pedestrian intervals Install additional lighting $5,331.30 10.00 15 $2,765.65 $53,313.00 Install Pedestrian Sig ns $100.00 1.00 6 $15.00 $100.00 Install advance signal, stop $100.00 17.00 6 $255.00 $1,700.00 or yield signs Install buffered bike lanes $270,500.00 1.00 4 $67,625 .00 $270,500.00 Install continuous sidewalks $134.86 1730.00 10 $23 ,331.56 $233,315.62 Install Yi e ld Bar $30 .00 11.00 4 $82 .50 $330.00 Install median pedestrian refuge $4,100.00 6.00 25 -$24,600.00 96 F0RTW0 RTH -.,..-- 2 05 0 FoRTWoRTH --.,..-- 205 0 Install Pedestrian $1,436 .00 4.00 Pushbutton 10 $574.40 $5,744.00 Install pedestrian signal $1,500.00 1.00 heads 10 $150.00 $1,500.00 Install Stop Bar $30.00 19.00 4 $142.50 $570.00 Install/refresh high-visibility $16.00 1510.00 4 $6 ,040.00 $24,160.00 crosswalks Reconfigure ramps to meet $3,500.00 66 .00 25 $231,000.00 - ADA Standard $108,406.01 $1,390,245 .1 Total 3 Lifecycle Cost (20 years) $3,558,400 Table 102: Benefit Results for Pennsylvania Avenue Corridor Crash Severity Prevention # of Crashes Total Benefit Benefit 3 * Prevented K -Fatal $3,700,000 0 $0 A -Severe Injury $3,700,000 21 $77,700,000 B -Non -Incapacitating or Suspected $520,000 62 $32,240,000 Minor Injury Total Benefit: $109,940,000 3 Cost obtain e d from TxDOT 20 21 SIi Calculator ZEfflH i 97 Corridor 7: S Beach Street S Beach Street runs north to south between Avenue H and Mitchell Boulevard . It is on the Motor Vehicle HIN . Context S Beach Street functions as a major arterial corridor. Sycamore Park and Polytechnic Senior High School are located just north of this study area. The roadway consists of four to five lanes with a median between Avenue I and Mitchell Blvd. There are continuous sidewalks present on both sides of the road. The corridor is approx imately 0.22 miles in length . The speed limit on the corridor is 40 mph. It is signed as a commercial delivery route . The typical pavement width ranges from 62 to 83 feet (including median width), while the right-of-way width is approximately 92 to 115 feet. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this corridor is 10,088, according to the 2022 TPP Statewide Traffic Count Map. Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the S Beach Street corridor to understand the contributing factors and identify focus areas for countermeasures. From 2019 to 2023, 66 total crashes occurred on S Beach Street between Avenue H and Mitchell Boulevard . About 32 % of crashes occurred at dusk or night. There was one crash involving a motorcycle which was a KSI crash. There was one fatal crash that happened at Mitchell Boulevard. Figure 19 shows the spatial distribution of crashes in the S Beach Street corridor. Table 103 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the Ellis Avenue corridor. Table 104 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports for Ellis Avenue. Table 105 summarizes the KSI crashes (three) that occurred on this corridor. Table 103: S Beach Street Collision Manner, if noted Intersection One Motor Opposite Same Angle Crash Total (Closest reported) Vehicle Direction Direction AVENUE H ---1 1 1 3 AVENUE I 1 ---------1 AVENUEJ 3 ---4 ---7 MITCHELL BLVD 15 1 1 7 24 98 FORT WORTJI --..,.------ 2 050 f 0RTW0RTH --...,.-- 205 0 (OTHER / 9 ---17 5 31 UNKNOWN) TO TAL 28 2 23 13 66 Tab le 104: S Beach Street Top 5 Contributing Factors Contributing Factor Number of Crashes Driver Inattention 13 Disregard Stop And Go Signal 13 None 12 Failed To Control Speed 12 Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Turning Left 9 Table 105 : S Beach Street KS/ Crashes Summary Intersection Intersection Collision Manner Contributing Factors Type MITCHELL Angle; One Straight-One Left BLVD Signalized Turn (motorcycle crash) None MITCHELL Angle; One Straight-One Left Disregard Stop And Go Signal ; Signa lized Turn (fatal crash) Speeding -Overlimit BLVD MITCHELL Same Direction; One Straight-Distraction In Vehicle ; Failed To BLVD Signalized One Stopped Control Speed 99 S Beach St Cra shes Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Ot her Crashes Cras h Density Lower Higher Corri dor 500 ,.ooott 0 ,·ooLE ----------------1--------------+------------, DESIGN Figure 19: Crash map of the S Beach Street corridor FORT WORTH -..,.-- 2 0 50 100 Field Observations and Recommendations In November 2024, project team members conducted field observations of the corridor to obtain a better understanding of the existing operations and challenges. These observations are grouped into two categories: corridor-focused and intersection -focused . Corridor-Focused Recommendations The following field observations were made along Beach Street. These observations pertain to the entirety of the corridor and are not segment-specific, unless otherwise noted. Speed Management S Beach Street is striped for four lanes with unmarked on-street parking on either side of the road. The wide road design, especially at times of low traffic, encourages higher travel speeds. Very few cars street parked on the corridor. • It is recommended that the corridor be studied for a road diet, narrowing the cross- section from four lanes to three, with protected bike lanes either side. • If necessary, there is space for a parking lane as well , although it is recommended that the space be used for sidewalk buffer. • Curb extensions and/or median refuge islands are recommended at key crossing locations and stop-controlled intersections to help shorten crossing distance and improve pedestrian visibility. • In the short term, in the absence of a road diet, it is recommended that speed feedback signs be installed to discourage speeding. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrians currently need to cross four lanes of traffic without refuge . • It is recommended to install curb extensions and a median refuge island with in-street pedestrian crossing sign at key crossing locations. There are few opportunities to cross S Beach Street, except at signalized intersections. With the recommended road diet, there will be more opportunities for mid-block crosswalks as well as at intersections. Sidewalks along the corridor frequently lack buffer between the road and the sidewalk . With the width of the street, it is feasible to bring in the curb and provide buffer. 101 f ORTWORTH ---..,.-- 2050 Figure 20: Wide roadway and sidewalk without buffer Bicycle Facilities The route is a designated bike route , however, bicycle facilities did not exist along S Beach Street. To ensure bicycle safety along the corridor, • It is recommended that buffered bicycle lanes be installed along the corridor. The extra right-of-way from a potential road diet can be repurposed into directional bike lanes with vertical delineation. Conversely, the roadway can be narrowed , and the bike lanes can be sidewalk-level or the sidewalks can be widened to create a shared use path . Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along S Beach Street: Avenue H This is a side stop-controlled intersection. There are curb ramps on all corners except the northwest corner. All four corners are single-family homes . 102 F0R T W0RHI ---.,.-- 2050 V *) ~ ZEfflH I Table 106: Avenue H intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Existing curb ramps are ADA compliant. There is no curb ramp in the northwest corner. Curb ramp Recommendation : In stall curb ramp on the northwest corner. Install directional ramps to cross S Beach Street. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bars are unmarked. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. Mark stop bars on the controlled legs. Other Crossing Issue : There is no safe way to cross S Beach Street from Avenue H . Characteristics Recommendation : Install median crossing island on S Beach Street. Issue : The sidewalk along S Beach Street on the northwest corner lacks buffer from the roadway. There are no sidewalks along Avenue H west of the Sidewalk intersection. Recommendation : Narrow the roadway to provide buffer for sidewalk. Construct sidewalks along Avenue H. Avenue I This is a side stop-controlled tee intersection. There are curb ramps on both corners. There is a single-family home on the northeast corner, an apartment building on the southeast corner, and a medical center on the west edge of the intersection. Table 107: Avenue I intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Existing curb ramps are ADA compliant. There are no receiving ramps on the Curb ramp east side of the road. There isn't a directional ramp for the crossing across Avenu e I. Recommendation : Install receiving curb ramps . Install directional ramps to cross Avenue I. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bars are unmarked. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. Mark stop bars on the controlled leg. Other Crossing Issue : There is no safe way to cross S Beach Street from Avenue I. Characteristics Recommendation: Install median crossing island on S Beach Street. 103 F0RTW0RTII --....,.....- 2 0 50 Sidewalk Avenue J Issue: The sidewalk along S Beach Street on the northeast corner lacks buffer from the roadway. There is some vegetation growing on the sidewalk in the northeast corner. Recommendation: Narrow the roadway to provide buffer for sidewalk. Clean vegetation from sidewalk. This is a signalized intersection. There are curb ramps on the northwest and northeast corners . There is an apartment building on the northeast corner, the Uplift Meridian Preparatory Academy is on the southeast corner, a used car dealership on the southwest corner, and a medical center on the northwest corner. Figure 21 : Long vehicle queue spills over into the roadway for school pick-up ©Google, Inc. Figure 22: Transmission pole blocking the sidewalk 104 f0R TW0lml ~ 205 0 F0RTW0RTI I ----..----- 20 50 Table 108: Avenue J intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : There are curb ramps on the northwest and northeast corners. The curb ramp on the northeast corner is ADA compliant, although it points toward the center of the intersection. The curb ramp on the northwest corner is not ADA Curb ramp compliant. Recommendation: Replace northwest corner curb ramp. Consider replacing northeast corner diagonal curb ramp with directional ramps. Install curb ramps where they are missing on the southern corners and to cross the southwest corner slip lan e. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked on the north, south, and east legs. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north south and east legs. Install new high-visibility crosswalks across slip lanes if they are to remain. Issue : Pedestrian signals are not on auto recall on Beach Street crossings. Crossings are very wide . Vehicles move very fast and do not yield in the right turn Other Crossing slip lanes. Characteristics Recommendation: Place pedestrian signals on auto reca ll. In stall median islands on Beach Street. Remov e right turn slip lan es. If infeasible , adjust geometry to control speeds . Issue: There is no sidewalk on the southwest corner. The sidewalk on the southeast corner is obstructed by a transmission pole. Sidewalk Recommendation: Construct sidewalk on the southwest corner. Relocate transmission pole and reconstruct sidewalk. If relocation is not feasible , reconstruct the sidewalk to avoid the transmission pole. Issue : The Uplift Meridian Preparatory Academy is not served by pedestrian routes and only allows motor vehicles to access through the gates , leading to long vehicle Access queues that back up into the roadway. Management Recommendation: Work with the school to allow pedestrian access to drop-offs and pick-ups. Install RRFB, pedestrian refuge island, curb ramps, and other crossing treatments to facilitate a direct mid-block crossing from the new apartment building on Avenue J to the school. 105 M itche l l Bo ul eva rd This is a signalized T intersection. There are curb ramps at all corners of the intersection, except the southwest corner. There is a used car dealership on the northeast corner, a catholic church on the southeast corner, and a car service shop and convenience store on the western edge. There have been three KSI crashes at this intersection , one of which was fatal. Figure 23: Pedestrians forced to walk in the grass Figure 24: Memorial to Sharon Haley, who was fatally injured in a crash at this intersection in 2019 106 FoRTWORTII ~ 205 0 Tabl e 109: Mitchell Boule vard inters ection recommendation s Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue: There is no curb ramp on the southwest corner of the intersection. Recommendation: Install curb ramp . Crosswalk Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked on the south leg. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on the south leg. Other Crossing Issue: Lon g crossing distances. Characteristics Recommendation: Install median crossing islands where feasible. Issue: There is no sidewalk on the southeast corner or the west side of the Sidewalk intersection Recommendation: Construct sidewalk on the southeast corner and west side. Access Issue : Th ere are multiple driveways near the inte rsec tion . Management Recommendation: Consolidate driveways. Recommendation Implementation Table Table 110 below summarizes the full list of corridor and intersection recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the S Beach Street corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that reflects whether the recommendation is an ideal Short-(1-3 years), Mid-(3-5 years), or Long-(5+ years) term projects, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit, and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Construction, engineering, and contingency are included in these costs. All assumptions are detailed in the Toolkit. Tabl e 110: Recommended countermeasures for S Beach Stre et corridor Timeframe Location Recommendation Estimated Estimated CMF Cost Intersection Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing 0.40 $30,022.00 Beacon Segment Install dynamic speed feedback $400.00 Short 0.95 (1-3 years) signage Intersection Install Stop Bar --$240.00 Intersection Install/refresh high-visibility 0.90 $14,656.00 crosswalks Medium Segment Consolidate access points --$20,160.00 107 fORTWORTH -....,.-- 2 0 50 (3-5 years) Intersection Modify curb geometrics --$100,000.00 Segment Install buffered bike lanes 0.47 $57 ,225 .09 Segment Install sidewalks 0.35 $128,121.29 Intersection Install median pedestrian refuge 0.68 $28,700.00 islands Intersection Reconfigure curb ramps to meet 0.65 $77,000.00 ADA Standard Total: $456,524.39 Benefi t -Cost Analysis The estimated cost-benefit result for S Beach Street is 17.04 (Table 111). Table 112 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type and Table 113 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resulting from the implementation of the proposed safety countermeasures . Table 111 : S Beach Street Corridor -Final Cost -Benefit Ratio ~·l1IM~El·EiEEiif.iil·~ $20,060,000 $1 ,177,100 17.04 Table 112: Cost Results for S Beach Street Corridor Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost Install Rectangular Rapid $15,011 $30,022.00 $4,302.20 2.00 10 Flashing Beacon Consolidate access points $6,720 3.00 25 $20,160.00 - Curb extension $10,000 10.00 25 $100,000.00 - Install buffered bike lanes $270,500 0.21 4 $57,225.09 $14,306.27 Install continuous sidewalks $134.86 950.00 10 $128,121 .29 $12,812.13 Install median pedestrian refuge $4,100 7.00 25 $28,700.00 - Install dynamic speed feedback $200 $400.00 $600.00 2.00 10 signage Install Stop Bar $30 8.00 4 $240.00 $60.00 108 F0RTW0RTI I ----..,-.-- 2050 FORT WORTII --..,.-- 2 050 Install /refresh high-visibility $16 $14,656.00 $3 ,664.00 916.00 4 crosswalks Reconfigure ramps to meet ADA $3 ,500 $77,000.00 22 .00 25 - Standard Total $456 ,524.39 $35 ,744.60 Lifecycle Cost (20 years) $1,177,100 Table 113: Benefit Results for S Beach Street Corridor Crash Severity Prevention Benefit # of Crashes Total Benefit Prevented K -Fat al $3 ,700,000 0 $0 A -Severe Injury $3 ,700,000 5 $18,500,000 B -Non -In ca paci t ating o r Su specte d $5 2 0 ,000 3 $1 ,560,000 Mino r Inju ry Total Benefit: $20,060,000 109 Corridor 8: Sharonda le Street Sharondale Street runs east to west between 6 t h Avenue and James Avenue. It is on the Bicycle HIN. Context Sharondale Street functions as a residential corridor. The roadway consists of two lanes with unmarked on-street parking on both sides . There are no sidewalks present. The corridor is approximately 0.28 miles in length. There is no posted speed limit on Sharondale Street. The typical pavement width ranges from 26 to 28 feet, while the right-of-way width is approximately 50 feet. Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the Sharonda le Street corridor to understand the contributing factors and identify focus areas for countermeasures . From 2019-2023, 22 total crashes occurred on Sharonda le Street between 6t h Avenue and James Avenue . About 32 % of crashes occurred at dusk or night. There were two crashes involving a bicycle , one was a KSI crash which occurred at Hampsted St. Figure 25 shows the spatial distribution of crashes in the Sharondale Street corridor. Table 114 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the Ellis Avenue corridor. Table 115 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports of crashes on Ellis Avenue. Table 116 summarizes the KSI crashes (two) that occurred on this corridor. Tab le 11 4: Sharondale Street Collision Manner, if no t ed Intersection One Motor Opposite Same Angle Crash Total (Closest reported) Vehicle Direction Direction 6th AVENUE 1 ---------1 EDNEY ST ---1 ---1 2 HAMSTED ST 1 3 ------4 JAMES AVE 4 2 1 8 15 TOTAL 6 6 1 9 22 110 F0RTW0RTII -----...,.--- 205 0 FOR T WORHI --.,.-- 205 0 Table 115 : Sharonda/e Street Top 5 Contributing Factors Contributing Factor Number of Crashes None 7 Driver Inattention 5 Other 3 Failed To Control Speed 3 Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Stop Sign 2 Table 116: Sharonda/e Street KS/ Crashes Summary Intersection Intersection Type Collision Manner Contributing Factors One Motor Vehicle ; HAMPSTED ST Side Stop- Controlled Going Straight (bicycle Other; Impaired Visibility crash) Main (Sharondale Opposite Direction; JAMES AVE Other St) Stop-Controlled Both Going Straight VS ~ ZEffl01 111 Sharondale St Crashes e Fatal and SEnous Injury Crashes • Other Crashes Crash Density en :c > ::a 0 z C > r m Cf.) -I Figure 25: Crash map of the Sharonda/e Street corridor Field Observations and Recommendations f I In Novem ber 2024, proj ect team members conducted field observations of the corridor to obtain a better understanding of the existing operations and challenges. These observations are grouped into two categories : corridor-focused and intersection -focused . 112 FoRTW011.rn ---...,.-- 2050 VI * ~ ZEfflH I Corridor-Focused Recommendations The following field observations were made along Sharonda le Street. These observations pertain to the entirety of the corridor and are not segment-specific, unless otherwise noted. There is no posted speed limit along Sharondale Street. There is a moderate amount of parallel parking along the corridor. Pedestrian Facilities There were no sidewalks observed along Sharondale Street. Poor sight l ines caused by on -street parking create conditions that may decrease the likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians . • To improve pedestrian connectivity, it is recommended that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the street. • It is recommended that traffic calming measures , such as bump outs and curb extensions , be added at corners and other pedestrian crossings, to improve pedestrian visibility and vehicle sight lines . These cu r b extensions will also formali ze designated on -street parking areas and provide a visual narrowing of the street to calm traffic. Bicycle Facilities Because of the surrounding residential land use , observed low speed along the corridor, and presence of on-street parking, it is recommended to treat the corr idor as a bike boulevard and install sharrow pavement markings. Figure 26: Vi ew down Sharonda /e Street , showing wide , clear space and vehicles obstructing sight lines 113 FOR T WORTH ---.,..-- 2050 Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along Sharondale Street: 6th Avenue This is an all way stop -controlled tee intersection with no sidewalks or ramps. There are single- family houses on each of the southern corners and along the northern edge. Table 117: 6th Avenue inter section recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue : Curb ramps are not present. Recommendation : Install curb ramps. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bars are faded or missing. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install stop bars. Assess need for high-visibility crosswalks as needed to facilitate crossings and encourage motor vehicle yielding Issue : There is concern about lack of driver yielding. Parked cars obstruct sight Other Crossing lines . Characteristics Recommendation : Install curb extensions on all corners. Restrict pa r king in advance of crosswalk Edney Street Th is is a side stop-controlled T intersection with no sidewalks or ramps. There are single-family houses on each of the southern corners and along the northern edge . Table 118: Edney Street intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue : Curb ramps are not present. Recommendation : Install curb ramps . Issue : Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bar for Edney Stre et is faded or missing. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install stop bar on Edney Street. Assess need for high-visibility crosswalks as needed to facilitate crossings and encourage motor vehicle yielding Other Crossing Issue: There is concern about lack of driver yielding. Parked cars obstruct sight lines . Recommendation : Install curb extensions on all corners. Restrict parking in advance of Characteristics crosswalk. Study intersection for all-way stop . Sidewalk Issue: Sidewalks exist along Edney Street, but do not extend to the intersection. Recommendation : Extend sidewalks and add curb ramps. 114 F0RTW0Rnl --.y---- 2 0 50 Hamsted Street This is a side stop-controlled tee intersection with no sidewalks or ramps. There are single -family houses on each of the southern corners and along the northern edge. There was a KSI crash at this intersection. Table 119: Hamsted Street intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue: Curb ramps are not present. Recommendation : Install curb ramps. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bar for Hamsted Street is faded or missing. Crosswalk Recommendation : Install stop bar on Hamsted Street. Assess need for high- visibility crosswalks as needed to facilitate crossings and encourage motor vehicle yielding Issue : Th ere is concern about lack of driver yielding. Parked cars obstruct sight Other Crossing lines . Characteristics Recommendation : Install curb extensions on all corners . Restrict parking in ad vanc e of crosswalk . Study intersection for all-way stop . James Avenue This is a main (Sharondale St) stop -controlled T intersection with sidewalks and ramps along James Avenue. There are single-family houses on each of the eastern corners and the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah 's Witnesses on the eastern edge. There was a KSI crash at this intersection. Table 120: James Ave intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb Ramp Issue: Curb ramps are not present. Recommendation: Install curb ramps . Issue : Crosswalks are unmarked. Stop bar for Sharondale Street is faded or Crosswalk missing. Recommendation: Install stop bar on Sharondale Street. Install high-visibility crosswalk across Sharondale Street on the east leg. Other Crossing Issue : There is concern about lack of driver yielding. Parked cars obstruct sight Characteristics lines . 115 FORT WORTII --.,.--- 2 050 Recommendation: Install curb extensions corners on east leg. Restrict parking in advance of crosswalk. Issue: Sidewalks on James Ave lack sufficient buffer from roadway. Sidewalks Recommendation: Reconstruct sidewalks to provide buffer or narrow roadway to add buffer. Recommendation Implementation Table Table 121 below summarizes the full list of corridor and intersection recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the Sharonda le Street corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that reflects whether the recommendation is an ideal Short-(1-3 years}, Mid-(3-5 years), or Long-(5+ years) term project, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Construction , engineering, and contingency are included in these costs . All assumptions are detailed in the Toolkit. Table 121 : Recommended countermeasures for Sharondale Street corridor Timeframe Location Recommendation Estimated Estimated CMF Cost Install Pedestrian Crosswalk (High- Short Intersection 0 .9 $1 ,920.00 (1 -3 years) Visibility) Intersection Install Stop Bar --$180.00 Medium Segment Install Sidewalks 0.35 $194,737.84 (3-5 years) Intersection Reconfigure Curb Ramps to meet 0.65 $28,000.00 ADA Standard Intersection Modify Curb Geometrics --$140,000.00 Total: $364.837.84 Benefit-Cost Analysis The estimated cost-benefit result for Sharondale Street is 22.07 (Table 122). Table 123 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type and Table 124 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resulting from the implementation of the proposed safety countermeasures . 116 FORTWORTI I --.,...---- 2 050 fORTWORTH --,.--- 20 50 Table 122: Sharondale Street Corridor -Final Cost-Bene(lt Ratio ~Hilf~M ■,&i&Miil·~ $16 ,880,000 $764,900 22 .07 Table 123: Cost Results for Sharondale Street Corridor Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost $140,000.0 Curb extension $10 ,000 14 25 - 0 Install continuous $134.86 I $194,737.8 1444 LF 10 $19,473.78 sidewalks LF 4 Install Stop Bar $30 6 4 $180 .00 $45 .00 Install/refresh high- $16 I LF 120 LF 4 $1 ,920.00 $480.00 visibility crosswalks Reconfigure ramps to $3 ,500 8 25 $28,000.00 - meet ADA Standard Total $364.837.8 $19 ,998.78 4 Lifecycle Cost (20 years) $3,558,400 Table 124: Benefit Results for Sharondale Street Corridor Crash Severity Prevention # of Crashes Total Benefit Benefit 1* Prevented K -Fatal $3 ,700,000 0 $0 A -Severe Injury $3 ,700,000 4 $14,800,000 B -Non -Incapacitating or Susp ected $520,000 4 $2 ,080,000 Minor Injury Total Benefit: $16,880,000 1 Cost obtain ed from Tx DOT 2021 SIi Calculator 117 Corridor 9: Sycamore School Road Sycamore School Road runs east to west between South Freeway and W Everman Parkway. It is on the Bicycle HIN, Pedestrian HIN, and Motor Vehicle HIN. Context Sycamore School Road functions as a residential , minor arterial corridor. Hallmark Park is located mid -way on this corridor between the bridge over Sycamore Creek and an at -grade railroad crossing. There is some commercial use as well as residential use. The roadway consists of four lanes. There is a sidewalk on the south side that runs approximately to the Creek, and another sidewalk on the north side that starts at Hemphill Street and runs to W Everman Parkway. This corridor is signed as a commercial delivery route. The corridor is approximately 1.4 miles in length . The speed limit on the corridor is 35 mph . The typical pavement width ranges from 40 to 42 feet. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this corridor is 16,016, according to the 2022 TPP Statewide Traffic Count Map. There is a potential project on Hemphill Street from W Risinger Road to Sycamore School Road to design and construct a four-lane divided arterial. This intersection is already signalized with turn lan es and a four-lane approach on Hemphill Street. Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the Sycamore School Road corridor to understand the contributing factors and identify focus areas for countermeasures . From 2019 to 2023, 292 crashes occurred on Sycamore School Road between South Freeway and W Everman Parkway. About 32% of crashes occurred at dusk or night. There were two crashes involving a bicycle, one resulted in a fatality which occurred at Hemphill Street. There were three crashes involving a motorcycle, two of which were KSI crashes . There were four crashes involving a pedestrian , two of which were KSI crashes. There were three fatalities on this corridor: one at Sheridan Road, one at Trimble Drive, and one occurring at Hemphill Street. Figure 27 shows the spatial distribution of crashes in the Sycamore School Road corridor. Table 125 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the Ellis Avenue corridor. Table 126 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports of crashes on Ellis Avenue . Table 127 summarizes the KSI crashes (10) that occurred on this corridor. 118 FoRT Wom 1 -....,.-- 2050 foRTWORTII ---.----- 2 0 50 Table 125 : Sycamore School Road Collision Manner, if noted Intersection One Motor Opposite Sarne Angle Crash Total (Closest reported) Vehicle Direction Direction SOUTH FWY 7 3 9 ---22 SHERIDAN RD 12 3 10 1 10 CHANTILLY LN 1 ---------3 REGENCYLN 2 ---2 ------ ROCKDALE RD 6 1 6 ---5 COLFAX LN 2 ---------4 NATALIE DR 1 ---3 ---1 TRIMBLE DR 3 ---7 ---7 SWEET SPARROW DR --------------- HEMPHILL ST 13 8 14 1 25 PEBBLEFORD RD ------------1 ROMNEY RD 1 ---2 ------ WILLOW GLEN CIR 2 ---1 ---3 CAMELOT RD 4 5 29 ---15 MARLBOROUGH DR ------1 ---3 GLADEWATER DR 1 1 ------1 NOVELLA DR ---1 ------4 W EVERMAN PKWY 7 5 4 ---7 (OTHER) ---1 ------1 TOTAL 62 28 88 2 112 Table 126: Sycamore School Road Top 5 Contributing Factors , if noted . Contributing Factor Number of Crashes Driver Inattention* 83 Failed To Control Speed* 59 None* 52 Failed To Yield Right Of Way -Turning Left* 46 Other* 18 119 F0 RTW0RTII ---...........- 20 50 Tabl e 127: Sycamore School Road KS/ Crashes Summary Intersection Intersection Collision Manner Contributing Factors Type One Motor Vehicle ; Going Failed To Control Speed -hit fixed SOUTH FWY Signalized Straight (motorcycle crash) object Same Direction; One Straight-One Left Turn Failed To Yield Right Of Way - SHERIDAN RD Signalized Turning Left (fatality) Failed To Control Speed Angle; Both Going Straight Opposite Direction; One Failed To Yield Right Of Way - ROCKDALE RD Signalized Straight-One Left Turn Turning Left NATALIE DR Side Stop-Opposite Direction; Both Wrong Side -Not Passing; Driver Controlled Going Straight Inattention Side Stop-Opposite Direction ; Both TRIMBLE DR Wrong Side -Not Passing Controlled Going Straight (fatality) One Motor Vehicle; Going Failed To Pass To Right Safely; Straight (pedestrian crash) Changed Lane When Unsafe; Opposite Direction; One Failed To Control Speed HEMPHILL ST Signalized Straight-One Left Turn Failed To Yield Right Of Way - One Motor Vehicle; Going Turning Left Straight (bicycle crash, Pedestrian Failed To Yield Right Of fatality) Way To Vehicle Opposite Direction; One Straight-One Left Turn Failed To Yield Right Of Way - CAMELOT RD Signalized Turning Left One MotorVehicle; Going None Straight (pedestrian crash) MARLBOROUGH Opposite Direction; One Failed To Yield Right Of Way - Side Stop- DR Controlled Straight-One Left Turn Turning Left ; Speeding - (motorcycle crash) (Overlimit); Other Side Stop-One MotorVehicle ; Going Driver Inattention -hit fixed GLADEWATER DR Controlled Straight object 120 = O l U1,lll··••'l'f 1ot1t M i !u1u1u11 .-o.1.11 H l(IUIIJll!Yr Sycamore School Rd Crashes e Fata l 1,nd Serious Injury Crashes Other Crashes Crash Density Lowe, Corridor ~;~~ =::r .. :t \~~;·; ... -::. ~~~7-;•:;::~.~ -~: • (IJ i CIUJITIH~Ullf I 114u.111n,v1 I l .... -'•..'· • : 'I •·. 4 ,,. . ~ . "'· .. ~·FREEWAY f' su.iwlllCTU,lll U IY\ \ 0 I 50 0 1,00011$ ,·ooLE r--+'---t--+---i DES t G H Figure 27: Crash map of the Sycamore School Rd corridor Field Observations and Recommendations In November 2024, project team members conducted in-field observations of the corridor to obtain a better understanding of the existing operations and challenges. These observations are grouped into two categories : corridor-focused and intersection-focused. 121 FOR T WORTH ----..--- 2050 Corridor-Focused Recommendations The following field observations were made along Sycamore School Road . These observations pertain to the entirety of the corridor and are not segment-specific , unless otherwise noted . Speed Management Sycamore School Road is striped for four lanes . The wide road design , especially at times of low traffic volume , encourages higher travel speeds. • It is recommended that the corridor be studied for a road diet. It is recommended that the road be narrowed from a four-lane to three -lane cross -section. • In the short term , in the absence of a road diet, it is recommended that speed feedback signs be installed to discourage speeding . Pedestrian Facilities Intermittent gaps of sidewalk connectivity were observed along the corridor. • It is recommended that gaps in the sidewalk be filled. A road diet will allow for increased sidewalk width and increased buffer space , as well as pl anted buffers and street trees . Bicycle Facilities Sycamore School Road is not designated as a bike route ; however, increased bicycle connectivity can be achieved by widening one of the sidewalks to accommodate a shared use path , if desired. This would be feasible with the extra right-of-way remaining after a road diet. Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along Sycamore School Road: South Freeway This is a signalized interchange with the South Freeway frontage roads . There is a strip mall on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner. There has been a KSI crash at this intersection. Table 128: South Freeway intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb r amp Issue : Curb ramps do not appear to be ADA compliant. Curb ramps are angled toward intersection traffic. 122 fORTWORTII ---..--- 2 050 ZEfflH I Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalk markings are faded Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection . Use bonding agents to increase durability. Issue: Pedestrian signal is not on auto recall. Audible warnings are beeps only and not PROWAG compliant. Pedestrian button on the southeast corner is located too Other Crossing Characteristics far away from curb ramps. Recommendation: Place pedestrian signal on auto recall. Re loc at e southeast corner pedestrian button . Issue : There is no sidewalk along the north side of Sycamore School Road or along South Freeway. Sidewalk under the l-35W freeway ramp is in poor condition. Sidewalks Recommendation : Install sidewalk along the north side of Sycamore School Road and South Freeway. Repair sidewalk under the l -35W to increase pedestrian comfort. Sheridan Road This is a signalized intersection with ramps on all corners. There are single -family homes on the north corners and commercial uses on the south corners. There has been a KSI crash at this intersection , which was fatal. Table 129: Sheridan Road inters ection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps are not ADA compliant. Curb ramp on southeas t corner is Curb ramp angled toward intersection t raffic. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalk markings are present on all approaches except the north approach . Crosswalk markings and stop bar are faded on the south approach. Crosswalk Crosswalk markings are not high-visibility. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. Issue : Audio signal is missing from one actuator on the northeast corner. Other Crossing Pedestrian buttons are difficult to access on the southeastern corner. Pedestrian Characteri stics signal head for southbound pedestrian traffic on the southwestern corner is somewhat obstructed by utility poles . 123 FoRTWom1 ---...--- 2 0 50 Recommendation: Implement LPI. Relocate pedestrian signal or remove obstacle on southwest corner. Relocate pedestrian buttons on the southeast corner. Repair audio signal on northeast corner. Sidewalks Issue : Missing sidewalk on the north side of the intersection. Recommendation : Install sidewalk along the north side of Sycamore School Road . Chantilly Lane This is a side stop-controlled tee intersection with no ramps. The crossings here are unmarked. There are single family homes on the north corners and Estates Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center is along the south edge . Regency Lane This is a side stop-controlled intersection with curb ramps on the south side only. There are single family homes on all four corners. Table 130: Regency Lane intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps are not ADA compliant. Curb ramps on south side are angled toward intersection traffic. Curb ramp Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Construct curb ramps in conjunction with north sidewalk. Issue: No stop bars on side streets. Crossings are unmarked . Crosswalk Recommendation : Mark new stop bars . Repave crosswalk surface area. Mark crosswalks. Sidewalks Issue : Missing sidewalk on the north side of the intersection . Recommendation : Install sidewalk along the north side of Sycamore School Road. Rockdale Road This is a signalized intersection with curb ramps on all but the northwest corner. The crossings are marked with high-visibility markings on the south and east leg and unmarked on the north and west sides. There are single -family homes on all four corners . There has been a KSI crash at this intersection. 124 F0RT W0Rnl ---.,-- 2 0 50 Table 131: Rockdale Road intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps are not ADA compliant. Curb ramp s are angled toward intersection traffic. Curb ramp on southwes t corn e r is obstructed by an electric Curb ramp pole . Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramp s. Relocate electric pol e on southwest corner. Construct curb ramps in conjun ction with north sid ewalk. Issue: Crosswalk markings are present on east and south leg. Crosswalk markings on the south leg are in poor condition. Crossing surface on the south leg is in poor Crosswalk condition. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north, south, and west legs. Repave crosswalk surface area on south leg. Remark stop bar on south leg . Sid ewalks Issue : Miss ing sid ewalk on the north side of the inte rse ction . Recommendation : Install sid ew alk alon g th e north sid e of Sycamore School Ro ad. Colfax Lane This is a side stop -controlled inte rsection with curb ramps on the south corners . The crossings are unmarked. There are single family homes on all four corners. Tabl e 132: Colfax Lane intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps are not ADA compliant. Curb ramps ar e an gled toward inte rs ection traffic. Curb ramp on southwe st corn er i s ob structed by an electric Curb ramp pol e. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair ex isting curb ramps . Relocate electric pol e on southwest corn e r. Construct curb ramp s in conjunction with north sid ewalk. Issue : Crosswalks are unmarked . No stop bar at controlled crossings. Crosswalk Recommendation : Install new high-visi bility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars on side street approaches. Other Crossing Issue : Power pole in the middl e of sidewalk /ramp on the southwest corn er. Characteri stics Recommendation : Relocate power pole. Sidewalks Issue: Missing sidewalk on the north side of the intersection. Recommendation : Install sidewalk along the north side of Sycamore School Road. 125 F0 RTW0RTII ---....--- 205 0 Natalie Drive This is a side stop-controlled intersection with curb ramps on the south corners . The crossings are unmarked. There are single family homes on all four corners. There has been a KSI crash at this inte rsection . Table 133: Natalie Drive intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps are not ADA compliant. Curb ramps are angled toward intersection traffic. Curb ramp on southwest corner is obstructed by an electric Curb ramp pole . Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Relocate electric pole on southwest corner. Construct curb ramps in conjunction with north sidewalk . Issue : Crosswalks are unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossings. Crosswalk Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars on side street approaches . Other Crossing Issue : Power pole in the middle of sidewalk /ramp on the southwest corner. Characteristics Recommendation : Relocate power pole. Sidewalks Issue : Missing sidewalk on the north side of the intersection . Recommendation : Install sidewalk along the north side of Sycamore School Road. Trimble Drive This is a side stop-controlled intersection with curb ramps on the south corners. The crossings are unmarked. There are single family homes on all four corners . Table 134: Trimble Drive intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Crosswalk Issue: Curb ramps are not ADA compliant. Curb ramps are angled toward intersection traffic. Curb ramp on southwest corner is obstructed by an electric pole. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Relocate electric pole on southwest corner. Construct curb ramps in conjunction with north sidewalk . Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. No stop bar at controlled crossings. 126 FORT WORTII ---.,..-- 2 0 50 Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks. Mark new stop bars on side street approaches. Oth e r Crossing Issue : Pow er pol e in the middle of sidewalk /ramp on th e southwest corn er. Ch aract eristics Recommendation : Relocat e power pol e. Sidewalks Issue : Missing sidewalk on the north side of the intersection . Recommendation: Install sidewalk along the north side of Sycamore School Road. Railroad Crossing This is a gate-controlled railroad crossing. There are no sidewalks or ramps . There has been a KSI crash at this intersection. Tabl e 135 : Railroad crossing recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Othe r Crossing Ch aracteristics Sidewalks Hemphill Street Issue : No pedestrian crossing of train tracks. Recommendation : Continue sidewalk throu gh level cro ssing . Includ e det ectab le warning surfac es per PROWAG. Issue: Missing sidewalk on both sides . Recommendation : Install sidewalks. This is a signali zed intersection. There are curb ramps on all four corners. Hemphill Street is on Fort Worth's bond project list as a Tier 2 bond project. This plan calls for conversion to a four- lane d ivided arterial. Care will need to be taken to improve safety at this intersection. There have been two KSI crashes at this interse ction , one of which was fatal. 127 F0RT W0RTII ___,.........- 2050 FORT WORTH ---..,.-- 2050 Figure 28: Desire path through median on south side of intersection. Table 136: Hemphill Street intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps not aligned with crosswalks, specifically the south leg crossing and the northeast corner. Curb ramp Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Construct curb ramps in lin e with south leg crossing. Crosswalk Issue: South leg crosswalk is unmarked Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalk on south leg. Other Crossing Issue : Pedestrian signal not on auto recall. Characteristics Recommendation : Put pedestrian signal on auto recall. Sidewalk Issue: No sidewalk on the south side of the road. Gap in northeast sidewalk. Recommendation : Install sidewalk. 128 Pebbleford Road This is a sid e stop -controlled T inters ection . Th e re are curb ramps on both corners . Table 137: Pebbleford Road intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Crosswa lk Sidewalk Romney Road Issue : Cro ssin g is unmarked. There is no stop ba r at controll ed cros sin g. Recommendation : Mark new stop ba r. Issue: Sidewalk lacks sufficient buffer on the south side. Recommendation : Reconstruct sidewalk to widen buffer from roadway. This is a side stop -controlled te e intersection . There are curb ramps on both corners . Table 138 : Romney Road intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Crosswal k Sidewalk Issue : Cro ss ing is unmarke d. There is no stop bar at controll ed crossin g. Recommendation : Mark new stop ba r. Issue: Sidewalk lacks sufficient buffer on the south side . Recommendation: Reconstruct sidewalk to widen buffer from roadway. Driveway Entrance to Strip Mall This is a driveway entrance to the strip mall with Jonathan 's Stop N ' Save. Th e driveway is extremely wide. It is recommended to narrow the driveway entrance to shorten pedestri an crossing . Camelot Road This is a signalized intersection. There are curb ramps on the northern corners. The Lifeline Church is on the northwest corner, Jimmy's Food Mart is on the northeast corner, and there are single-family homes on the southern corners. This is a crossing point for the Kreative Kids Preparatory Academy. There have been two KSI crashes at this intersection . 129 Fo RTWORTH ----.--- 2 0 50 F0 RTW0RTt l ---.-.--- 205 0 ===---- Figure 29: Inaccessible pedestrian push button on the southwest corner Table 139: Camelot Road intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps not aligned with crosswalks. Curb ramps are not ADA compliant. Curb ramp No curb ramps on the southern corners. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Construct curb ramps with south sidewalk. Issue : North and south leg crosswalks are unmarked, east leg crossing is Crosswalk prohibited. Recommendation : Remove crossing restriction on east leg. Install new high- visibility crosswalks on north, south, and east legs. Issue: Short crossing time . Inaccessib le pedestrian push buttons on southern corners. Concerns with driver turning movements and lack of driver yielding . APS Other Crossing audio signal is missing. Recommendation : Evaluate pedestrian crossing time. Relocate pedestrian push Characteristics buttons to be accessible. Put pedestrian signal on auto recall. Add APS audio signal. Install advance pedestrian warning signs as well as school crossing signs with downward pointing arrows. Issue: No sidewalk on the south side of the road. Sidewalk Recommendation : Install sidewalk. Speed Issue : High speeds along this stretch of the corridor. Recommendation : Install speed feedback signs . Reduce speed limit (may require Management further study). 130 Marlborough Road W This is a side stop-controlled T intersection. There are curb ramps on all corners. There are single- family homes on both corners and along the south edge . There has been a KSI crash at this intersection. Table 140: Marlborough Drive W intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Sid ewalk Gladewater Drive Issue: Curb ramps are only aligned east and west and do not facilitate crossing Sycamore School Road . Recommendation : Reconstruct existing curb ramps to include south direction. Install south side curb ramps in conjunction with south sidewa lk. Issue: No sidewalk on the south side of the road. No sidewalks along Marlborough DriveW. Recommendation: Install sidewalks . This is a side stop-controlled T intersection . There are no curb ramps. There are single-family homes on both corners and along the north edge. There has been a KSI crash at this intersection. Table 141 : Gladewater Drive intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : No curb ramps. Curb ramp Recommendation : Install curb ramps in conjunction with new sid ewalk on south side. Other Crossing Issue : No crosswalk markings across Gladewater Drive. Likely not a suitable candidate for crossing Sycamore School Drive. Characteristics Recommendation : Install crosswalk markings and stop bar on Gladewater Drive. Issue : No sidewalk on the south side of the road. No sidewalks along Gladewater Sidewalk Drive. Obstructions are currently present that may make installation not feasible . Recommendation : In stall sidewalks. Remove or relocate obstructions that present obstacles to sidewalk installation (if necessary). 131 F0RT W0RTI I --.,..--- 2 0 50 Novella Drive This is a side stop-controlled T intersection. There are curb ramps on both corners. There are single -family homes on both corners and a vacant lot on the southern edge. Table 142: Novella Drive intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Other Crossing Characteristics W Everman Pa r kway Issue: Curb ramps are compliant with ADA. There are drainage issues with the curb ramps. Recommendation: Improve drainage from base of the curb ramp. Issue: No stop bar on Novella Drive. Recommendation: Install stop bar on Novella Drive. This is a signalized T intersection. There are curb ramps on each corner. Table 143: W Everman Parkway intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramps are not ADA compliant. Curb ramps that serve crossing W Curb ramp Everman Parkway may not be lega lly used to cross W Everman Parkway. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Issue : There is currently a high visibility crosswalk present across Sycamore School Road on the northeast leg of the intersection. Currently crossing movements are allowed across W Everman Parkway on the northwest leg of the intersection are banned by signage, despite curb ramps into the roadway. Issue: Crossing Crosswalk movements are allowed across W Everman Parkway on the southeast leg, however no crosswalks or curb ramps are provided. Recommendation: Consider marking both the northwest and southeast leg (crossing W Everman Parkway) with high visibility crossing markings . At a minimum, the northwest leg should be marked with high visibility crossing markings and the no crossing signs should be moved to the southeast leg. Issue : Existing pedestrian movement across Sycamore School Road is long and Other Crossing adequate time is not provided for crossing. Pedestrian push button switch on Characteristics north side of the intersection is far away from the cross-section and may be difficult to access . No safe crossing currently available fo r West Everman Parkway 132 f ORT WORTII ----..--- 2 050 at this intersection. The nearest crossing opportunity is at Crowley Road , a quarter mile away. Recommendation : Increase pedestrian crossing time. Review signa l timing to allow for more frequent crossing opportunities. Consider installation of median pedestrian Island . In sta ll protected pedestrian crossings at the intersection for crossing West Everman Parkway, as well as associated signalization and other infrastructure Issue: Adequate sidewalks are available on the northeast corner of the intersection, although there are some obstructions due to electrical box and Sidewalk parking design. Sidewalks on the southeast corner are slightly deteriorated and somewhat overgrown. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair sidewalks. Issue: There are multiple driveways accessing the gas station on the southeast Access corner, creating multiple conflicts for pedestrians and other users in the Management intersection area. Recommendation : Consolidate driveways. Recommendation Implementation Table Table 144 below summarizes the full list of Corridor and Intersection recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the Sycamore School Road corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that reflects whether the recommendation is an ideal Short-(1-3 years), Mid-(3-5 years), or Long-(5+ years) term project, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Construction, engineering, and contingency are included in these costs. All assumptions are detailed in the Toolkit. Table 144: Recommended countermeasures for Sycamore School Road corridor Timeframe Location Recommendation Estimated CMF Estimated Cost Install advance signal, Intersection stop, pedestrian or yield Short 0.75 $800.00 (1-3 years) signs Install Detectable Intersection --$2,000.00 Warning Strips 133 f0RT W0 Rnl --........-- 2050 V * " ZEfflH I Install dynamic speed $30,000.00 Segment 0.95 feedback signage Intersection Implement leading 0.87 $200.0 0 pedestrian interva ls Intersection Install Stop Bar --$480.00 Install Pedestrian Intersection Crosswalk (High -0.9 0 $25,680.0 0 Visibility) Conso lidate access Segment --$20,160.00 points Insta ll Pedestrian Intersection Ref uge Islan ds 0.68 $4,100.00 Insta ll pedestrian signal Medium Intersection heads I Install --$17,360.00 (3-5 years) Pedestria n Pushbutton Segment Install Sidewalks 0.35 $1,424,843 .64 Reconfigure Curb Intersection Ramps to meet ADA 0.65 $248,500.00 Standard Total: $1,774,32 3.64 Benefit-Cost Analysis The estimated cost-benefit resu lt for Sycamore Schoo l Road is 26.56 (Tab le 145).Table 146 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by type and Table 147 summarizes the benefits (dollars) resu lting from the i mp lementation of the proposed safety countermeasures. Table 145: Sycamore School Road Corridor -Final Cost -Benefit Ratio Table 146: Co st Results for Sycamore School Road Corridor S . C . Annual Improvement Type C t (E h) Q ti"t erv,ce onstruction M • t os ac uan y L"f C t am enance 1e os Co~ 134 FoRTW01m1 ---,.--- 2 0 50 F0RTW0RHI -.,.--- 20 50 Imp lement leading $200 1 pedestrian interva ls 10 $200.00 $20.00 Instal l ad vance signa l, st op $100 8 or yi eld signs 4 $8 00.00 $2 00.00 Insta ll Detectable W arning $500 $2 ,000.00 4 25 - Strips Insta ll dynamic spee d $3,00 0 10 10 $3 0 ,0 00.00 $3,000.00 feed back signage Instal l Pedestrian Signs $100 2 6 $200.00 $30.00 Install Stop Bar $30 16 4 $480.00 $12 0 .0 0 Install/refresh high-visibi lity $16 / LF 1,605 LF $25,680.00 $6,420.00 crosswalks Conso lidate access points $6,720 3 25 $20,160.00 - Insta ll continuous sidewa l ks $134.86 I LF 10,565 LF 10 $1,424,843.64 $142,484.36 Instal l median pedestrian refuge $4,100 1 25 $4,1 0 0.00 - Insta ll Pedestrian Pushbutton $1,436 10 10 $14,360.00 $1,436.00 Instal l pedestrian sig nal heads $1,5 00 2 10 $3,000.00 $3 00.00 Reconfig ure ramps to meet $3 ,500 $248,500.00 71 25 - A DA Standard Total $1,744,32 3.64 $154,010.36 Life cycl e Co st (20 ye ars) $4 ,854,600 Table 147: Benefit Results fo r Sycamore School Road Corridor Crash Severity Prevention # of Crashes Total Benefit Benefit 2 * Prevented K -Fata l $3 ,70 0 ,000 5 $18,500,000 A -Severe Injury $3,700,000 21 $77,7 00,0 00 B -Non-Incapacitati ng or Suspected $520,000 $32,760,000 63 Minor Injury Total Benefit: $128,960,000 2 Cost obtained from TxDOT 2021 SIi Calculator 135 ZEfflH I Corridor 10: W Seminary Drive W Seminary Drive runs east to we st b etween 6th Avenue and Rector Avenue . It is on the Pedestrian HIN and Bicycle HIN . Context W Seminary Drive functions as a residential , major arterial corridor. Rosemont Middle School , Rosemont Park , and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are located on the eastern e nd of this corridor. There is an at-grade railroad crossing between William Fleming Court and Frazier Avenue. The roadway consists of four travel lanes and a fifth lane that serves as a center turn lane or median . There are mostly continuous sidewalks on both sides of the road . A Trinity Metro bus route runs on this corridor. The corridor is approximately 1.18 miles in length . The speed limit on the corridor is 35 mph . The typical pavement width, including medians , ranges from 58 to 70 feet. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this corridor is 1 2,770 (west of McCart Ave) and 13,948 Oust wes t of 6th Ave), according to the 2022 TPP Statewide Traffic Count Map. Crash History A crash data analysis was performed for the W Seminary Drive corridor to understand the contributing factors to crashes and identify focus areas for countermeasures. From 2019 to 2023, 176 crashes occurred on W Seminary Drive between 6th Avenue and Rector Avenue . About 32% of crashes occurred at dusk or night. There were two crashes involving a bicycle, both of which were KSI crashes . There were five crashes involving a motorcycle, one of which was a KSI crash. There were three crashes involving a pedestrian , one of which resulted in a fatality. There were two fatalities on this corridor, one at Sandage Avenue and one at McCart Avenue . Figure 30 shows the spatial distribution of crashes in the Sycamore School Road corridor. Table 148 shows the summary of the crash data by collision manner for the Ellis Avenue corridor. Table 149 shows the top five contributing factors as noted in the crash reports of crashes on Ellis Avenue . Table 150 summarizes the KSI crashes (11) that occurred on this corridor. Table 148: W Seminary Drive Collision Manner, if noted 6th AVE 2 3 2 3 10 136 F0R TW0RTII --..-- 2050 F0R T W0RTII ----y-- 205 0 JAMES AVE/ 3t h AVE 12 10 3 ---15 45 WILLIAM FLEMING CT 6 3 2 ---6 17 FRAZIER AVE 5 2 2 2 2 13 WAYSIDE AVE 3 ---------1 4 MCCART AVE 11 5 6 ---22 44 SANDAGE AVE 2 1 2 1 2 3 MERIDAAVE 3 1 2 ------6 LUBBOCK AVE (N + S) 3 4 2 1 ---10 WAITS AVE 2 1 ---------3 GREENE AVE ---2 ---------2 COCKRELL AVE 2 2 ---------4 RECTOR AVE --- ------------ (OTHER) ---7 ---1 2 10 TOTAL 51 41 26 5 53 176 Table 149: W Seminary Drive Top 5 Contributing Factors Contributing Factor Number of Crashes Driver Inattention 43 Failed To Control Speed 43 None 29 Other 15 Failed To Yield Right OF Way -Turning Left 14 Table 150: W Seminary Driver KS/ Crashes Summary Intersection Intersection Type Collision Manner Contributing Factors Opposite Direction ; One Failed To Yield Right Of Way - 6t h AVE Straight-One Left Turn Turning Left; Unsafe Speed Signalized Angle; Both Going Disregard Stop Sign Or Light; Straight Fleeing or Evading Police JAMES AVE/ One Motor Vehicle; Signalized None 3th AVE Going Straight (bicycle) WILLIAM Angle ; Both Going FLEMING CT Signalized Straight Disregard Stop Sign Or Light 137 FoRTWORTtl --,...-- 2050 One Motor Vehicle ; Disregard Stop And Go Signal ; Turning Left (bicycle) Failed To Control Speed One Motor Vehicle; Going Straight None -hit fixed object Side Stop- Opposite Direction; One FRAZIER AVE Controlled Drove Without Headlights Straight-One Left Turn (motorcycle) Same Direction; One Driver Inattention; Failed To Straight-One Stopped Control Speed MCCART AVE Signalized Angl e; Both Going Disregard Stop And Go Signal ; Straight (fatality) Driver Inattention One MotorVehicle; Side Stop- Going Straight SANDAGE AVE None Controlled (pedestrian , fatality) WAITS AVE Sid e Stop-Angl e; Both Going None Controlled Straight 138 I I I \ I '""j "'"" comnL"'"i' ~ GllEMI .t,lrEJi l.l E " Wo\l1S,.VU11 Uf ~£JI.Ill& Avt~U[ • 1 \UUUf s111u1 OOIDC.lrl •~ENUE -r-------J AMES AVE NUE ----- W Seminary Dr \ Cra shes e Fa ta l.an d Ser ious Injury Crashes ' \ • Other Crashes Crush Density ~owe r ---Corridor Higher • J ' • " ~ .. 'J ,., J~ -~ .. ·.:... ,.. : .. '~ •• -:~ ·.-:, .. ' ·: ~-,; : ,,. ..,. .. ,. • • •· ~ .,, • t • ., I Figure 30: Crash map of the W Seminary Dr corridor FO RT WORTH ---..-- 2050 lUl'IOC"<A"ENU[ ----------MCCART /..V EN UE---- TOW~UNI 0J:IV[ 1- ! : UM.AYU.Uli s wo.lUI G.A'i[MU E 61 H A.VE NU E- 0 ,.ooo tt 9 TOOLE 1----,,+--f-=-+---i _ I -D I! SI GN 500 139 Field Observations and Recommendations In November 2024, project team members conducted field observations of the corridor to obtain a better understanding of the existing operations and challenges. These observations are grouped into two categories : corridor-focused and intersection -focused. Corridor-Focused Recommendations The following field observations were made along West Seminary Drive. These observations pertain to the entirety of the corridor and are not segment-specific, unless otherwise noted. Speed Management W Seminary Drive is striped for four lanes with a center median between 6th Avenue and William Fleming Court and striped for five lanes between William Fleming Court and Rector Avenue . The wide road design , especially at times of low traffic, encourages higher travel speeds . With the low traffic volume experienced along this road, • It is recommended that the corridor be studied for a road diet. • It is recommended that the road be narrowed from a four-lane with median/five-lane to a three -lane cross-section. • In the short term , in the absence of a road diet, it is recommended that speed feedback signs be installed to discourage speeding. Pedestria n Facilities There were a few mid -block crossings connecting Rosemont Elementary School and Rosemont Middle School to Rosemont Park. These crossings are long, despite having a refuge island in the middle. • It is recommended to narrow the travel lanes and provide curb extensions to facilitate safer crossing for students . The western crossing also lacks curb ramps , which present a barrier to disabled pedestrians , and pavement markings. These crossings are discussed in depth in the intersection recommendations. • Intermittent gaps of sidewalk connectivity were observed along the corridor. It is recommended that sidewalks are connected where there are gaps. A road diet will allow for increased sidewalk width and increased buffer space , as well as planted buffers and street trees . 140 FORTWORTII --.,.---- 2050 Bicycle Facil ities W Seminary Drive is designated as a bike route; however, there are no bicycle facilities along the corridor. To ensure bicycle safety along the corridor, • It is recommended that buffered bicycle lanes be installed along the corridor. The extra right-of-way from a potential road diet can be repurposed into directional bike lanes . Conversely, the roadway can be narrowed and the bike lanes can be sidewalk-level or the sidewalks can be widened to create a shared use path . Intersection-Focused Recommendations The following observations were made at specific intersections along W Seminary Drive: 6th Avenue This is a signalized intersection. There are curb ramps on all corners. Rosemont Park is on the northwest corner and Rosemont Elementary School is on the southwest corner. There are single- family homes on the northeast and southeast corners. There have been two KSI crashes at this intersection. Ta b le 1 5 1 : 6t h A ven ue in tersec tion recommen dations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue : Curb ramps are not ADA compliant and are misaligned from the crosswalks. Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Issue: Crosswalk is unmarked on north , east, and south legs of the intersection . Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north, east, and south legs of the intersection. Issue: Wide north leg of intersection . Seminary Drive crossing is extremely long. Pedestrian pushbuttons are not accessible . Pedestrian signals are not on auto- Othe r Crossing recall. Characteris tics Recommendation : Install curb extensions and remove right turn lane on north leg. Narrow lanes on Seminary Drive. Relocate pedestrian pushbuttons. Place pedestrian signals on auto-recall and implement LPI. Issue: Northeast sidewalk is missing along 6t h Avenue . Northeast sidewalk along W Sidewalk Seminary Drive is overgrown and too narrow. Recommendation: Install new sidewalk along 6t h Avenue. Reconstruct sidewalk along W Seminary Drive. 141 FORT WORTH ---..,..-- 20 50 Midblock Crossing in Front of Rosemont Middle School There is a midblock RRFB that serves the crossing between Rosemont Middle School and Rosemont Park. The travel lanes on W Seminary Drive are very wide, and thus create long crossings . It is recommended to narrow the travel lanes and install bump outs to shorten the crossing . Planned Midblock Crossing in Front of Rosemont M iddle School This is a sidewalk that is set up for a future mid block crossing between Rosemont Middle School and the tennis courts at Ros e mont Park . It is recommended to implement an RRFB with curb ramps and striping similar to the existing midblock crossing . F0RTW01m 1 --.,.--- 2050 Figure 31 : Midb/ock crossing of W Seminary Drive without curb ramp s or markings 142 James Avenue / 8th Avenue This is a signalized intersection. There are curb ramps at all corners. Rosemont Middle School is on the southeast corner and Rosemont Park is on the northeast corner. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is on the northwest and southwest corners. There has been a KSI crash at this intersection. F0RT W0RTII ---.,..-- 2050 Figure 32: Long cro ss ing across W Seminary Drive on the Ea st Leg of Intersection . Table 152: James Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue: Curb ramps are not ADA compliant and are misaligned from the crosswalks . Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalks are marked on all sides except the east leg. Crosswalk markings are Crosswalk faded on other legs. Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. Issue: Long crossing distances. Insufficient space for pedestrians waiting to cross at northeast corner due to disconnected sidewalk. Insufficient lighting. Pedestrian signal Other Crossing not on auto recall. Characteristics Recommendation: Install median crossing island. Connect sidewalk between ramps on the northeast corner. Relocate ramp crossing 3 th Avenue on the northeast corner. Improve lighting for pedestrian crossings. Place pedestrian signal on auto recall. Issue: Narrow sidewalk on west side of James Avenue, north side of W Seminary Drive Sidewalk east of 3 t h Avenue, and south side of W Seminary Drive west of James Avenue. Recommendation: Widen sidewalks in these areas. 143 William Fleming Court This is a signalized intersection. There are curb ramps on all four corners. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary living quarters are on the north side of the intersection and the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary classrooms are on the south side of the intersection. There is a pedestrian tunnel underneath the intersection that facilitates crossings . There have been two KSI crashes at this intersection. Table 153: William Fleming Court interse ction recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Figure 33: Ped estrian Tunn el Underneath W Seminary Drive Curb ramp Issue : Curb ramps are not ADA compliant and are misaligned from the crosswalks . Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked on north, east, and south sides. South side median Crosswalk interrupts crosswalk. Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north and south sides. Install break in the median . Issue : Long crossing distances. Crossing lacks appropriate signage . Inadequate crossing Other Crossing time. Pedestrian signal not on auto recall. Ped estrian tunnel features steep slopes . Characteristics Recommendation: Install pedestrian crossing signs with downward pointing arrows . Implement LPI. Evaluate pedestrian crossing time. Put pedestrian signal on auto recall. Evaluate walkway slopes in pedestrian tunnel to ensure ADA compliance. Issue: Sidewalk on north side of W Seminary Drive east of William Fleming Court does not have buffer space and pedestrian access route is obstructed by electric poles. Sidewalk Sidewalk is obstructed by pedestrian signal on southwest corner. There is no sidewalk on north side of William Fleming Court. Recommendation : Remove or relocate obstructions. Install sidewalk along William Fleming Court. 144 f0RTW0RHI --.,..-- 20 50 Railroad Crossing This is a railroad crossing. Category Issues and Recommendations Sidewalk s Issue: The sidewalks on th e approach ar e in disrepair and th e crossing is not ADA compliant. Recommendation: re pair th e sid ewalks and in stall ADA compliant cros sin g Frazier Avenue This a side stop -controlled intersection. There are curb ramps on all four corners . Church 's Chicken is on the northeast corner, Carniceria El Paya is on the southeast corner, Jack in the Box is on the southwest corner, and State Inspection Auto Repair is on the northwest corner. There have been two KSI crashes at this intersection. Figure 33 : Bus Stop Bench Obstructing Sidewalk 145 F0R TW0RTII ----...-- 2 050 Table 154: Frazier Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue: Curb ramps are not ADA compliant and are misaligned from the crosswalks . Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north and south legs. Install stop bars on the north and south legs. Issue: Sidewalk on the north side of W Seminary Drive has significant uplifting and Sidewalk cracking. The bus stop bench on the southwest corner is obstructing the sidewalk . Recommendation: Repair damaged sidewalk . Relocate bus stop bench . Issue: Multiple driveways for businesses are located within close proximity of all Access corners of the intersection, presenting increased potential for conflict between Management motorists and other users. Recommendation: Consolidate driveways. Wayside Avenue This is a side stop-controlled intersection. There are curb ramps at each corner. There is an abandoned lot on the northeast corner, a strip mall on the southeast corner, Mariscos Aculpulco on the southwest corner, and a strip mall on the northwest corner. Table 155: Wayside Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue : Curb ramps are not ADA compliant and are misaligned from the crosswalks . Recommendation : Reconstruct or repair ex isting curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north and south legs. Install stop bars on the north and south legs. Issue: Multiple driveways for businesses are located within close proximity of all Access corners of the intersection , presenting increased potential for conflict between Management motorists and other users. Recommendation: Consolidate driveways. 146 F0 RTW0 RTII -...,..- 20 50 Mccart Avenue This is a signalized intersection. There are curb ramps at each corner. There is an auto shop on the northeast corner, gas stations on both of the southern corners, and a strip mall on the northwest corner. There have been two KSI crashes at this intersection, one of which was fatal. Table 156: Mccart Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: Curb ramps are not ADA compliant and are misaligned from the crosswalks. Curb ramp There are obstructions present at the southwest corner. Recommendation: Reconstruct or repair existing curb ramps . Remove or relocate obstructions. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. The stop bars are faded. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on all legs. Install new stop bars on all legs. Issue: There are long crossing distances. There are visual obstructions on the southwest corner. Push button signs are worn. Ped estrian signals are not on auto recall. Push buttons are not accessible on the northwest corner. Freight traffic Other Crossing turning right during conflicting phases take wide turns . Characteristics Recommendation: Install median crossing islands. Evaluate signal timing to allow more crossing time for pedestrians . Remove or relocate visual obstructions. Replace push button signs . Place pedestrian signals on auto recall. Implement LPls . Relocate pedestrian push buttons to be more accessible. Restrict right on red. Issue: Sidewalk lacks sufficient buffer. There are multiple obstacles on the north side of the intersection. Sidewalk Recommendation: Reconstruct sidewalk to provide sufficient buffer from roadway. Remove or relocate obstructions in sidewalk. Issue: Multiple driveways for businesses are located within close proximity of all Access corners of the intersection , presenting increased potential for conflict between motorists and other users. Management Recommendation : Consolidate driveways. Reconstruct driveways with level sidewalks to reinforce pedestrian right of way. 147 f 0 RTW0 RTII --..,...-- 2050 Sandage Avenue This is a side stop-controlled intersection. There are no curb ramps . Tacos Chihuas is on the northeast corner, an ice house on the southeast corner, Panaderfas Don Gayo on the southwest corner, and an empty lot on the northwest corner. There has been a KSI crash at this intersection, which was fatal. Table 157: Sandage Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue: There are no curb ramps. Recommendation : Install ADA compliant curb ramp s. Issue : Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs . Crosswalk Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north and south legs. Install stop bars on the north and south legs. Other Crossin g Issue: Trees, utility poles, and market parking serve as visual obstructions for the crossing . Characteristics Recommendation: Remove or relocate visual obstructions. Issue: Sidewalks are not present along W Seminary Drive on the southwest corner. Sidewalks are not present along Sandage Avenue. Existing sidewalks along W Sidewalks Seminary Drive are narrow and deteriorating. Recommendation : Construct new sidewalks where not present. Reconstruct and widen existing sidewalks. Access Issue: Multiple drive.vays for businesses are located within close proximity of all comers of the Management intersection, presenting increased potential for conflict between motorists and other use rs. Recommendation : Consolidate driveways . Merida Avenue This is a side stop-controlled intersection. There are no curb ramps. There is a commercial office building on the northwest corner and the remaining corners are single-family houses . Table 158: Merida Avenu e intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue: There are no curb ramps . Recommendation: Install ADA compliant curb ramps. Crosswalk Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs. 148 f0 RTW0lffll --.,..-- 20 50 Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north and south legs. Install stop bars on the north and south legs . Other Crossing Issue : No safe opportunity to cross W Seminary Drive. Characteristics Recommendation : Install median crossing island . Install RRFB . Upgrade li ghting. Issue : Sidewalks are not present along the south side of W Seminary Drive . Issue: Sidewalks are not present along the north side of Merida Avenue. Sidewalks Issue : Existing sidewalks along W Seminary Drive are narrow and deteriorating. Recommendation: Construct new sidewalks where not present. Reconstruct and widen existing sidewalks. Lubbock Avenue (N + S) This is a side stop-controlled offset intersection. Th ere is no through movement due to the offset natu re of the intersection. There is a curb ramp in the southeast corner. There is a commercial office building on the northeast corner, a Savers Supermarket on the northwest corner, and single-family houses on the southern corners. Table 159: Lubbock Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : There is an ADA compliant curb ramp on the southeast corner, which points toward the center of the intersection . Curb ramp Recommendation : Insta ll ADA compliant curb ramps on remaining corners. Consider adding directionality to the curb ramp on the southeast corner. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs . The Crosswalk north leg is less residential and carries more traffic. Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on north and south legs . Install stop bars on the north and south legs. Issue: Lack of sufficient lighting. Crossing W Seminary Drive from th e southwest corner would allow access to the supermarket. Thi s is a primary crossing to access Othe r Crossing Alice Contreras Elementary School. Characteristics Recommendation : Upgrade lighting. Install RRFB from the southwest corner. Install med ia n island from the southwest corner. Install high-vis crosswalk markings across W Seminary Drive from the southwest corner. 149 F0RTW0RTII ---.,.--- 20 50 V ;. ~ ZEfflH I Sidewalks Waits Avenue Issue: Sidewalks are wide with a paved furnishing zone on the northeast corner. There is no sidewalk along W Seminary Drive on the southwest corner. All other sidewalks are sufficient. Recommendation : Construct new sidewalks where not present. This is a side stop -controlled T intersection. There are curb ramps on both corners. There are single -family homes on both corners and Savers Supermarket is on the northern edge . There has been a KSI crash at this intersection. Tabl e 160: Waits Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue : Curb ramp s on the south corners an g le toward s W Semin ary Drive, howev er th ere ar e no cro ss in g treatm e nts and no rec eiving curb ramps. Curb ramp s are not Curb ramp ADA compli ant. Th ere are drainage iss ues on th e south eas t curb ramp . Recommendation : In st all additional direction al cu r b ramp s cro ss in g W aits Av enu e. Install new rece iving curb ramp s on th e north edge . Repai r or reco nstruct ex istin g curb ramps for ADA complianc e. Ensur e prop er drainage for curb ramp s. Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs . Crosswalk Recommendation : Install new high-visibility crosswalks on east , west, and south legs . Install stop bar on south leg. Other Crossin g Issue : No saf e opportunity to cross W Seminary D rive . Characteri stics Recommendation: Install median cro ssin g islands. In stall RRFB s. Upgrad e li ghting. Issue: Sidewalks are not present along the south side of W Seminary Drive . Existing sidewalks along north side of W Seminary Drive are narrow and Sidewa l ks deteriorating. Recommendation: Construct new sidewalks where not present. Reconstruct existing sidewalks on north side of W Seminary Drive . Greene Avenue This is a side stop -controlled T intersection . There are no curb ramps at this intersection . There are single-family homes on both corners and industrial uses on the north corner. 150 F0RT W0RTH ~ 205 0 Table 161: Greene Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Curb ramp Issue: There are no curb ramps present. Recommendation: Install curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on east, west, and south legs. Install stop bar on south leg. Issue: No safe opportunity to cross W Seminary Drive. Other Crossing Recommendation: Install median crossing islands. Install RRFBs . Upgrad e lighting. Characteristics Install advanced yield or stop markings and "Yield /Stop Here to/for Ped es trians " signs. Issue: Sidewalks are cracked and heaved. Sidewalk along north edge of W Sidewalks Seminary Drive lacks buffer. Recommendation: Reconstruct damaged sidewalk. Reconstruct sidewalk to provide sufficient buffer. Cockrell Avenue This is a side stop-controlled T intersection. There are no curb ramps at this intersection. There are single-family homes on both corners and industrial uses on the north corner. Table 162: Cockrell Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations Issue: There are no curb ramps present. Curb ramp Recommendation: Install curb ramps . Issue: Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on south leg. Install stop bar on south leg. Issue : Sidewalks are cracked and heaved . Sidewalk along north edge of W Seminary Drive lacks buffer. Sidewalks Recommendation: Reconstruct damaged sidewalk. Reconstruct sidewalk to provide sufficient buffer. 151 F0RTW0 lffH --...---- 2 050 Rector Avenue This is a side stop -controlled T inte rsection . There is a curb ramp on the southwest corner only. There are single-family homes on both corners and industrial uses on the north corner. Table 163: Rector Avenue intersection recommendations Category Issues and Recommendations FO RTWORTII ---.,..--- 2050 Curb ramp Issue : There is a curb ramp on the southwest corn er only, which is not ADA compliant. Recommendation: Install curb ramps . Issue : Crosswalks are unmarked. There are no stop bars on the controlled legs. Crosswalk Recommendation: Install new high-visibility crosswalks on east , west, and south legs . Install stop bar on south leg. Oth e r Crossin g Issue : No safe opportunity to cross W Seminary Drive. Recommendation: In st all median crossin g islands . In stall RRFBs . Upgrad e li ghting. Install Ch aracteristics adv anced yi eld or stop ma r kin gs and "Yield /Stop He re to/fo r Pedes trians" sign s. Issue : Sidewalks are cracked and heaved. Sidewalk along north edge of W Seminary Drive lacks buffer. Sidewalks Recommendation: Reconstruct damaged sidewalk. Reconstruct sidewalk to provide sufficient buffer. Recommendation Implementation Table Table 164 below summarizes the full list of corridor and intersection recommendations to reduce crashes for all modes and enhance the safety along the W Seminary Drive corridor. Each recommendation has an estimated applicable CMF and timeframe that reflects whether the recommendation is an ideal Short-(1-3 years), Mid -(3-5 years), or Long-(5+ years) term project, based on feasibility, crash reduction benefit, and cost. Costs are based on TxDOT Bid Averages in fall of 2024 and unit prices provided by the City of Fort Worth. Construction , engineering, and contingency are included in these costs . All assumptions are detailed in the Toolkit. Table 164: Recommended countermeasures for W Seminary Drive corridor Timeframe Location Recommendation ES ti mated Estimated Cost CMF Short (1-3 years) Intersection Install advance signal, stop , pedestrian or yield signs 0 .75 $1 ,200.00 152 Intersection Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing 0.40 $180,132.00 Beacon Segm ent In stall /Upgrade Safety Lightin g 0.51 $117 ,288.60 Segment Insta ll dynamic speed feedback signage 0 .95 $30,000.00 Interse ction Install Pede strian Cro sswalk (High - Vi sibility) 0 .90 $39 ,072.00 Segment Narrow Lanes 0 .76 $75 ,740.0 0 Impleme nt leading pedestrian $600.00 Intersection 0 .87 intervals Intersection Instal l Stop Bar --$960.00 Intersection Modify Curb Geometrics --$60,000.00 Segment Consolidate access points --$73 ,920.0 0 Intersection Install Pedestrian Refuge Island s 0 .68 $65,600.00 Medium (3-5 years) Intersection Install pedestrian signal heads I $11,488.00 -- Install Pedestrian Pushbutton Segm ent Install Sid ewalks 0 .35 $933 ,262.47 Intersection Reconfigure Curb Ramps to meet 0.65 $329 ,000 .00 ADA Standard Total: $1,9 18,263 .0 7 Benefit-Cost Analysis T he estimated cost-benefit result for W Seminary Drive is 35.82 (Tab le 165). Table 166 summarizes the estimated improvement costs by t y pe and Table 167 summarizes the benefits (do ll ars) resulting from the imp lementation of the proposed safety countermeasures . Table 165: W Seminary Drive Corridor -Final Cost-Benefit Ratio 153 f 0RTW0 RTII ___,......--- 20 50 f 0 RT W0RTII ----,---- 2 0 50 Table 166 : Cost Results for W Seminary Drive Corridor Service Construction Annual Improvement Type Cost (Each) Quantity Maintenance Life Cost Cost Implement leading $200 3 10 $600.00 $60.00 ped estrian intervals Install advance signal , $100 8 6 $800.00 $120.00 stop or yield signs Install dynamic speed $3 ,000 10 10 $30 ,000.00 $3 ,000.00 feedback signage Install Pedestrian Signs $100 4 6 $400.00 $60.00 Install Rectangular Rapid $15 ,011 12 10 $180,132.00 $19 ,313.20 Flashing Bea con Install Stop Bar $30 32 4 $960.00 $240.00 Install/refresh high -$16 2,442 4 $39 ,072.00 $9 ,768.00 visibility crosswalks Narrow Lanes $27.60 140 25 $75 ,740.00 - (20 LF) Consolidate access points $6 ,720 11 25 $73 ,920.00 - Curb extension $10,000 6 25 $60,000.00 - Install addition al lighting $5 ,331.30 22 15 $117,288.60 $5 ,964.43 Install continuous $134.86 6920 10 $933,262.47 $93 ,326.25 sidewalks Install median pedestrian $4 ,100 16 25 $65 ,600.00 - refuge Install Pedestrian $1,436 8 10 $11,488.00 $1 ,148.80 Pushbutton Reconfigure ramps to $3 ,500 94 25 $329 ,000.00 - meet ADA Standard Total $1 ,918 ,263.07 $133,000.68 Lifecycle Cost (20 years) $4,578,300 154 f0RTW0RHI -......--- 2 0 50 Tabl e 167: Benefit Res ults for W Seminary Drive Corridor Crash Severity Prevention Benefit # of Crashes Total Benefit Prevented K -Fatal $3 ,700,000 10 $37,000,000 A -Severe Injury $3,700,000 28 $103,600,000 B -Non -Incapacitating or Suspected $520,000 45 $23,400,000 Minor Inju ry Total Benefit: $164,000,000 155 --APPENDIX H Additional Action Strategies ~ 2050 Additional Strategies Th e following action st ra te gies were not prioritized by the Stake holder Workshop participants but may sti ll be rel eva nt priorities for th e city to includ e, either in an appen di x to th e SAP or in li eu of any of the strategie s li sted above in more detail. Goal Action Category Id en tify and address transportation challenges for specific vulnerable user groups, Vision Zero: such as mature road use rs, schoo l-age chi ldren, and people with disabili ties to Paradigm inform project deve lopment and design process es . Explore communications and Data An alys is Shift engagement tools t o better involve members of those and other margina li zed co mmunities in transportation safety decision-making. Vision Zero: Deve lop corridor scoping studies focusing o n safety for the High Injury Netwo rk to Parad igm determine sa fer street designs and add ress frequent crash types, system ic ri sk Planning Shift factors , travel speeds, mu ltimodal facilities , cross ing freq uencies and d ista nces, and lighting . Develop guidelin es for planners and designers t o prioritize Vision Zero investments in communities of concern (low-income communities, comm unities of color, Vision Zero : immigrant communities, and co mmunities with f ewer transporta tion options). Thi s Paradigm sho uld include capita l proj ects, multimodal access, infrastructure maintenan ce, and Pl ann ing Shift safe r street designs . Staff sho uld exp lore best practices for actively invo lving marginalized communities in deci sion-maki ng and esta bli sh a process of community design review fo r Vi sion Zero projects in those comm un ities. Eva luate and revise the City's guidelines and process for address ing citizen safety requests to become more proactive in safety inte rventions, strea mline work/lows for sta ff, and increase respon sive nes s and transparency to the comm unity. Cons id erations sho uld include: -Augmenting staff assigned t o Transportation Management programs like neigh borhood traffic ca lming, SRTS, an d si mi lar programs Vis io n Zero: -Updating Neighborhood Traffic Calmi ng guidelin es t o integrate co ntextua l speed Traffic Parad igm manag ement (e.g., deemphas izing 85th percen tile and eva lu atin g land use and other Ca lmin g Shift contextua l factors) -Developin g guidelines for involving marginali zed commun ities in sa fety improveme nt decision-making -Updatin g standard language, guidelines, and policy for assess ing need and determining cou ntermeasures -red uce time spent res ponding t o declined requ ests -Addressing limited staff capac ity for fieldi ng requests submitted, process ing the data, and responding to res id ent inquiries an d requ ests ~ 2050 2 ~ 2050 Update city standards based on be st pra ctices for speed management, includ ing reduced lane widths , tighter corner radii, truck aprons where appropriate, and visual Traffic Safe Speeds narrowing through street trees, on-street parking, and other treatments that reduce Calming speeds whil e maintaini ng capacity and throughput. Adopt a Curbside Management Policy/Program that provides guide li nes for analyz ing the deman d and space availab le for roadside ac tivities to prioritize sa f ety, minimize curbside co nflict s, and increase multimodal access. Curbside mana gemen t efforts may include: -Collecting Data on Deli very Tim es and Patte rn s: Use se nsors or surveys to track deliveri es, optimizing curb space all oca tion and im provi ng sa fety. Reduce -Designating Urban Loading Zo nes for Safe Deliveries: A ll ocate curb space in busy Conflicts zones t o stre amlin e last-mile deli veries, redu cin g congestion-related safe ty haza rd s. Access Mgmt -Pi loting Staggered De li very Schedu les: Te st stagge red or off-peak deli very sched ul es w ith logistic partners t o ease pea k congestion, all owing safe r de li very truck movement in densely populated area s. -Exploring no truck par king zo nes and tim es. -Encouragi ng new deve lopments t o have specified areas for serv ice and deli very specific areas, in clu ding from all eyways. Using the results of the Access Management Needs Asses sment and the updated Access Management Policy, identify capital projects where elements like driveway Reduce closures, centerline and median treatments, and cross-access between land uses can be integrated into designs. Explore a dedicated funding source for implementation Access Mgmt Conflicts through public projects and incentives to private entities for both new build and retrofit projects. Ali gn broader transportation safe ty efforts with the City's High-Water Warning System (HWWS), which has identified approximate ly 400 loca tions where flood mitigation elements are be ing consi dered for impl ementation . Sup port the Redu ce imp lementation of high -water warning flash in g beacons, li ghting, barri ers, and Crossings Conflicts eme rgency communications as planned and co nsid er inst all ing automated crossing arms. Align transportation sa fe ty efforts with hazard , disaster, and res ilience plann ing and projects to exp lore stormwater management and simi lar efforts impacting roa dway safety across the city. Reduce Use th e Bicycle Level of Stress and Pedestrian Experience Index analyses from the Conflicts City's Active Transportation Plan to identify and prioritize active transportation Data Analysis infrastructure improvements along the HIN and intersecting street s. 3 foRTWORTII --,.-- 2050 Systemic Application of Multiple Low-Cost Counterm easu re s at Sto p-Controlled Intersections: -Backplates with retroreflective borders Reduce -Leading pedestrian interva ls (LP ls) Intersections Confl icts -Closing slip lanes where app li cab le/feas ible -Restricting permissive left turns during pedestrian phase -Hardened centerlines -Reduce left-turn co nfli cts Lighting and Visibility: Upgrade, replace, or install li ghting, prioritizing the HI N, major thoroughfares and truck routes, in tersection approaches, and pedestrian Reduce crossings. Promote consistency in lighting at the corridor leve l, including both Con fli cts vehicle and pedestrian-scale lighting to in crease vis ibility of VRUs and redu ce Lighting conflicts between modes. Cons id er th e use of solar lights to reduce installation cos t s and minimize und erground utility congestion . Downtown safety strategy: Plan and impl ement district-wide mu ltimoda l infrastructure improvements with a specific focus on bicycle and pedestrian Reduce accessibility, speed reduction, and transit mob ility. Address two segments on t he Traffic bicycle HI N on Ca lhoun and 7th and focus on the safe movement of vehicle and Conflicts Ca lming CMV trave l around the perimeter of Downtown. Engage developers to co ll abo rate with the city and other agencies t o address multimodal connectivity, mob ili ty, and accessibi lity fo r emp loyees working in and visitors to the area. Proactively impl ement safety conversions (for examp le, 4-to-3 lane safety conversions) and traffic calming spot treatments (e.g., higher vis ibi li ty sig nals, Reduce hardened cente rlin es, gree n markings , protected left turns, curb extensio ns, etc.) Traffic Conflicts along the HIN where applicable. Consider coo rdinating with NCTCOG on the use of Ca lming smart signa ls and other new techno logies that help with freight traffic manag ement and other mobility need s. Adopt a city ordinance banning the use of handheld mobile devices wh il e driving Po li cies & for all drivers citywide (current loca l law on ly addresses th eir use in schoo l zones). Distracted Pro gram s Coordinate messaging and signage to alert drivers and promote enfo rcement efforts around schoo l-zones and other 'speed zone' areas with high levels of pedestrian Driving activity, such as parks and transit stops. Advoca te for changes to state law to expand the use of automated safety cameras , Policies & for examp le, in local context zones suc h as sc hool zones or areas of high ped es trian Enforceme nt Programs ac tivity. Analyze priority locations, suc h as schoo l, park, and other safe speed zo nes, for automated speed and red-li ght run ning enforceme nt. 4 Deepen transportation staff's partnership with Fort W orth law enforcemen t and emergency services. Co llaborative tactics may include: -Enhanced training for first responders related to safety priorities, equitable enforcement, and detailed reporting of crashes, particularly those involving people Po licies & walking and bicycling, to inform future safety ana lyses and projects Programs -Focused enforcement o n leading factors in the City's most seve re crashes - i.e., speeding, racing, distracted driving, red light/stop sign running, school and speed zone vio lations, and truck traffic -Establishing equitable zero tolerance policies and diversion or incentive programs to reduce and eliminate speeding and unsafe driver behavior Deve lo p an annua l Tran sportation Safety Improvemen t Program budget to plan, design, implement, and maintain safety-focused infrastructure measures along the HIN and Po li cies & throughout the city. The Program should include capita l, quick-build, and maintenance Programs projects identified in this plan and subsequent analyses to support the City of Fort Worth's Vision Zero goa ls. Cons id erin g establishing a permanent, dedicated funding source for Vision Zero implementation and coo rdination Update the City's 2016 Complete Streets Po licy to align project review processes for public and private projects across agencies, strengthen co llaboration and coordination between departments, identity specific performance measures, and define community engagement opportunities and strategies to involve marginalized voices in decision- making. Specific considerations shou ld include: -Review and update of land use policies and development standards to prioritize the Po licies & safety of all road users (e.g., block size, crosswalk spacing, access management requirements) Programs -Co nsid eration of poli cies that provide alternatives for primary access to schools on arterials or H IN for future schoo l sites -Freight-specific design standards that provide for appropriate lane widths, turning radii , loading zones, and parking/rest facilities along major freight corridors -r,;ision Zero Quick Build Policy in order to streamline and expedite project delivery of low-cost infrastructure interventions and demonstration projects I -Guidance for equitab le traffic ca lming policies and resources Enforcement Funding Guidel ines 5 ~ 2050 Comme,i.ed [JS1]: Ses note above about removing action strategy related to quick-build improvements. City of Fort Worth, Texas Mayor and Council Communication DATE: 09/30/25 M&C FILE NUMBER: M&C 25-0935 LOG NAME: 20VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN SUBJECT (ALL) Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan and the Vision Zero Goal to Eliminate Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries in the City of Fort Worth by 2050 (PUBLIC HEARING -a . Staff Available for Questions: Chelsea St. Louis ; b. Public Comment; c . Council Action : Close Public Hearing and Act on M&C) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council : 1. Conduct a public hearing regarding adoption of the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan ; and 2 . Adopt the attached resolution adopting the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan and the Vision Zero Goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the City of Fort Worth by 2050. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this Mayor and Council Communication (M&C) is to adopt a citywide Comprehensive Traffic Safety Action Plan (known as the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan -VZSAP) and the corresponding goal of zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2050 . Resolution No . 5149-11-20 19 affirms the city's support for development of a Vision Zero based strategy to eliminate traffic related fatalities and serious injuries . On October 17 , 2023 .(M&C 23-0891 ), the City Council ratified the application for and acceptance of a $524 ,381 .60 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant award from the United States Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a procurement process, the City Council authorized execution of a professional services agreement with Toole Design Group, LLC (CSC No . 61067, M&C 24-0036) to provide consultant assistance to develop the plan . The VZSAP project schedule was closely coordinated with the Moving a Million (M1 M) Master Transportation Plan project to leverage stakeholder and public engagement efforts and maintain progress towards the November 2025 deadline for final report submission to FHWA. In coordination with M 1 M , community advisory and technical advisory committees were convened and three rounds of public open houses were conducted along with thirteen pop-up events at festivals , school events , and transit centers . A survey was also deployed garnering over 1,000 responses . Together, the insights gleaned from the committees and public informed VZSAP recommendations . The VZSAP plan details key findings from a citywide analysis of 2019-2023 crash data along with policy , project , and program recommendations that will contribute to reduced crash severity over time . There were 68,936 crashes in Fort Worth during the five-year period , and 2 ,589 (3 .8%) involved a fatality or serious injury . Roadways with a higher incidence of fatal and serious injury crashes were documented in a High -Injury Network (HIN) that will be used to target areas for additional study , deployment of action strategies , and project implementation. In total , the plan recommends the following: • Vision Zero Goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2050 • 34 action strategies that center on policies , programs , projects , and coo rdination • Safety countermeasures along 10 HIN priority corridors • Framework for traffic safety education • Suite of systemic safety measures that can be deployed systemwide Adoption of the VZSAP satisfies the requirement of the SS4A grant. All grant funding has been expended for this project. A Form 1295 is not required because : This M&C does not request approval of a contract with a business entity . FISCAL INFORMATION/ CERTIFICATION: The Director of Finance certifies that approval of these recommendations will have no material effect on City funds . Submitted for City Manager's Office by: Jesica McEachern 5804 Originating Business Unit Head: Lauren Prieur 6035 Additional Information Contact: Monty Hall 8662