Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 18509-03-2009
ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2009 MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE REPLACING THE EXISTING 2004 MASTER THOROUGHFARE. PLAN AND INCORPORATING THE CURRENT STREET DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS CUMULATIVE, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in May 1990 the City Council adopted the 1990 update of the Fort Worth Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) and WHEREAS, after plan adoption, there were many amendments and revisions to the plan with new development in the City of Fort Worth and the extratemtonal ~unsdiction (ETJ) and WHEREAS, the Transportation and Public Works Department, in cooperation with other City departments, developed updates to the MTP that were approved by the City Council m February 2002 and August 2004 respectively and WHEREAS, the last comprehensive update to the Street Development Standards occurred m February 2002 with an amendment approved m August 2004 regarding the design standard for collector streets, and WHEREAS because of continued rapid development m outlying areas of the City of Fort Worth and its ETJ along with redevelopment of areas within the Central City Staff has developed a .2009 MTP Update along with revised Street Development Standards, and WHEREAS, the 2009 MTP Update is an update to the 2004 MTP as its alignments represent changes approved by the City Council through individual public heanngs since August 2004 and includes 65 additional changes such as realignments and reclassifications that were presented for public review and comment at public meetings m August 2008 and during City Plan Commission public hearings in September and November 2008 and WHEREAS, the- 2009 Street Development Standards is a revised version of the Street Development Standards that includes numerous updates such as a Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) policy for street design whereby streets are designed to be applicable with adjacent land uses, a policy encouraging the grade separation of new principal arterial roadways that intersect railroads, accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian travel in street design, encouragement of traffic calming design features on residential collector streets, encouragement of greater street connectivity an update of Traffic Impact Study (TIS) development guidelines, a new three-lane design alternative for mayor collector and minor arterial streets, and multi-modal arterial design alternatives that account for shared use of right-of way by transrt vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians as well as automobiles, and WHEREAS the City Plan Commission recommended approval of the 2009 Master Thoroughfare Plan Update and Street Development Standards, including the 65 proposed MTP amendments at its public hearing held on November 21 2008 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS SECTION 1 The 2009 Master Thoroughfare Plan Update and Street Development Standards, as amended, are hereby adopted, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances and of the Code of the City of Fort Worth, Texas (1986), as amended, except where the provisions of this ordinance are m direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances and such Code, in which event conflicting provisions of such ordinances and such Code are hereby repealed. SECTION 3 It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and, if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent ~unsdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this.ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation m this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY Assistant City Attorney ADOPTED March 10, 2009 EFFECTIVE March 10.2009 ~,, ; _ _ - _ ~. ~~,r -o ` c ~ g> ~ c ~ ~ o Q. ~ ~ ~ o w ~ c o = ~ ~ ~ L ~' ~ ~ O w >, O o a~ o co c O O O o O O O ~ to ~ U ~ U a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ o; a. 3 ~ ~ ~ E O ~ ~! C1 ~ N ~ 7 O C ' O N O 7 ~ 7 ~ ~ 7 7 ~ 7 y. ~ N ~ O ~ E ~6 ~ ~ N ~6 y Q ~E ~6 «6 f4 f (6 C y0 ~ ~6 ~ N O) N 'O U O) L y 0I »-~ C ~ ~ to U N n ~ Q fn N N to C N C -O 'y C •- C O U - O ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ C ~ - m - ~ - ~ - N N ~ -p ~ N ~ N ~ V1 d N ~ tp (A ~ . V7 t/~ i~ y ~ O i/~ i/~ t~ N C ~ N .C N f6 O ~~ O~ U ~ N C ~ C ~ C cn U~ N C N N .C ~ C U~ C -Q U~ U Z~ U= 0 U U~ U~ U~ L C (0 U~ U L6 U ( U~ N N ~ C y O ~ > O N ~ C O Vj ~ L .O O ~ L O N ~ > O ~ d~ ~ C N y ~ C O~ ~ C ~ N U ~ ~ 0~ ~ C N C y N~ •~ N y ~ ~ U > > L ~ U ~ ~ fn ~ ~ (~ " ~ ~ U ~' U ~ U N ~ U C U C U i O Q H U ~ ~ ~ L L O L O ^ LL ~ ~ L O 4 6 a L O C L O C L O C ~ C N ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ O) Q O) O) ~ ~ O) C Q1 C Q Q ~ O) C p C O) C O) C C L O '- to _ N _ fn ! t4 N ~ C O C O ~ . fn ~ to N ~ ~X ~~6 ~ w w wa ~ ~~ ~, " w xa w~ ~ ~ ~a ~ x w x w x w x w o ~ o 0 0~ Q o og ~' ~' . ~ o 0 0 0 ``v 6= m .y ~ ~a m ~ m E • L O ~a m E ~ y Q ~ m ~ m . `o a~ x c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `° ~ ~ ~ ~ w w °c ~ ~ ~ . ~ g a N Q Q Q ~ ~ Q Q~ o o ~ Q Q m Q Q L ~ L O ' L O L O O S L O L _~ O O L O L O ~ L O L L O O L O L O .o d c~ 'm 'co ~ in E 'm ~ .~ 'm ~ c~ 'm ~ 'm 'co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ a ~ Ta o ~- c ca ~- c co m O c ~ w ~ rn- c m a~Q c rn c rn c ~ ~ rn_ c m m ~ c n rn- c c rn- ~ O O 'O ~ N ~ N (n ~ N ~ ~ U ~ N .N .fn ~ .N ~ .y U a .(A C c m 'N 'C I1Q a wQ w¢ wU o w¢ wU w w o w¢ wa. w¢ w¢ ~ C ~ i ~ ~ O ~ C ~ ~ O C > C ~ 7 O (0 7 ~ ~' p tq ~ = O L cp p 2 ,Y L > ~ N N ~ ~ d w L - N ~ ~ a O ~ ~ U ~ ~ a~ U ~ ~ C a~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ o Y m O ~ > ~ c O c O a > ~~ o m U ~, c O O ° O o ~ O o o ~ c Q ~° J ~O ° .D o ~ N ~3 ~ "O i ~ ~ ~ C C C C O (O m __ o U -p O -p O L ~O O > ~ O U U C ~ L O L M Q' f6 O f9 O- _ C O O L L N O) ~ 2 (7 ~ ~ I- ~ cn cn ~ ~ ~ O m O U L U ~ (n fn U;, U L ~ ~6 v d n. ~ N N •- ' C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ O m p O O ~ ~ ~ M > (4 > 'U O _. ~ U, O (6 ~. Q fn fn N N • U O N O ~ N O N 7~ ~ '~ ~ ~ W M W 00 ~ ~ ~' U tY U Q Q m m LL ~ m m m m ~ ~ N M V' ~ CO I~ p p p r ~ r N r M r ~' r In r p ~ r .« r L C S L 4 `u R O O N M O O O Z W U z z 0 d' O •~ C C w ~ O C ~ ~ C O C *k c N ~~ ~~ ~ O fq ~ 'fl O +-~ ~ _ N~ ~ (0 C O O C~ ~ ~ Q O O > ~ '~ ~ Q ~ ~ a~ ~ Q- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O cn vi ~ O O vi c ~ ~ ;g a m a co a~ O U O m f4 ~ > y fA N L (A tq "`" f~6 ~6 ~6 ~ N w ,,~0„ a fiC f6 O) ~ ~ ~c rn O ° rn m rn ~ ~ ~ O cn ~ O Z? rn ~ O N ~ N c c`a c~ .S ~ ~° c c c •3 -d ~° o c~ ~ a~ rn~ c rn~ c c rn axi c u°i a°i V axi c 3 ° ~ x 'x ~ cn x ~ ~ c x ~ x x •X WS u' c~ ~ •v' ° ~ af°i o ~ ~ ~ m a, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .c ° a°i O o ° c ° a~ ° ~ O axi ~ O c axi c a~ ~ L s °~ o .x N a~ N v> °- U Z~ U v~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~°~ v m ~o ~~~ iooo a~i a a~iooaEi a~i~~ Oa~io a~i a~iiLa Ewa p~c ~ ° p~cq~ °z~ ~ ~~ °UZ ~ 3c~ ~~ ° ~ ~ 2 3cn ~ 3c~ ~~ v 0- c_° _c° c O `o 0 c° a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °c rn ~ ~ ~ •m is rn c rn rn is c ~ ~ o ~ ~ •~ E c c c ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ y rn ~~ ~ in ~ X o '~ •~ •N •~ c ~ rn ~ x c o _ ¢ w~ ~ o mw w w w xa-3 w n`_ .x o •x ° 'X>, •o o g ~ `= 0 0 0 o w~ li ° rn w W o o h co m ~ ~ ~ .C ... Og c ° ~ O U av ~ c o ~ _ •` c ° O al N N N •c ~ •c ~ W N ¢ ` ~ N O ` o ¢ ~ ~ ¢ m ¢ ¢ ¢ ~ ~ •C O d 'C o a li o a_ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ¢ a> ¢ m a ¢ ~ ~ N $ c c ~ m co m m o p •o ~. c c •m .O ~~ •~ '~ m j .~ j o ~ •~ •~ .N ~ c .~ .E .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q c .~ .S m c Q c ~ a> a~ is c x O O •C ~ ~ N •x L •x ~ x •C X ~ ~ _ ~ N w ~ in N y N in ~ .~ •~ ~ a~ ~ .N wU w¢w~ pwaw¢w¢w¢ u ci~¢u ~wQwQ w~ w~ ~ °'~ .X ¢wo¢ w o N O ~ ` a ~. O ~ _O C_ Y O N f0 ~ ~ O a _ ~ ~ ~ C N aI U O C Ch ~ ~ C Q O ~ ~ ~ -•~ "O -O C f6 ~ •~ ~ E r 1C' ~ O y N ~ ~ m _O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. CQ T Y N U O O ~ ~ ~ L LL ~ ¢ ~ ~ O O ~ 0 O U O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f6 ~ N ~ ,~.. ~ ~ ~ O N m j N _O ~ ~ ~ O U 3~ ~ c c6 v°i Y N "' c a ~ N N ~ N > fY ~ C~ J r- -•~ w' O > ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ ¢ O O O O L ~ d. = f~ Q N ~ (n ~ _~ U `p ~ U ~ N D. O O O ~ to c ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ C C ~ N U U ~ U U W w i° _ ° o ° ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N ~ M M N M ~ M M M M O O N M O O O Z W U Z Z D ~' O ~ _7 y 0 3 N U ~ ~ cn `'_ ~~ o.~Z ~~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ o ~ O 3 ~p cNo _ X C O^ N N N O ~ O (B C C p d 00 7 7 7 ` tq ~ ~ N w ~ V~~ •? Q m CO N O' fn (Q ~ ~ ~ ~0 w0 ~O .7. C j w N ~ L C ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ V1 N ti p ~ co ~ U t c9 >, a~ c~.N vein °-::. a a c = oo c rn° v~ U ~ U N ° ~ ~ o X w aXi axi •c w •x ~ ~ in ~ .~ (~ o •c N .c c ca ~ ca ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ •~ a~ 'c •x E ui c N vi ~~ ~ o ~°- m a~ ~ v~ ~ ~ m 7 7 c a~ x g 'x ~ ~ aai a~i ~ a~i o •f6 c c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ a°i ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ •~ c "~ .c _ m. Qf-a ~ m~~> v co~~ v ~~ v ° ° ~ o o i~ w c•~~ °- Ia- w UfY ~ U `U ~ 3 ~ co~v~ v( g o rn .o r ~ ~ ~ o ? rn o °~ in ~' ~ ~ rn S m ~ .~ 7 c v ~ c .X ~ ~ c ~ ~ w ~ 7 x w w Q ~ a~ api ~ ~ >, w~ w~ o ° w w ~ oo o ~ ~ ~ o ~ E m o ~ 'L m ~ ° ~ ~ o? '~ ~ U c g ~ ~ ~ •` ° a~ Q ~ ~ a~ •~ ~ m ~ o x w o ~ a> >, ~ ~ a~ a ~ Q m .o Q ~ Q Q a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~a 7 x o Q c •co ~- Q a c ~° c c f° .~ •~ ca .o ~ Q g ~' w -- ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ c ~ ° ~ a~ c ~ .c c c m E ~ H~-° m o d~ c a~ ~ ~~ ~ E o ~ ca _ wU~~UwatL~ •x ~» ~•`~ °o E ~ a~ a 7 ° m ~Y cn~~w~~Q Ii~wQoo o~Q~ ~~ ca u"i a a -~ o c` i s v~ a~ N c ~ c ` o m w a~ L ` fn Y N •• ^ U O L y O LL ~ W a >, U N _ ~ (6 _O (6 _ N >, ~ _C fn O N > ~ M y~ a U~ ~p O f9 I~ ` = y ~ fB L^ N~ N L O C O- ~ O ~ w. _7 O~ p U 3 L 0 ~ ~ N _~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U E U ~ a? a~ ° Q ~, o ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ Ch ~ m ~ fD L N ~ > a (0 ~ .C co LL O M ~ ~. 7 t p i~ Q p a ~ O ~ > U j >' N a' U L O L > ~ C O F- ~~Z~ Q O jd ~ ~ M ~ Oap N ~ ~ m N O ~ C = O C N Y ~ U ° o° a ~ ~ _ C Z~ C p = `- ~ N N f6 ~ ~ N a 7~ m ~ N ~ O N (6 y ~ ~ ~ N O Y a ~ a J LL m O ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O O ~ ~ ~ c > M M M M M ~ ~ N w w (n ~ ~r Q m U p co v ~ rn 0 0 N ~_ M O O O N M O _~ z W U Z 4 Z_ Q rn ~ ~ c . o ~ ~ ~ (A X ~ N U E o Q Q O O O v .a ~ ca ~° ~ ~ p ~ a ~ U M fn fq fn V! ..~. ~ •- ~ N a c c c ~ ~ ro w ~ c ui ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a r ~ ~ ,~ ~, ~ ~, . °' . o E ~ ~ ca Eoc o o~o °' w~ . . • . • ~ in V1 in N N O >, O > O >. 0 0 in U in ~ O N N O~ (B U U~ U U~ U~ U N O~ U •N O C V U U N N ~ d~ ~ C N ~ O~ ~ C ~ U "" C O U ~, - L C U O N to ;_, ~- C V ~ O N c O ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ v ~ v ~i v vii ~ ~ v u0i aXi ~ U a L 4 L C C rL C C ~ ~ m .X ~ N ~ C U in in in W iA O O O Q. ~ W W W ~ W ~ ~ W o .~ O O O (9 O O O Q ~ f0 f6 _ fC C ~ (0 _ (6 _ (1S (0 ~ . Q Q Q (6 Q Q Q f0 Q fC Q (6 ~ L 0 L 0 L L 0 ~ ~ ~ L ,o L L .o ~ L L. .~°^~ ~ L L .~°^ r a ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ C ~ ¢ ~ m~ ~~ ~n cQ m~ ma co- co- o N aJ N~ ~ C N .O N~ ~ ~ ~~ y C '6 wQ w¢ w~ w~ wQ wa` wa` wa Q c~ _~ ti C ~ m N J ~ L ~ CO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -O Y 1 U ~ ~ U f0 LL O 00 c ~ a ° ~ o 00 ~ m o N ~ (6 O ~ ~ ~ U O C Y O ~ (n O O d ~ Q o U c ~ m > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .O m L U J m O CO fn m 4. Ll. -p 'p -a m m m L ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U U Q ~ . w . .~ ' m _ .~ V) (Q fn ~ L L L CO ~ > > > Y w. y ~ N .r to L > > (n ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ d0 ' d ' dam ' ~ ~ c- lf' N ) 1n M In o N m ~ o ' O a w rn c ~ c~ N O ~ U ~ N ~ ~ N w .. O fn N N ... L L Y O _T a C G ~; 7 O O~ "6 N (4 ~ =~ O v. is m _ a u, ~ O •~ ~ n E 3 0 c L Y a~ L ° ~' ~ ~ °~ ~ d a'> C° ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ -a ~ o O Q C O ~ >~ N O U O (0 N C ~ O O d Q _ p . O ~ U Q N C. .D Q Cn d o o N c o O p~ C p O . C C (Q N O O -0 a O c C C7 C ~ O p 3 E E N C O ~~ X~ C O p ~ O J N~ ~ N ~' 3 N N O ~ C~ `~ • ++ . ~ ?~ ~ C ~ ~ (6 O D7 14. ~ O U U 0 ~ C ~ ~ N 7 C ~ r w- d N ~ (a ~ ~ O t0 ~ LL 7 ~ O ~ X O~ U ` O~ c > U '- .~ O L C Ca C d a~ 2 , n o~ w ~ a ~. ~~ c v ~~ o~~ ~ o c ~ N U m a~'i fU J C L Q1 C O O S (6 ~ =~ O L Y c ~ L ~ ~ ° ' ° X ~ o a o i X c ~ om i a a ~.~' m o . - ~ m a i b ~ a~~mcn ~ p- ~ o ~ o ~ s ~ ti o N ' 0 ~ ~ Z Z a 0 >, C O ~ ~ V) ~ N ~ N O Y ~ : (0 >, O LL ;.~ N X ~ U ~ O Z ~ ~ c ~ O_ C O ~ O Q v ~ ~ ti J O C O O O p fn C ~ (0 ~ ~ ~ N 0 N ~ O = af6i w ° ~ Q (!1 7 7 ~ ~. M C ~ ~ ~ L _ _ v ~ ~ O ~ . O m > O O Q Y `- U N c Y c °c ~ ~ m a3i a m > m~ 7 m m I~I ~I ~I ~I ~ N p ~ N ~' ~L-~ E O C y~ C N O C N N U fC ~ ,~ ,~ ui a .n ° N O ~' fn U~ O U > ~ ~ (Q o c ~, ~ m ~ Y - n=om 6 O L .S ~ ~~ C C ~ a o a. ~ C fn O O ~ O L ~ N d C ~ Q C (6 Q ~ C L >' C O ~ m ~ J Y ~ .O. L ~ L L~ N L O) C O o o >~ ti- ~ O 0 ~ a w ~ > J ~ C N ~ C f0 ~ Y O~ U f6 a N ~~> d - ~ ° a°i c `~ O Z' O w L L ~ ~ ~ o a a a ~ ~ c~i ~ fB ~ p) ~ C C_ f6 ~ Z N >` U O -~ C .Q O p >' ~ (6 ~ .Y o (O L p 'C f9 yN+ a N ~ ~ ~ > 3~ o n ~ o- E~ `oa ~ O O U .Q d "" -O f6 O~ C ff) O O 7 7 m ~ m C O L t4 O C ~, ~ •~ V .p O U .~ v f- ~~u°iZ a~ ' a~ ~ o~ °' o L >' c Y o ° ~ ~ 3 c rn c o° ?, c ~ m m ~ c ° (j ~ c v ~ ~ ~ C O N N ,~ - ~ L ~ c ~ v~ o v j o~ ~ c ~ ~ o °~ ~ c i Q~ ~ ~_~- .~~'-o ~ L `^ C L O O C ~ C O O (D O O~ N S O U c ~ (6 N 0 0~ 7~ O w Q' ~ O C R f6 7^~ `~ O O rn O ° O ~ ,~ U o. " rn ~ 3 ~ ~ p ~ O ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ c O 3 N ~ ~ c ~ C ~ O- ,~ ~ p v°i C ~ j t ~ .C a L ~ U ° o ~ ° a a~ ~ ~ ~ o .c ~ v ~ °? v> o ~ rn ~ c ~ ~ v> c ° o rn E •~ C . co a> o E C c ~ c ~ c a~ >, X a~ " ~ c ~ O O ~ ` L _ C _ N "O C~ (0 N . E C K °> ._ C6 ._ ~ f0 3 _ p~ O _~ C f6 ~~~' N ~ m ° ° -a o ? o a~ ~ m om~~ ._ o _ ~ io aXi a~ ~ a~ ~ o - o w ~ is a ° b ~ ~!-~U c ~ ~ ,~ 4 Sm o rn ~ ~ ° - Y •~ ° ~ O U ° U m c ca `~ 3 0 o E v c •~ m a o °~ ~ > a~'i ° ~ ~ ~~° rn ° ~ o'S vw ~~ a~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ s ~= c >,in E c w ~ LL- C ° c o~ ° c~ °Z o '~ ~ o oin C _o E~ mo ~ ~ C L L C O ~ O ~ 7 ~ +-• O r U m r . . '~ O ~ o~ O O X ~ ~ °N ~ 2 ° ~ o 0 U o c`o a °~ '? m to z C~ .- oo c ~ °~ Q ~ o c N O M C Y: L O O (0 ~ °a c ~ 3 a~ o a? ° Z -o ~ ~ ~- X C O O Y Y O L O ~ ~ ~ ~ U L U _ ~ w U ~ ~ o U v ~ ~ ° ~ a~ ? o v > m E Q ~ ~ U Z ~ ° ~ ~ _ _ ~ Q ~ fn O ~ ~ CAD CO (Np ~ ~ ~ rn 0 0 N _~ c+l O ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 STREET DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ROADWAY STANDARDS AND MAS-TER THOROUGHFARE PLAN _~~~.y ~~ Adopted by City Council March 10, 2009 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 TABS OF CONTENTS PAGE Table of Contents i List of Figures ii List of Tables iii I Introduction ~ II Street Functional Classification 2 III Street Characteristics and Multi-modal Considerations 5 IV Street Design Standards 13 V Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) 29 VI Procedures for Changes to MTP 30 APPENDICES A. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines 33 B Context Sensitive Solutions Policy for Street Design 41 C Sample Multi-modal Arterial Cross Section Designs 50 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Mobility /Access Relationship 2 2 Principal Arterial Streets Left Turn Options 10 3 Major Arterial Streets Left Turn Options 11 4 Arterial Cross Sections with Bicycle Lanes 12 5 Three Lane Major Collector/Minor Arterial Cross Section 16 6 Principal Arterial Streets Urban Design Standards 17 7 Major and Minor Arterial Streets, Urban Design Standards 18 8 Industrial Streets Urban Design Standards 19 9 Collector and Local Streets, Urban Design Standards 20 10 Principal Arterial Streets Rural (ETJ) Design Standards 21 11 Major and Minor Arterial Streets Rural (ETJ) Design Standards 22 12 Industrial Streets Rural (ETJ) Design Standards 23 13 Local Streets Rural (ETJ) Design Standards 24 14 Side Slopes Rural (ETJ) Streets 25 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 LIST OF TABES TABLE Street Functional Classification Urban Design Standards III Ftural (ETJ) Design Standards PAGE 4 26 27 IV Minimum Pavement Cross Sections 28 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 I INTRODUCTION The City of Fort Worth s street development standards are significant City policies The Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) and 'Roadway Standards guide roadway network decisions in planning and development of the City's infrastructure This document contains information on roadway functional classification street characteristics, recommended street design criteria, Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) street designs, and the current Master Thoroughfare Plan The purpose of these street standards is to provide for the safety health and well being of the general public by providing mobility and access to adequate streets and facilities in new development and redevelopment within the City of Fort Worth and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) Existing infrastructure is utilized to the extent possible These standards are based on several fundamental principles The first is that residential neighborhood streets should be designed for low speeds and low vehicular traffic volumes Second arterial streets should be designed and located to provide a higher level of mobility at higher speeds, while at the same time being sensitive to the land uses that surround them The third principle is that the street network should be designed to maximize connectivity This will improve access for emergency vehicles make walking and bicycling more attractive forms of transportation and reduce the burden on the arterial network because more short trips would be remain on local and collector streets Fourth collector streets particularly those located within residential subdivisions are encouraged to be designed with built-in traffic calming features Lastly the siting of new elementary and middle schools is strongly discouraged adjacent to streets classified as arterials, as documented in the Subdivision Ordinance These principles are applied to different levels of development based on mobility needs traffic. capacity and land uses Closely associated with the Master Thoroughfare Plan and `Roadway Standards are the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines The use of traffic impact studies will allow the establishment of a street system that provides adequate traffic circulation safety and access concurrent with development. Where more intensive development occurs additional roadway widths, turn lanes, signalization multi-modal features or other mitigation measures may be required Traffic impact studies address localized developments that influence mobility in the immediate area but not the entire system Traffic Impact Study Guidelines are found in Appendix A of this document. The City of Fort Worth views the use of `Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) as an innovative approach to planning designing constructing maintaining and operating its transportation system CSS is a philosophy wherein safe transportation solutions are designed in harmony with adjacent land uses Proposed CSS alternative design standards provide additional flexibility in the design of city roadways and will be considered as the preferred approach for street design within higher-density mixed-use areas designated as Urban Villages and Mixed Use Growth Centers in the City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan The CSS Policy is found in Appendix B of this document. ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 II STREET FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION The traditional street functional classification system consists of a hierarchy where each category of road places a different emphasis on traffic mobility and property access There are many advantages in providing specialized facilities for similar types of traffic in similar contexts Each traditional classification of roadway serves a specific function Taken together they provide a balance of mobility and land access (see Figure 1 below) Failure to provide all components of the street system will result in misuse of local streets by cut-through traffic or construction of streets that are not fully utilized These standards provide street designs that enhance multi-modal transportation and provide alternative street designs in new developments A brief discussion of each type of facility follows Mobility Freeways/Tollways/Managed Facilities Principal Arterials Major Arterials Minor Arterials Industrial Streets Collector Streets Access Local Streets Figure 1 -Mobility /Access Relationship Where land use environmental or other contexts vary greatly -such as in mixed use growth centers and urban villages - a Context Sensitive Solutions approach to street design may be favored over the traditional street functional classification system See Appendix B for more discussion regarding CSS Freeways/Tollways/Managed Facilities A freeway is a controlled access roadway designed to carry high volumes of through traffic Tollways and managed facilities are designed similarly to freeways except for the addition of toll collection facilities Access to and from these facilities is allowed at ramps and interchanges These facilities are designed to permit high-speed merging and diverging maneuvers with minimum disruption to the mainline traffic Traffic capacities are generally from 60 000 to 200 000 vehicles per day (vpd) Freeways, tollways and managed facilities are designed to serve long-distance, inter-regional trips They are ordinarily designed and constructed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and/or the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Principal Arterial Streets The main function of principal arterial streets is to provide mobility for people and for freight between communities and between major activity centers of the region Principal arterials are used for longer urban trips and carry a higher proportion of the total area traffic on less mileage than other arterial streets The principal arterial street system carries most of the traffic entering and leaving the urban area, as well as most of the through movement bypassing the central city Principal arterials may carry 30 000 to 45 000 vehicles per day and may serve high- density residential retail service industrial and mixed uses Major Arterial Streets The major arterial street system connects with the principal arterial system to accommodate trips of moderate length with a lower level of travel mobility and a higher level of land access The major arterial street system distributes trips to geographic areas and serves major commercial and industrial districts Such facilities may carry local bus routes and provide inter-community continuity but should not provide direct access to residential lots Major arterials are generally designed to carry 15 000 to 35 000 vehicles per day Minor Arterial Streets Minor arterials are commonly located along neighborhood borders and collect traffic from residential areas and channel vehicles to the major and principal arterial system These streets are designed to carry 4 000 to 24 000 vehicles per day Industrial Streets Industrial streets are identified in industrial areas to recognize different types of vehicles with large turning radii and heavy industrial type traffic. These roadways are basically minor arterials that route industrial vehicles from the arterial system to and within industrial districts Collector Streets Collector streets distribute traffic from arterials to local streets and collect traffic from local streets and channel it to the arterial system These streets provide land access and local traffic movements in residential commercial mixed use and industrial areas They are designed to carry 1 000 to 8 000 vehicles per day Local Streets Local streets serve traffic within neighborhoods and should carry low traffic volumes (less than 1 000 vehicles per day) at slower speeds There are two types of local streets local and limited local The streets are used in subdivisions based on varying sizes and numbers of residential lots ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 The street functional classification for the roadway system is provided in Table I Table I STREET FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Principal Major Minor Industrial Collector Local Criteria Freeways Arterials Arterials Arterials Streets Streets Streets Trip Long Long Long to Moderate Less than Less than Less than Len th Moderate 1 Mile /2 Mile /4 Mile Traffic Volume High High High to Moderate Moderate Light Moderate to Li ht Light Service to Major Major Major Individual Activity Generator Generator Generator Local Sites Local Individual Center s s s Areas Areas Sites Interconnect Interconnects System Interconnects lnterconnects lnterconnects Interconnect s with higher with higher Connects Continuity with same with higher with higher s with higher system 8~ system 8~ individual system system system system individual individual sites sites sites Facility S acin 5 6 Miles 1 3 Miles 1 2 Miles /z 1 Mile NA /2 Mile Nq Access Control Full High Medium Medium- Low Low Low None Transit Yes/Possibl Door to Normal Door to 'Service a Normal Normal Normal Door Door HOV Lanes Service Service Right-of ' Wa 400 130 110' 80' 100 60'-66' 40' 60' Number of 4- 8 6 4-5 3-4 4-5 2 3 Undesig- Lanes Hated 4 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 III STREET CHARACTERISTICS AND MULTI-MODAL CONSIDERATIONS Several street characteristics are addressed in this section Right-of-Way Dedication Right-of-way (ROW) refers to the extent of land necessary to construct roadways, medians parking lanes sidewalks, and utilities The expanding use of public rights of way by utilities - with special emphasis recently on gas pipelines - and telecommunication networks places greater demands on public spaces Most ROW is dedicated during final subdivision platting If the roadway is a border street, each adjacent owner is expected to dedicate the amount determined by City staff to be roughly proportional to the impact of the development on the transportation system Additional ROW may be required for grade separations and at major intersections and interchanges for turning lanes The amount and location of right of way required are reflective of the specific roadway and its environment. Arterial Street Intersections The main objective of intersection design is to increase traffic flow and reduce the severity of potential conflicts between vehicles and/or pedestrians while increasing the safety of pedestrians crossing the intersection Principal arterials should have dual left turn lanes at all intersections with arterial streets where needed to accommodate the volume of turning movements (Figure 2) and single left turn lanes at other intersections Major arterials may have dual left turn lanes at intersections with other arterials where demanded or single left turn lanes (Figure 3) Intersections along any arterial street may require additional right turn lanes and/or dual left turn lanes These standards provide for necessary traffic capacity while minimizing the streets basic right-of-way requirements Railroad Crossings Due to the difficulty involved in adding new crossings of existing rail lines and for traffic safety reasons new at-grade arterial crossings of existing rail lines should be discouraged New principal arterial crossings of railroads and major state highways should be grade separated barring topographic, environmental economic or development constraints New major arterial crossings of rail lines should be considered for grade-separation on a case-by-case basis Additional ROW width may be required for these grade separations Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Sidewalks Sidewalks are required by City ordinance to be constructed on both sides of new streets In order to provide a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 sidewalks are normally constructed along the property line The standard width of sidewalks is 4 feet except when it is adjacent to the curb where it should be a minimum of 5 feet wide Sidewalks may meander in the parkway but should come no closer to the curb than 4 feet. Additional sidewalk widths may be required at regular intervals and at mail boxes street light poles etc. in order to conform to ADA requirements Where people are dropped off and/or picked up (such as schools bus stops etc.), additional sidewalk width (8 to 12') may be required adjacent to the curb Curb ramps must be provided where sidewalks access streets and intersections and must be designed in accordance with ADA. In areas of the City covered under the Context Sensitive Solutions for Street Design policy the minimum sidewalk width shall be 5 with even wider sidewalks preferred in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic. On-street Bicycle Facilities In order to safely accommodate bicycling activity all urban arterial streets should - at a minimum - have a wide (15) outside curb lane for shared use by vehicles and bicycles Arterials and certain collector streets identified as bike routes in Bike Fort Worth, the City's bicycle plan that should be finished in early 2009 should be designed and constructed with dedicated bike lanes in lieu of the wide curb lane Sample illustrations of arterial cross sections with dedicated bike lanes are shown in Figure 4 AASHTO standards and the bicycle facility design guidelines in Bike Fort Worth should be referenced to determine the proper facility for a given roadway Local streets and most collector streets identified as bike routes should be provided with bike route signage and in some cases, pavement markings, as determined in Bike Fort Worth Off street Bicycle Facilities In order to provide the land needed to develop an interconnected off-street bicycle/pedestrian transportation network, rights of way for the off-street trails identified in Bike Fort Worth and other City-adopted trail plans should be preserved in the development process through parkland dedications easements or other available instruments From a regional transportation perspective, the highest priority off-street bicycle facilities are contained in the Regional Veloweb an existing and planned system identified by the North Central Texas Council of Governments in the 2030 Mobility Plan Significant sections of the veloweb are located in the City of Fort Worth and its extra- territorialjurisdiction S~~ A well-planned street system can help prevent congestion while encouraging walking transit and bicycling The street network also plays a very important role in determining the character and form of a community Local residential streets are instrumental in shaping the identity of a neighborhood determining how people travel and how they feel about their neighborhood Local streets and to a lesser extent collector streets provide access to individual properties and neighborhood facilities such as parks and schools Although local streets are not designed for significant amounts of traffic, the connectivity of these streets with each other and with collectors is crucial to ensure that residents can easily reach close-by destinations without burdening the arterial street network Developers are strongly encouraged to provide street and pedestrian ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 connectivity in development proposals (concept plans plats site plans etc.) submitted to the City for review Local streets should form swell-connected network that provides for safe direct, and convenient access by automobile bicycling and walking Apoorly-connected street network encourages use of the automobile over other travel modes creates the need for excessive out-of-direction travel on the overburdened arterial street network, divides neighborhoods and limits accessibility to nearby properties and neighborhood facilities A well-connected street network provides more travel choices helps to disperse traffic, and encourages walking and bicycling J scn~i Jl se ~Do~~oo~~ °~~~ Poorly-connected street network Well-connected street network In developments where cul-de-sacs looped streets, or long blocks are included through connections for bicyclists and pedestrians should be provided whenever feasible to adjacent streets or other cul-de-sacs ~aG ~ ~e/ G`~,~ .q~ ~ R,~. a, Pedestnan/Bicycle Con ctt qty ~ _.~, r - g ir _ Mh t`~7. ' F n :,r. ~ a. ;~ _ _ r 7 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Multimodal Arterial Corridors The main objective of multimodal accommodations on arterials is to provide for a mix of future on-street rapid transit along with automobile bicycle and pedestrian accessibility By providing transportation options to a wide variety of users incidents of congestion can be reduced while also providing air quality benefits Multimodal arterial cross section designs will be based on the proposed arterial classification and conditions specific to the location Actual widths may vary due to interchanges intersections or other factors that affect geometric design The specific technology for rapid transit (i a bus light rail streetcar) will not be determined by the Master Thoroughfare Plan but by other corridor studies or transit plans Multimodal arterials will be designed in accordance with the CSS policy in Appendix B See Appendix C for sample illustrations of a multimodal cross section Multimodal arterials identified via the Mobility and Air Quality (MAQ) Plan are identified in the 2008 Master Thoroughfare Plan map Additional corridors may be identified as multimodal arterials through future planning efforts Turning Lanes Standard curb radii at intersections have been established to accommodate right turning vehicles Generally the larger the width of the intersecting streets the larger the curb radii Adding designated left and/or right turn lanes with storage and deceleration areas can also increase the capacity of streets The length of these storage areas is a function of the number of vehicles expected during peak traffic flows Adequate length is needed to prevent turning vehicles from blocking through lanes The deceleration lane design depends upon the vehicular speeds on the street. Driveways Driveways provide access to adjacent private property The number and location of driveways can affect the safety and operation of the adjacent roadway Commercial driveways along streets with low pedestrian traffic should have larger (36' to 48) widths with 15 to 30' turning radii Industrial street driveways should also have large widths and curb radii to reflect the type of vehicles using them Construction easements may be used to construct driveways with larger curb radii Depending on the volume and type of vehicles utilizing it, the driveway may be built and operated as a street" intersection All commercial access driveways that are signalized must be designed as a street" cross section Median Openings Median openings may be permitted between intersecting streets if there is adequate distance for necessary transition and storage lanes based on existing and/or anticipated traffic volumes Generally distances between median openings vary from 500 to 600 feet for major arterials and 600 to 800 feet for principal arterials Proposed median openings along arterial streets may be shown on preliminary plats only where collector and arterial streets intersect. Median openings shall not be allowed where urban local residential streets intersect with an arterial street except when determined by TPW as necessary for street connectivity The final spacing and location of all median openings shall be determined by TPW based on projected traffic flow and circulation characteristics of the development and the standards contained in the Subdivision Ordinance, prior to the developer's submission of subdivision development construction drawings When proposing retrofitted median openings on existing divided arterials, developers should give due consideration to the location of access points to land uses on the opposite side of the arterial as well as these spacing guidelines Special designs that only allow one-way access may be permitted ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 I 250' I I I ~I I I I __ _____ ______ w I _ _ _ _ _ ~r w ter- - - ~ o ~ M 00 ~ (n ~ ~ J e - W i Q I R 400' I I i I I I I I PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL DUAL LEFT TURN LANES I ~ 200' I w w I ~ I I I i ~ I ~.. ~ O o ~r U M _~' ~ W r 12~ O -car `~ U I O I R 400' I Q I I I W i ~ i ~' I Q I PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL SINGLE LEFT TURN LANES CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL DUAL LEFT TURN LANES 6/3/2008 TURN LANES SINGLE LEFT TURN LANES Sheet No. FIGURE 2 10 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 I I 200 i ! c I I ..... _ I I _ .~ _ --- - ..._ _ ~ e _ - - .- _. W 00 p ~ 1~ -00- mod,- ~ N ~ ~ r N ~" ~Y \ (/~ ~ I // i f - i ~- N - _~ J i -0Q Q N ~ - - - - _ W I I Q R 300' I f I I I I I I MAJOR ARTERIAL DUAL LEFT TURN LANES (WIDEN AT INTERSECTIONS) I I 150' I I I I I ~ I O - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N w ~- J ~ O r N r N J (n \a - -N ~ J U Q ~ --- -,_.. s ~ ~------ ~J - - - - - - - I i ~ O R ' I ~ I 300 I Q I I I I { I MAJOR ARTERIAL SINGLE LEFT TURN LANES CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date MAJOR ARTERIAL DUAL LEFT TURN LANES 6/3/2008 TURN LANES SINGLE LEFT TURN LANES Sheet No. FIGURE 3 11 ORDINANCE NO 1 8509-03-2009 I f ~. i~ it k ~; ,. - ~ ~_ s .. ~~ ~ ( r~ i# i ~ g L~K~ _ ~ ~ --+.~-.Yi; 16' S' 11 12' 12' S' 6' Parkway Bike Bike Parkway Lane Median Lane 28' 22' 28' 39' 39' 78' 110' SAMPLE CROSS SECTION MAJOR ARTERIAL w/BIKE LANE ~_ ' ~ ~ ~,~ ~. ~_ 12' S 11 12' 12' 11 5' 12 Parkway Bike Bike Parkway Lane Lane 28' 28' 56 80' SAMPLE CROSS SECTION MINOR ARTERIAL w/ BIKE LANE CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS PROPOSED URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL w/BIKE LANE Date 3/4/2008 DESIGN STANDARDS MAJOR ARTERIAL w/BIKE LANE Sheet No. FIGURE 4 12 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 IV STREET DESIGN STANDARDS Roadway designs have been developed for Urban and Rural (Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)) Street Standards The designs are based on street classifications types of development, and lot sizes The street design standards include street and pavement cross sections for streets within the City and/or in the ETJ Since the street cross sections are primarily designed for new streets they will not be applied to existing streets for marginal adjustments The street cross section standards may be modified to reflect planning and urban design objectives and existing street cross sections while maintaining public safety Commercial corridors designated urban villages and mixed- use growth centers and redevelopment projects in the central city may require unique street designs that more appropriately support the land-use urban design and circulation objectives of these districts The objective of street design is to provide mobility while recognizing and reflecting the context in which the street exists Street Cross Sections Street cross section designs influence traffic speeds and volumes on the various types of roadways They also have significant impacts on adjacent properties Cross section right-of-way and roadway widths are based on anticipated traffic flows A primary goal of the set of cross sections and locations of arterial streets in the Master Thoroughfare Plan is to provide for an effective street network that maximizes the ease of construction and that moves traffic safely and efficiently The standards also recognize the needs of various types of traffic using the streets (bicycles trucks buses etc ) Limited rights-of-way and roadway widths for local streets (as well as limits on the number of residential units and the length of these streets) can improve the livability of residential subdivisions New subdivisions should be designed to provide slower speeds (traffic calming) on local and collector residential streets These elements help make neighborhoods safer and provide a better environment in which to live As appropriate these cross sections may be modified to reflect appropriate vehicular pedestrian bicyclist, and transit needs based on specific development design principles and engineering judgment. Street standards apply to new developments within the City of Fort Worth as well as within its ETJ The following criteria are used to identify the appropriate street standard Urban Standards apply to all streets that are Within the City• Within subdivisions in the ETJ with individual lots less than one acre (net), and May apply to any subdivision in the ETJ 13 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Rural (ETJ) Standards apply to streets that are Within the ETJ and Within subdivisions in the City with individual lots that are equal to or greater than one acre (net) and fronted by lots with a minimum of 200' frontage Cross sections are presented in Figures 6 through 13 for Urban and Rural (ETJ) Street Standards They are summarized in Tables II and III Since drainage for rural (ETJ) streets will be `surface drainage additional drainage easements may be necessary based on engineering and hydraulic studies required in existing City standards Typical shoulder and parkway cross sections for arterial and industrial streets and for residential streets are presented in Figure 14 Pavement Cross Sections In order to provide consistency in the construction of pavement cross sections standards have been adopted for new streets in the City and in the ETJ All street pavements shall be designed and constructed to the same standards regardless of whether the street is public or private The consistent design construction and inspection of rural streets will not only better serve the public in the ETJ but also citizens of the City of Fort Worth when these areas are annexed Pavement cross sections for each classification of street are summarized in Table IV Policy on Context Sensitive Solutions for Street Design (CSS) See Appendix B for the CSS Policy and its Alternative Design Guidelines Three-lane Design Alternative for Major Collector and Minor Arterial Streets The feasibility of constructing urban major collector and minor- arterial streets with a three-lane cross section should be considered on a case-by-case basis A number of factors should be considered before this type of cross-section is used Some of the factors include roadway function and access control total traffic volume, turning volumes and 85 percent speed accident type and patterns pedestrian and bike activity and right-of-way availability and costs Advantages that have been noted when using a three lane cross section with two way left turn lane (TWLTL) in place of an undivided four-lane are improved vehicular safety improved pedestrian safety traffic calming more efficient use of signalization and the relatively inexpensive cost of the conversion Disadvantages include increased travel delay problems caused by frequent-stop and/or slow moving vehicles increased delays 14 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 for entering vehicles at driveways decreased average speed and eliminated opportunities for passing other vehicles Three lane cross sections work best in situations where traffic volumes are moderate and where the proportion of vehicles turning left is high (25% turning volumes) The use of TWLTLs is discouraged in rural areas where their use in high speed low volume roadways can lead to an increase in head-on crashes They should be avoided in urban areas where the design year traffic is expected to exceed 17 000 AADT TWLTLs are best used in situations where driveway density is low to moderate which equates to a spacing of about 300 feet between driveways They may be considered in multifamily residential areas or mixed land use areas especially on urban minor arterials and collectors The three-lane cross section is shown in Figure 5 The wide outside lanes in the proposed design are meant to safely accommodate mixed vehicular (including buses where applicable) and bicycle traffic Dedicated bike lanes (in lieu of the wide outside lanes) are also an alternative if the street is designated as a bike route The Transportation/Public Works Department will consider the three-lane design alternative on a case-by-case basis for major collector and minor arterial streets TPW considers the three-lane alternative most appropriate in cases of back-loading subdivision border streets and in areas where there driveway spacing is moderate as defined in the previous paragraph The other factors listed below will also be taken into consideration In summary transportation professionals should consider the three lane cross section as a possible alternative design keeping in mind the following factors ^ Roadway function and environment ^ Overall traffic volume and Level of Service ^ Turning volumes and patterns ^ Frequent-stop and/or slow-moving vehicles (busses other transit modes) ^ Weaving speed and queues ^ Crash types and patterns ^ Pedestrian and bicycle activity ^ Right-of-way availability cost, and acquisition impacts ^ Effects on parallel roadways ^ Driveway density ^ Tandem Parallel Parking* 'T ndem parking feature that allows for greater of parallel parking ow busy streets, while educing the impact to through moving traffic. Standard parking spaces 8' X 22' However with the tandem parking, the parking spaces will be eparated by 6' long, stamped patterned sphalUconcrete pad. This padded will be taken partially from the two- (2) adjoining parking spaces, effect educing the parking spaces to 20' The padded will ct ideable" buffers for ehicles to park between, nd at the ame time allow for maneuvering nto nd ut of parking space. For ample, because of the added om ated by the 6' buffer wanting to park -between two parked ed my to pull forward nto the parking space, without having to move forward off the space nd nto the parking space. The buffers to the front nd of the parking spaces allow for maneuvering while ut of the travel lane. It also allows for sy iting of the space, having om to back up nd pull ut without hitting parked ehicle. In where walkability more important the of bulbouts between (min. of two) spaces aged. 15 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 fiK' 42' 21' 21' SIDEWALK ~~ ~ SIDEWALK CROSS SECTION Mt14JOR GOLLEGTOR {MC} OR (2) 92' LANES-(2) 9' PARKING LANES 1MTH APPROVAL OF THE TRAFF{G ENGINEER Figure 5 Three Lane Major Collector/Minor Arterial Cross Section 16 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 ~ ~n~ SIDEWALK PART CROSS SECTION -PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (P6D) SIDEWALK NAY CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS 6/3/2008 STANDARDS Sheet No. FIGURE 6 17 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 110' 76' E 17' 38' 38' 17' 27' 22' 27' THRU LANES THRU LANES 15' 12' 12' 15' SIDEWALK ~ ~ SIDEWALK PARKWAY MEDIAN PARKWAY CROSS SECTION MAJOR ARTERIAL (MA4D) 80' 13' S4 13' 27' 27' THRU LANES THRU LANES 15' 12' 12' 15' SIDEWALK ~ SIDEWALK ~ °d°: °d• PARKWAY PARKWAY CROSS SECTION -MINOR ARTERIAL (M4U} Alternative 3-lane Minor Arterial cross section is shown in Figure 5 on page 16 CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date URBAN DESIGN MAJOR ARTERIALS 7/16/2008 STANDARDS MINOR ARTERIALS Sheet No. FIGURE 7 18 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 16' SIDEWALK PARKWAY 100' 68' 34 34 25' 18' 25' THRULANES THRULANES 13' 12' 12' , 13' TURN LANE CROSS SECTION -INDUSTRIAL STREET (15U) ~nm SIDEWALK Fnr~r~vvr~ ~ SIDEWALK Y CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date URBAN DESIGN INDUSTRIAL STREETS 6/3/2008 STANDARDS Sheet No. FIGURE 8 16' SIDEWALK PARKWAY 19 CROSS SECTION -INDUSTRIAL STREET (14D) ORDINANCE NO X509-03-2009 66' 42' 12' 21 21 E 12' 3 15' 12' 15' SIDEWALK ~ F ~ ~ ~ SIDEWALK •r• PARKWAY PARKWAY CROSS SECTION -MAJOR COLLECTOR (MC) - 3-LANE 60' 12' 36' 12' 18' 18' SIDEWALK ~ - •r• .r. ..r. ~ SIDEWALK PARKWAY PARKWAY CROSS SECTION -COLLECTOR (C)* In H, MU-1 nd MU-2 ng districts, 32-foot adway width allowed for ollector streets when adequate off-street parking provided. 50' 11 28' 11 ~ ~ SIDEWALK SIDEWALK PARKWAY PARKWAY CROSS SECTION -LOCAL STREET (L) 40' 8' E ~ 24 g' SIDEWALK ~ ~ SIDEWALK PARKWAY PARKWAY CROSS SECTION -LIMITED LOCAL (LL) CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date URBAN DESIGN 6/3/2008 COLLECTOR AND LOCAL STREETS STANDARDS Sh eet No. FIGURE 9 20 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 130' 100' 50' 50' ~, 15' 8' 27' 30' 27' 8' 15' PARKWAY THRU LANES THRU LANES PARKWAY 14 13' 26' 13' 14 PAVED PAVED SHOULDER SHOULDER ,1, •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r.r•r•r•rvr MEDIAN CROSS SECTION -PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (P4DA) CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date RURAL (ETJ) 6/3/2008 PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS DESIGN STANDARDS Sheet No. FIGURE 10 21 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 110' 90' 10' 45' 45' 10' PARKWAY PARKWAY 8' 27' 20' 27' g' THRULANES THRULANES 14 13' 16' 13' 14 PAVED PAVED SHOULDER SHOULDER ..1.1...•1••.• •~~~ MEDIAN CROSS SECTION -MAJOR ARTERIAL (MA4DA) 80' 10' 60' 10' PARKWAY PARKWAY 6' 30' 30' 6' 48' 12' 12' 12' 12' PAVED PAVED SHOULDER SHOULDER y.1. .P.l.J. .. :.f.J.l. . CROSS SECTION -MINOR ARTERIAL (M4A) CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date RURAL (ETJ) 6/3/2008 MAJOR AND MINOR ARTERIALS DESIGN STANDARDS sh N eet o FIGURE 11 22 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 100' 18' 64 18' PARKWAY 12~ 32~ 32' 12' PARKWAY 40' THRULANES THRULANES 13' 14 13' PAVED TURN LANE PAVED SHOULDER SHOULDER CROSS SECTION -INDUSTRIAL STREET (13A) CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date RURAL (ETJ) INDUSTRIAL STREETS 6/3/2008 DESIGN STANDARDS Sheet No. FIGURE 12 23 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 K 60' I~ 30' 30' I I I 36' I I o h 12' S' 1 24 1 5' 12' I~ ~I I I I I ,~ CROSS SECTION -LOCAL -OPTION A I I 60' I 30' 30' I I 15 5' 29' 15 5' I I D I m I ~ 0 6' j m ~ 31 ~ °~ I n C 0 w U I w I LL I I I CROSS SECTION -LOCAL -OPTION `B" I I 60' I _ 30' ~ 30' I I 15' 30' I 15' ~ I ~I ~ ~ E D n I to ~ I v LL O m o ~t I w LL n I W I I ..~,.y,..,. •.r.r.r I CROSS SECTION -LOCAL -OPTION `C" CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS Date RURAL (ETJ) 6/3/2008 LOCAL STREETS DESIGN STANDARDS Sheet No. FIGURE 13 24 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 ^ DRAINAGE EASEMENT (L; (IF NECESSARY) R.O W /a / FT / FT -.-~ r.; .r.r,. ':^L•S.L,S •':•1•S~S ~L ;L:L.•,.5. . -~1 ~J 1 6' 12' PAVED ~ MIN 4 STABILIZE SHOULDER SUB-GRADE (CHIP SEAL OVER (TYP ~ 1 2" TYPICAL FLEX BASE TYPE A, GRADE 2) SOD/ SEED AREA ARTERIAL AND INDUSTRIAL STREETS ~'+ DRAINAGE EASEMENT yLr (IF NECESSARY) R.O W / FT ~_ ti:~r::. 6 {MIN) SiS....L.•..L ~L,•..L•L••,. ~S,Le r.:.:,r.:..:.:,;:.r::;::r:.:.f.:.r.r.:. 4 (MAX) .SiS.1.,,.1•S,S, S,L ~' ~L ~Li S, ~1 ~1 1 SHOULDER 4 STABILIZE SUB-GRADE (FLEX BASE TYPE A, 1 2" TYPICAL GRADE 2 OR EXTEND HMAC) SOD/ RESIDENTIAL STREETS SEED AREA CITY OF FORT WORTH STREET STANDARDS RURAL (ETJ) Date SLIDE SLOPES 6i3i2oos STREETS Sheet No. FIGURE 14 25 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Table II URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS Minimum Minimum No of Left Turn Median Street Classification Designation Right-of- Way Roadway Travel Lanes and Lanes at Widths (Center Parkway Widths Widths Widths Widths Arterial Lane 6 Lanes - Principal P6D 130' 2 39' 4 @ 12' 2 28 2@12' Arterials 2 15 4 Lanes - Major MA4D 110' 2 27' 2 12' & 2 22' 2@17' Arterials 2 15 4 Lanes- Minor M4U 80' 2 27' 2 12' & 1 None 2@13 Arterials 2 15' 4 Lanes - 15U 100' 2 25 2 12' & 1 None 2@16' Industrial 2 13 Streets 14D 100' 2 26' 4 Lanes - 1 18 2@15 4-13 3 Lanes - MC (1) 66' 42' 152& 2 None 2@12' Co.llector 1 Streets C (2) 60 36 None 2@12' L 50' 28 None 2@11 Local Streets LL 40' 24 None 2@8 Notes 1 Sidewalks required on both sides of all streets 2 On-street parking is discouraged on arterial and industrial streets, except as allowed under the Context Sensitive Solutions policy 3 (1) MC design may be considered for primary collector or minor arterial streets, as described in the three-lane design alternative section of this document (p 10) 4 (2) In `H" MU-1 and MU-2 zoning districts a 32 foot roadway width is allowed for collector streets when adequate off-street parking is provided 26 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Table III RURAL (ETJ) DESIGN STANDARDS Street Minimum Minimum No of Lanes Shoulder Median Parkway Classification Designation Right-of Roadway and Widths Widths Widths Way Widths Widths Principal ' 4 Lanes Arterials P4DA 130 2 27 2 13 & 2@8 30' 2@15 2 14 Major ' ' 4 Lanes Arterials MA4DA 110 2 27 2 13 & 2@8' 20" 2@10' 2 14 Minor Arterial M4A 80' 48' 4 eS 2@6' None 2@10' 4-12 Industrial 13A 100' 40 22 13 s 2@12' 14 2@18 Streets LA-A 60' 24 2@6' None 2@12' Local LA-B 60' 30' None None 2@15 Streets FC-FC (Options) LA-C 60' 30' None None 2@15 FC-FC Notes 1 Additional drainage easements may be required based on drainage studies to meet 5 and 100 year storms 2 On-street parking is discouraged on all streets 2~ ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Table IV MINIMUM PAVEMENT CROSS SECTIONS Street Classification Construction Standard Principal Arterial and Industrial 8" Reinforced concrete " Streets 6 Stabilized Subgrade N D ~ o Major and Minor Arterial Streets 7" Reinforced Concrete „ z 6 Stabilized Subgrade Q H y 6" Reinforced Concrete m 6" Stabilized Subgrade ~ Collector Local and Private Streets 6" H M.A.C 8" Stabilized Subgrade 2" H M.A.C 6" Compacted Flex Base (Type A, Grade 2) Principal Arterial and 6" Stabilized Subgrade N Industrial Street ~ 6" Reinforced Concrete Q 8" Stabilized Subgrade 0 z . ~ Major and Minor y Arterial Street H W ~ 2" H M.A.C 6" Compacted Flex Base (Type A, Grade 2) ~ 6" Stabilized Subgrade Collector Local and Private Street 5" H M.A.C 6" Stabilized Subgrade 6" Reinforced Concrete 6" Stabilized Subgrade zs ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 V MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN The Master Thoroughfare Plan was developed based on the following criteria `City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan Street functional classifications (discussed in Chapter II) Future traffic capacity needs Adequate parkways for utilities sidewalks landscaping etc Environmental issues (floodplain drainage topographic features, etc.) Safe utilization by pedestrians bicyclists buses motorists and truck traffic; Existing and planned neighborhoods Existing roadways and railroads, Construction feasibility Anticipated land uses within the City and the ETJ and Coordination with NCTCOG s `Regional Transportation Plan and with the plans of adjacent cities and counties The Master Thoroughfare Plan map identifies existing and future roadways for the City and its ETJ consistent with the above criteria It is recognized that classifications and/or locations of arterials may change based on future conditions A formal process is used for these changes In areas, particularly in the ETJ where the streets are not in place, the proposed street alignments reflect corridors and not exact locations Wherever possible existing county roads are used as one side of divided roadways The MTP map is available for viewing on the City of Fort Worths Web site under the Transportation and Public Works Department. The exact alignment and geometric design of future freeways and tollways will be determined through a comprehensive corridor study that will be conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and/or the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) Those studies conducted at a time closer to when funding might be available, must evaluate various alternative alignments, while considering future social economic, environmental and engineering aspects of the project. Modifications to the proposed alignments of these facilities in the MTP may be required to reflect the specific alignments identified through these studies 29 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 VI PROCEDURES FOR CHANGES TO MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN It is important that the transition between the existing and the proposed street standards with the Master Thoroughfare Plan be accomplished in an orderly °fashion The following procedures are planned Final plats in the review process at time of adoption would normally comply with the standards existing at the time of preliminary plat approval Preliminary and final plats on file or filed prior to the implementation date, may comply with existing or new standards City staff shall approve all technical and engineering transitions between existing streets and new streets Preliminary and final plats filed after the implementation date shall conform to the new standards The implementation date shall be sixty (60) days following approval of the `Street Standards and the Master Thoroughfare Plan by the City Council and PROCEDURES FOR CHANGES TO MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN. The following procedures will be used for changes to the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) (a) Property owners or land developers submit a land development plan through the Planning and Development Department: (1) The Transportation and Public Works Department makes a determination as to whether the thoroughfare plan alignment as shown on the land development plan is within 1000 feet in either direction of the alignment as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) (2) A Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment is not required if the thoroughfare plan alignment as shown on the land development plan is within 1000 feet in either direction of the alignment shown on the City's approved Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) and/or the thoroughfare plan alignment does not impact an adjacent property owner or parkland If the thoroughfare plan alignment impacts an adjacent property and the owner gives consent in writing to the -City of Fort Worth to a change in the thoroughfare plan alignment within 1000 feet in either direction of the alignment as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) that would directly impact his property a Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment is not required 30 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 (3) A Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment is required if the thoroughfare plan alignment as shown on the land development plan lies beyond 1000 feet of the alignment as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP), or if parkland is affected (b) A Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment may be initiated by the City Council City Plan Commission or City staff by submitting the proposed amendment to the Planning and Development Department. (c) Procedure for notification of a Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment: (1) The Planning and Development Department compiles staff reports from various City departments into a committee report that identifies that a Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment is required (2) Notices of public hearing are mailed out to all property owners within 300 feet of the existing and/or proposed alignment to the thoroughfare plan and to the neighborhood associations, (3) The Planning and Development Department prepares a final report to the City Plan Commission (4) If parkland is affected then the proposed Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment must be considered by the Parks and Community Services Board prior to being heard by the City Plan Commission (5) The City Plan Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council for its final decision on the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment, (6) Notices of public hearing are mailed out to all property owners within 300 feet of the existing and/or proposed alignment to the thoroughfare plan and to the neighborhood associations, (7) The City Council holds a public hearing on the City Plan Commission recommendation and makes a final decision on the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Amendment. If the City Council approves the request, the MTP is amended VARIANCES Variances may be requested where literal interpretations of these street sections would result in undue economic hardships Traffic studies are often used to provide justification for traffic flow issues If any questions arise as to the interpretation of design criteria the Director of Transportation and Public Works will resolve all engineering issues and may approve engineering related variances As identified in the City's Subdivision Ordinance the Plan Commission would approve other variance requests 31 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 LIST OF APPENDICES A. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines B Context Sensitive Solutions Policy for Street Design C Multimodal Arterial Sample Cross Section Designs 32 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 APPENDIX A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TIS) GUIDELINES 33 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Traffic Impact Study Guidelines 1 Purpose and Responsibilities for Traffic.Studies Traffic studies may be required by the City in order to adequately assess the impacts of a development proposal on the existing and/or planned street system The primary responsibility for assessing the traffic impacts associated with a proposed development will rest with the developer with the City serving in a review capacity Traffic Studies shall be prepared under the direction and supervision of a licensed professional engineer (P E) in the State of Texas, with experience in professional traffic and transportation engineering A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is intended to adequately assess the traffic-related impacts of a zoning and/or development proposal on the existing and planned street and thoroughfare system The purpose of this policy is to Provide the safest and most efficient transportation system in conjunction with the development review process Inform the applicant of the City's requirements and expectations, Provide standard guidelines for the preparation and review of a TIS and Establish equitable mitigation measures for the accommodation of identified impacts 2 Types of Traffic Studies The Transportation and Public Works Department reserves the right to require a traffic study at anytime In general one of two types of traffic studies may be required as follows A. Traffic Assessment Study (TAS) A TAS is required when more than 1 000 (or >100 in peak hour) but less than 5 000 daily vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the development or when certain intersections may have a capacity or safety problem B Traffic Impact Study (TIS) A TIS is required when 5 000 or more daily vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the development or if the development is anticipated to cause severe impacts on either the roadway system nearby neighborhoods collector streets, or internal neighborhood circulation and connectivity For certain projects the City may require an enlarged study area Land uses in the Study Area should include recently approved or pending development adjacent to site Depending upon specific site development characteristics, the following analyses may also be required as part of the TIS accident analysis sight distance survey traffic simulation queuing analysis, turn lane analysis and/or traffic signal warrant study 34 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 CRITER[ ,~ NOR STCllV RE~I i12E11tE:V t Category Characteristic Analysis Periods Minimum Stud Area TAS 500 v d, but 5000 v d Existin Year All Site Access Drivewa s & Streets Opening Year All Signalized Intersections and/or Major Unsignalized Intersections within h Mile of Boundar Each Phase if a livable Build-out T1S 5000 vpd Same as Above Same as Above, but within 1 Mile of Site Bounda Based upon the project size development intensity land use mix, and estimated traffic generation TPW shall advise the applicant/developer as to the type and detail level of traffic study required at the time aPre-development Conference is held In general traffic studies shall be prepared using trip generation calculations from the most recent version of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) `Trip Generation Manual' Transportation consultants are required to discuss the study's approach with the City prior to starting the study At a minimum studies will include trip generation directional distribution of traffic, trip assignment, definition of the study area, intersections requiring critical lane analysis, and methods for projecting build-out volumes. This will provide a firm base of cooperation and communication between the City the owner or developer and the project's consultants in forecasting future traffic characteristics that realistically define traffic movement associated with the proposed development. Specific requirements will vary depending on the site location 3 Traffic Study Definitions Accident Analysis - a summary of the accident history on adjacent roadways during a specified time period Such analyses typically include measures to mitigate the impact of site traffic on safety based on accident history and associated information. Capacity -the maximum number of vehicles which can pass a given point during one hour under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Level of Service (LOS) - a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions based on such factors as speed and travel time freedom to maneuver traffic interruptions comfort and convenience and safety Level of Service analyses conducted as part of a TIS shall be determined using procedures of the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual Modal Split -the percentage of people using a certain means of transport: auto transit, and walk. Queuing Analysis - an analysis of vehicle stacking and required lane storage necessary to mitigate excessive vehicle queues Typically performed for drive-through facilities, drop-off zones to schools and daycare facilities entrance gates, turn lanes and median breaks 35 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Sight Distance Survey - a survey of the available horizontal and vertical sight distance at access points to a site, intersection or roadway section Such study must include measures to eliminate any resulting safety hazard Signal Cvcle -the time period required for one complete sequence of traffic signal indications Signal Phase -apart of the signal cycle allocated to a traffic movement or any combination of traffic movements TIS Analysis Period -time periods for traffic assessment as part of a TIS submittal Traffic Control Device -any sign signal marking or device placed or erected for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding vehicular traffic and/or pedestrians Traffic Impact Study - a study that provides information to 1) Determine whether or not the existing and planned thoroughfare system can accommodate the traffic to be generated by a proposed development; and 2) Evaluate the appropriate traffic mitigation measures if the thoroughfare system cannot accommodate the impact. Traffic Simulation -the use of a computer model to provide detailed analysis of the interaction between traffic, roadway geometry and traffic control devices Trip Generation -the number of one-way traffic movements associated with such variables as building size type of dwelling unit, employees, land area etc. Turn Lane Analysis - an analysis of storage requirements for driveways or nearby intersections based on existing and future roadway volumes. Vehicle Trit, - a one-way movement of a vehicle between two points. Volume/Capacity Ratio (V/C) -the ratio of an actual volume to the capacity of a roadway 4 Traffic Study Standards It is the objective of the City to determine whether the existing and planned thoroughfare system can accommodate the impact of the proposed development. To achieve uniformity in the evaluation process, the following standards shall apply A. Design Level of Service (LOS) The target LOS within the City shall be LOS `D" in the peak hour in build out year for all critical movements and links. All development impacts on both thoroughfare and intersection operations must be measured against this standard B Trip Generation Resources The City's standard for trip generation rates for various land use categories shall be those found in the latest edition of Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or other .published or recognized sources applicable to the region Alternate trip generation rates may be accepted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can provide current supporting data substantiating that their development 36 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 significantly differs from the ITE rates. The Transportation and Public Works Department (TPW), in advance of the traffic study submission, must approve alternative trip generation rates in writing Trip reductions for pass-by trips and internal capture rate for mixed-use developments will be permitted subject to analytical support provided by the applicant and approval by the Transportation and Public Works Department. 5 Traffic Study Methodology The TAS/TIS for zoning and development applications shall comply with the following methodology A. Site Location /Study Area - a brief description of the size general features and location of the site including a map of the site in relation to the study area and surrounding vicinity B Existing Zoning - a description of the existing zoning for the site and adjacent property including land area by zoning classification and density by FAR, square footage number of hotel rooms and dwelling units (as appropriate) C Existing Development - a description of any existing development on the site and adjacent to the site and how it would be affected by the development proposal D Proposed Zoning / Site Development - a description of the proposed zoning/development for the site including land area by zoning classification and density by FAR square footage, number of hotel rooms and dwelling units (as appropriate); identify other adjacent land uses that have similar peaking characteristics as the proposed land use identify recently approved or pending land uses within the area E Thoroughfare System - a description and map of existing planned or proposed thoroughfares and traffic signals for horizon year(s) within the study area F Existing Traffic Volumes -recent traffic counts for existing thoroughfares and major intersections within the study area G Projected Traffic Volumes -horizon year(s) background traffic projections for the planned thoroughfare system within the study area H Existing Site Trip Generation - a table displaying trip generation rates and total trips generated by land use category for the AM and PM peak hours and on a daily basis assuming full development and occupancy based on existing zoning (if applicable) and including all appropriate trip reductions (as approved by Staff) I Proposed Site Trip Generation - a table displaying trip generation rates and total generated by land use category for the AM and PM (or PM/Saturday for retail) peak hours and on a daily basis, assuming full development and occupancy for the proposed development, and including all appropriate trip reductions (as approved by Staff) J Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment -tables and figures of trips generated by the proposed development (or net change in trips, if applicable) added to the existing and projected volumes, as appropriate with distribution and assignment assumptions (unless computer modeling has been performed); 37 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 K. Level of Service Evaluations -capacity analyses for weekday AM and PM peak hours of the roadway (and peak hour of the site if different from the roadway) for both existing conditions and horizon (build out plus five years) year projections for intersections thoroughfare links median openings and turn lanes associated with the site as applicable, L Traffic Signal Evaluations -the need for new signals based on warrants and the impact on transportation system performance M Evaluations of Proposed /Necessary Mitigation -capacity analyses for weekday AM and PM peak hours of the roadway (and peak hour of the site if different from the roadway) for intersections, thoroughfare links median openings and turn lanes associated with the site under proposed/necessary traffic mitigation measures N Conclusions -identification of all thoroughfares driveways, intersections, and individual movements that exceed LOS D or degrade by one or more LOS the percentage of roadway volume produced by the proposed development, and any operational problems likely to occur O Recommendations -proposed impact mitigation measures consistent with Section 6 0 -Mitigation P Residential subdivisions -discussion of how street layout and block lengths promote safe speeds and operations within the development. If a waiver is required for long block length a description of mitigating improvements (e g traffic calming street connectivity etc.) to be built by the developer must be included Q School sites - If an elementary middle or high school(s) is within or adjacent to the development, a description of vehicular and pedestrian traffic control measures and anticipated pedestrian connection needs R. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity -discussion of expected pedestrian and bicycle routes within the development and connecting to surrounding streets including mitigation to ensure pedestrian and bicyclist safety S Other Transportation Modes -discussion of the availability of other modes of transportation within and adjacent to the development which the public may use as an alternative to automobiles, and T All raw traffic count data (including average daily volumes and peak hour turning movements) and analysis worksheets must be provided in the appendices of the report. Computer programs and the associated printouts may be used as part of the report. 6 Mitigation Mitigation of impacts shall be required if the proposed development would cause a facility or traffic movement to fall below LOS D If mitigation is required, the applicant must only mitigate the impact of the proposed development based on rough proportionality and would not be responsible for alleviating any deficiencies in the street and thoroughfare system that may occur without the proposed development. Acceptable mitigation measures shall include A. Phasing of development in order to relate site development to the construction of the required thoroughfare system, B On-site improvements, including access controls and site circulation adjustments and 38 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 C Off-site improvements including the provision of right-of-way and/or the participation in funding for needed thoroughfare and intersection improvement projects 7 Traffic Study Report Format The various sections of the report should be categorized according to the subject areas below Executive Summary I Introduction A. Purpose B Methodology II Existing and Proposed Land Use A. Site Location /Study Area B Existing Zoning C Existing Development D Proposed Zoning (if applicable) E Proposed Development III Existing and Proposed Transportation System A. Thoroughfare System B Other Transportation Facilities (bike routes pedestrian connections transit routes etc.) C Existing Traffic Volumes D Projected Traffic Volumes IV Site Traffic Characteristics A. Existing Site Trip Generation (if applicable) B Proposed Site Trip Generation C Net Change in Trip Generation (if applicable) D Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment V Traffic Analysis A. Level of Service Evaluations B Traffic Signal Evaluations VI Traffic Mitigation VII Conclusions VIII Recommendations APPENDICES 8 Submission of Traffic Studies The final Traffic Study shall be submitted by the developer/applicant to the Planning and Development Department at the time the plan or plat is submitted for review and approval Four (4) copies of the full report and fifteen (15) copies of the Executive Summary Report' shall be transmitted The Planning and Development Department shall promptly transmit three (3) copies of the full report to TPW for review report, and recommendations to the Plan Commission and place one full copy in the permanent case file One copy of TPW's 39 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 review copy shall be returned to the developer/applicant with any remarks or issues duly noted no later than at the time of Development Review Committee (DRC) with the developer/applicant. The Planning and Development Department shall transmit copies of the `Executive Summary Report' to the Plan Commission along with a written copy prior to the Plan Commission s scheduled public hearing 9 Master Thorouahfare Plan (MTP) Amendments Developers interested in submitting an amendment or change to the Master Thoroughfare Plan should meet with TPW staff to determine if the amendment requires a Traffic Impact Study If it does TPW will determine the scope and area of the study and the applicant should cite the. reasons the roadway classification is being modified with supporting traffic volume forecasts and documentation If the request is to remove a thoroughfare from the MTP or to change a thoroughfare to a lesser classification the TIS must prove that the remaining thoroughfare and street system will have adequate capacity to provide the minimum LOS D at peak hours for a twenty year horizon The growth rate trip distribution and area of influence to be analyzed must be approved by the Transportation and Public Works Department prior to submittal If the request is to relocate a thoroughfare the TIS must prove the alignment change does not decrease the capacity or LOS of the thoroughfare and street system in the area Trip distribution and the area of influence must be approved by TPW prior to submittal 40 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 APPENDIX 6 CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS POLICY FOR STREET DESIGN 41 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 City of Fort Worth Context Sensitive Solutions Policy For Street Design Introduction The City of Fort Worth views the use of `Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) as an innovative approach in planning designing constructing maintaining and operating its transportation system Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a philosophy wherein safe transportation solutions are designed in harmony with adjacent land uses These solutions through a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach that involves afull- range of stakeholders use an innovative and inclusive perspective that balances community aesthetic, historic and. environmental values with goals related to transportation safety maintenance and performance The City of Fort Worth through creation of this CSS program will consider the application of CSS design principles by examining the development context of the applicable project area as well as issues related to maintenance feasibility traffic demand impact on alternate routes and safety funding options and adherence to relevant laws, rules and regulations The City of Fort Worth s Goals for the CSS program include Achieve the City's Vision of becoming the `most livable city" Build a stronger working relationship among public agencies communities and citizens Promote flexible design standards for local communities Revitalize central city neighborhoods, urban villages and commercial districts Address all modes of travel including public transit, pedestrian and bicycle Establish a policy framework to better integrate transportation and land use planning In developing this policy the City of Fort Worth inventoried CSS policies from around the country and also collaborated with interested community stakeholders Once the CSS program is finalized the City will amend the existing City of Fort Worth Street Standards to provide additional flexibility in the design of city roadways These alternative standards will be considered as the preferred approach for application in higher-density mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly areas within Urban Villages and Mixed Use Growth Centers as designated in the City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan City of Fort Worth Goals, Priorities and Standards for CSS The City of Fort Worth s main objective in implementing CSS is to balance the goals of walkability business accessibility economic development, aesthetic design safety for all travel modes maintenance vehicular mobility (level of service), and existing and future transit service To that end the City has developed a table of priority CSS 42 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 elements based on roadway classification (Table 1) a table of priority CSS design elements by travel mode (Table 2) and a set of CSS design standards that aim to ensure that the City's primary transportation goals (e g safety maintenance, and mobility) are maintained (Table 3) In Table 1 street classification is based on a combination of street type (i a major/minor arterial collector local etc.) and neighborhood context (i a commercial district, residential mixed-use, etc) CSS calls for an approach to roadway design that considers the priority of each design element such as sidewalks travel lanes parking lanes medians etc. In cases of limited right-of-way (ROW), it may be necessary to choose among design elements This decision may also depend on whether additional ROW may be obtained or certain design elements narrowed to fit the available ROW The CSS approach to transportation project development stresses the use of an interdisciplinary team tailored to identify and address project needs The following table has been developed to help guide planners, developers designers and engineers in determining which elements may take priority within the street ROW of their project. These priority elements are organized by street classification including major arterials (4-lane divided) minor arterials (4-lane undivided), collectors and local streets The design must also reflect the results of the project's Traffic Impact Study (TIS), should the City Traffic Engineer of the Transportation and Public Works Department determine that a TIS is required The City of Fort Worth will not allow the application of CSS design elements that negatively impact traffic along 6-lane divided principal arterials since these roadways are meant to move regional traffic at higher speeds Table 1 CSS Design Element Priorities by Street Classification in Urban Villages and Mixed Use Growth Centers Street Classif ication Elements Major Arterial Minor Arterial/Collector Commercial Oriented Minor Arterial/Collector Mixed-Use Oriented Local Streets Traffic Lanes No and Width ~. ~,;; $~p ~T~ , `~.; ~.~-; Vehicle Ca acit ADT ~ ~ ~'~r,~p.. ~' a ':~: •.. _.: Medians :;.. _ ..~< Access Mana ement ~,,,_ - ~._ Level Of Service °, r ~~~~ ' ~;' , Transit Routes ''~~~ . `~~_~ `;r ~ r ~^`q~~ ~~ '~ __ .. Bic cle Lanes ` Public'Realm Parkwa - ;i=, - ~u°~ ~ jL r ~~~r~:~~, ,° ; ~- ~t: ~,, t On Street Parkin ;~ ~'~ ~ {,,,; ~ - +'~' Hi h Priorit ~ '~`,~r,,,,. _` Medium Priorit Low Priorit ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 *On local streets, it is assumed that on-street parking will be accommodated via the standard local street design. Its high priority designation in this table does not commit the City of Fort Worth to provide striping or other on-street parking enhancements on local streets. Table 2 Top CSS Conceptual Design Element Priorities by Travel Mode Trave l Mode Priority Order* of Design Elements Walkin Bic clin Transit Vehicle Bike Lanes, Wide Outside Lanes, or Edge-lined Shoulder (Determination should be Roadway Traffic made rding to iteria developed 2008 Bicycle Transit Sto s/ p CapaClty 1 Wider Sidewalks T s ortation Stud Stations No of Lanes Wide Outside Curb 2 Buffer from Traffic Si ned Bike Routes Lanes Shared Use Turn Lanes Landscaping, Shade Share the Road Enhanced 3 Trees & Li htin Si na a Pedestrian Access Lane Width Crosswalks & Street Furniture/ Traffic Signal 4 Pedestrian Si nals Bike Parkin Timin & Priorit Traffic Si nal Timin Traffic Calming Measures Bicycle-Sensing Street Furniture/ 5 Bulbouts, etc. Traffic Si nals Bike Parkin Medians Pavement Markings 6 On-street Parkin e. ., `Sharrows" Far-side Bus Sto s On-street Parkin 7 Street Furniture Access Mana ement Curb Extensions Access Mana ement Traffic Calming Access Management Measures Crosswalks at Bus 8 Limited Curb Cuts Bulbouts, etc. Sto Locations Channelization Exclusive Travel Landscaped Lanes Shared with Exclusive Travel 9 Medians Transit Vehicles Lanes Curb Return Radius Transit Vehicle 10 Mid-block Crossin s Landsca ed Medians 'Queue Jum ers" Li htin *The priority order of elements shown above is generalized and is not exhaustive Actual priorities for a given project or development will depend on the importance of each travel mode for the particular roadway the goals of the community the roadway's functional classification existing infrastructure traffic impacts and adjacent land uses 44 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 With respect to standards for CSS design parameters the City of Fort Worth has developed the following table based on AASHTO ITE and FHWA Standards and Best Practices Table 3 CSS Design Standards Minor Major Item Design Local Collector Arterial Arterial No Standard UL C M4U MA4D Clear zone (from face of barrier rb) see otes 1.5 ft min 3 ft 1.5 ft min 1.5 ft min 1.5 ft min 1 b, nd d. desired a ft desired a ft desired a ft desired Sidewalk Width/ Pedestrian T vel Way (each ide of street) (Must 2 meet ADA e . 5' 7'+ 5' 7'+ 5' 7'+ 5' 7'+ T affic Lanes ote 4 lanes @ 11 12' plus two 5'-6' bike 2 lanes @ 11 12' 4 lanes @ 11 12' plus lanes The minimum traffic lane plus two 5'-6' two 5'-6' bike lanes. widths ited preferred bike lanes. If bike lane, 2 If bike lane, 2 lanes lanes @ 11 12' If bike lane, 2 @ 11 12' (inside) & (inside) & 3 No. nd Width Not Striped lanes @ 13' 15' 2 @ 13' 15' (outside) 2 13' 15' outside Median Width 12 ft to 16 ft min. depending local 4 B -B of rb n/a n/a n/a conditions 5 Left T Lane Width n/a 10' 12' 10' 12' 11 12' Parkin Lanes "T ndem Parallel Park min Parallel No. nd Width 8'-9' 2 @ 8'-9' 2 @ 8'-9' No arkin desired 45 deg min 45 deg min ( my (only allowed if allowed if 45 deg min ( my 45 deg min ( my f ngled (degree of) ote adequate lane adequate lane allowed if adequate lane allowed if adequate 6 width rovided width rovided width rovided lane width rovided T it Stops (width of 7 lane ote n/a 13' 15' 13' 15' 13' 15' 8 Design Speed Civil Design Function- Use AASHTO Design Criteria Intersection Safe Site Distance ote 9 h. 10 ft X Posted Speed Limit measured 10 ft from edge of travel lane Median Openings 10 (Spacing) ote n/a n/a n/a 500 ft. to 600 ft. Max. Intersection Deviation Angle 11 Allowed -from 90° 5° 5° 5° 5° C desired D C desired C desired C desired 12 LOS min D min D min D min 13 Left T Storage 100 ft min 125 ft min 150 ft min 200 ft min 45 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Notes 8 Applies to barrier rbs, with rb clear 10 ft from the edge of travel way For trees the measurement from the face of the rb to the projected utside diameter of mature tree. For tree spacing, efer b to City of Fort Worth T Ordinance C. The of street furniture, art nd other amenities aged, within designated space (min of 5 ft) between the face of the rb nd the start of the pedestrian travel way Breakaway-type bollards allowed long they at least 1 5 ft from the face of the barrier rb to the uter diameter d with rb, they should be at least three feet from the utside edge of the adjacent travel lane. Implementation of the bicycle treatments mentioned here nd other possible bicycle treatments will be addressed the e. ompletion of the City of Fort Worth Bicycle T sportation Study mid- to late- 2008. f No Bike Lanes allowed with ngled, head-in parking. If head-in parking, the minimum idewalk width will be 6 ft. 9 T it stops will be located approximately 80 ft (or double the age bus length) from the far ide of ntersection. h Applies my for stop ntrolled ntersections. I For streets with block lengths of 400 ft. more mid block ng will be idered. 'T ndem parking feature that allows for greater of parallel parking ow busy streets, while educing the impact to through moving traffic. Standard parking spaces 8' X 22' However with the tandem parking, the parking spaces will be eparated by 6' long, stamped patterned sphalt pad. This padded will be taken from the two- (2) adjoining parking spaces, effect educing the parking spaces to 20' The padded will ct ideable" buffers for ehicles to park -between, nd at the ame time allow for maneuvering nto nd ut of parking space. For ample, because of the added om ated by the 6' buffer cars wanting to park between two parked ed my to pull forward nto the parking space, without having to move forward off the space nd nto the parking space. The buffers to the front nd of the parking spaces allow for maneuvering while ut of the travel lane. It also allows for sy iting of the space, having om to back up nd pull ut without hitting parked ehicle. In where walkability more important the of bulbouts between (min of two spaces) aged. Sample CSS Roadway Cross Section Design The image below represents a sample cross section for a CSS design This particular sample is a design for a minor arterial roadway The image should be considered a general representation Individual design features may vary based on the priorities and standards previously discussed For comparison purposes the sample CSS design is followed by the cross-section design of a standard minor arterial using the City of Fort Worth s current street development standards ~. . _ k a ~:,. -_ ~ t ~. Landscape /Sidewalk Parking Lane Lane Lane Lane Parking Landscape/Sidewalk Varies 8' 13' 11 11 13' 8' Varies 46 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Minor Arterial CURRENT STREET DESIGN STANDARD sa' q3° ..~.~~._ ~~_.~,. 54 ....~....,_..m:.~~,..~, ~t 3' ..~ .. ,.. 27" 27' THI2U LANES TtiRU L.aNES S{€7EVJALK ~ ..~ ____.....__-_. _..__. ____.......,_..__..._.__~,. 4.. _ _- _______...._..._....... ~ Si©EWALK a/.~.~isiiiiirfi'/l/~/JlllJ7.i1 PARKy'VRY PARKWAY CSS Urban Streetscape/Parkway Design In CSS the parkway or Urban Streetscape portion of the road s right of way is critical to its attractiveness as a valued walkable public space Four primary elements create the design of the Urban Streetscape Frontage Zone Pedestrian Way Furnishing Zone and Clear Zone Frontaae Zone The Frontage Zone is located immediately adjacent to buildings, walls fences, or property lines fronting the street. It can include landscaping (permanent or temporary) as well as awnings, news racks benches outdoor cafe seating and other furnishings typically found in the Furnishing Zone In residential neighborhoods landscaping typically occupies the Frontage Zone Where outdoor cafe seating is desired on urban streets the Frontage Zone should extend at least 8 feet from the adjacent building facade In accordance with the City's Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance, sidewalk cafes are permitted when they are abutting and contiguous to a restaurant or cafe and at least 8 feet of unobstructed walkway is preserved for pedestrians The Frontage Zone may be located on private property Urba~r Streetscape. Wade Right-of=Way. 47 Outdoor sting be located the Frontage Zone. Street trees nd planters upy the ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Pedestrian Wav The Pedestrian Way serves as the area dedicated to walking and should be kept clear of all fixtures and obstructions The clearance provided in the Pedestrian Way should generally be straight, for the convenience of all pedestrians but especially for the sight impaired and those using a wheelchair This zone is located between the Frontage Zone and the Furnishing Zone The standard widths for the Pedestrian Way range from 5ft. 7ft. At sidewalk cafe locations at least 8 feet of unobstructed walkway must be preserved for pedestrians Where sufficient right-of-way and/or public access easement exists the Pedestrian Way may be greater than 8 feet wide Furnishing Zone ~. ~~ c~~rz~mc ~~z~~ Width The Furnishing Zone lies between the Pedestrian Way and the Clear Zone Fixtures such as street trees, utility poles and boxes, lamp posts, parking and transit signage bike racks news racks, benches, waste receptacles drinking fountains and other street furniture should be contained in the Furnishing Zone to keep the Pedestrian Way free for walking Fixtures must leave pedestrians in clear sight of -and in alignment with - motorists views at all times This will provide a safe sight distance as decided by the design engineer In residential neighborhoods, a planting strip often occupies the Furnishing Zone The minimum. width for the Furnishing Zone should be 4 feet. The width should be increased to at least 8 feet where transit stops pedestrian amenities, or more generous landscaping are to be provided This increase allows for sufficient access and also ADA compliance Pedestrian-scale lighting is encouraged and lights generally should be spaced at a maximum of 60' apart and have a height not greater than 16' Fl~mishidg 7gttt ? Pixlistrian R'aY. CicerZbae , F tmntage Outdoor furnishings must of impede the Pedestrian Way 48 Urban Streetscape Narraw Right nf--Wav Urban Stree~scaoe ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Clear Zone The Clear Zone separates the pedestrian area from the street. The Clear Zone includes the width of the curb and may contain extra space for the unloading of passengers or freight. The minimum width of the Clear Zone is 18 inches The preferred width should increase to at least 3 feet where pedestrian or freight loading is expected and may conflict with obstacles in the Furnishing Zone CSS Implementation While not all projects in the City will incorporate the CSS design standards described in Table 3 the City of Fort Worth will integrate CSS principles as a standard component of the agency's transportation and project development procedures programs, and investment decisions These principles include The project satisfies the purpose and needs as agreed to by a full range of stakeholders This agreement is forged in the earliest phase of the project and amended as warranted as the project develops The project is a safe facility for both the user and the community The project is in harmony with the community and it preserves the environmental scenic, aesthetic, historic and natural resource values of the area The project exceeds the expectations of both designers and stakeholders and achieves a level of excellence in people s minds The project involves efficient and effective use of the resources (time, budget and community) of all involved parties The project is designed and built with minimal disruption. to the community The project is seen as having lasting value to the community The City of Fort Worth encourages developers designers and engineers working on projects within the areas covered by the CSS design policy -urban villages and mixed- use growth centers to meet with the City early in the process This will help forge consensus on the project purpose and scope before the project gets off the ground and could help control costs by addressing up-front the combinations of CSS design elements associated with the project. The City is proud of its role as a partner with the citizens of Fort Worth in creating transportation facilities that accommodate multiple modes of transportation and protect and enhance the natural beauty and livability of the city The City of Fort Worth believes that CSS will help strengthen the city's neighborhoods and transportation system bringing lasting value to the community through a more efficient and effective use of resources and stakeholder input that will help bring lasting value to the community 49 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 APPENDIX C SAMPLE MULTI-MODAL ARTERIAL CROSS SECTION DESIGNS 50 ORDINANCE NO 18509-03-2009 Sample Multi-Modal Arterial Cross Section Designs ~, t <.; MULTI-MOI7~AL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL CROSS SECTIt?N min ''a h;. ~A~'~ :~ ~~~. ~~ ~~ ~_~ ~'~~ ..h.t~..' :,,. MULTI-Mt3DAL MAJQR ARTERIAL CRASS-SECTION ~. -.. r ~ ~, / ~,®. _. '~t .~ 9 'til, ~ -~ ~r N ~ ~n ~ ~ c-" ~ ~~, ~~ Attachm nt 1 ~ - .. ~ ~~ '`C mat N~ kfV ~ E~ '~ I ~ P. Y 5 i 1 j v7 W N ~ Ens uTS1,Y . ~ N O "~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ \~ MEN~i TY~G t ...~ S ~ ..~o~ ., ~~:N ~~ -_49 ~ 42 '( ~- ` ~i BBL t ~OEN "tl Q.~~ ~ -`•~ _~.. .~__. ~. BON SRANGM ~; „ ~'~4N ¢¢ RAYY~TE i OEST 9 .~'K--- ~QQ.Y'~ suMMERF1Fd11B 'p~ _ -F-~~ YBO5WEl • "a HU~KIEBERRY T~ , ~ r . ~; .. ,. SO 52 51. ~ ~ ~ q?O S, II I ~ ~~K 35 `hgTF ~' ~ " '~q~ 77" \ ' sa sHE~ ~ /~ ( _ _ .•~9,y~ ~ '~C 22)'~ '~ 3~h $T}i :.~. U 2~l .Ol ~ I~ H.+R~S C'e. qp ~~ a3Na '.- N '~ .. -.~ ~ ii ~~ 62 pa'"" \~`~ \ ~ 23(k SHOT 'H _ 4 .. R ~~ AR4dE t A ~ t ~~ ~ ptE ~ ~~`' ~,Rn. ~ V ~ K „`. Evr \`- ~ 15 tBRiBaE_~ - has.. 23 ''" '~ aowE~HE oRn ~ ~,"iurJll f p~,/'`~nc~ ~ 6~~ ~ 7 _~ 33 T 33 ~~' Cti0._Plfl -, b ~ a 4._„ ~ ~. 8 ..yyE -...Y OL~ 42 49. ' ~ a RD>tE HpiE `^ ,.,~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ..,. ~ - 9 -~--~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ _ J.:] _~ „tea .. 3~ - ; Y ~ ~ (,~yf{.,~' - z .ti~~ - ` g _ ~ II ~ x_12 sau ' ~ ' 2~^'^ '~~ 5~ T~M OH ~~y„` ~~ CkWA Lk{~-~i~•.N ,- f M ,~i ~~' m ca~ .._.....'_ ._.._._„_.._... t0 l ~yy~ jj~~ b w N ~, . ~~. ~ .AII+Z- BUT 1. p'~ty°~]"~' 5 .~ m i ...€ ~ 90U~ ~ ¢ e-~E~ ~~~ .- EgN^-- ~-J'ke.. M . E,..... o `~ &11 N -~ ~ ~~ m T}~a ~~ LL ~F ~f~fl ~~ f '~ l~ '~ .Ly1s ZC> Hl M41`~~ 2 R Fn.i ~ $g, bIUFiBU ~ ~: ~~ ~ `j. 58 n N ~ h _^. .I_ ~~ n ~ fI y a \ '---~ i'JCEL EAST Y _~ \ ~~ -~. ~~.~ENOry ~...~o~ °'L~"' \ ~ ~\ - -- # ~E~- ~ 1 ~y 37 u?*~ \i _ ~ ~'.. g •"~ t y ~ '~ FORT WOR j ]0 `// vat aax.~ cfvois vot ~~ ~ ~~ ~ See Attachment 2 for descriptions 2 Uptla / City of Fort Worth, Texas Mayor and Council Communication COUNCIL ACTION: Approved on 3/10/2009. Ord. No. 18509-03-2009 _.~. ~ ~ ~Q _ ~ ~ ~ ~..~~ ~ _ „ti .. ----~ _ DATE Tuesday March 10 2009 REFERENCE NO G-16496 LOG NAME 202009-MTPSTDS SUBJECT Adopt Ordinance Establishing the 2009 Master Thoroughfare Plan and Street Development Standards Update RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt by ordinance the 2009 Update to the Master Thoroughfare Plan Map and its related document, Street Development Standards Roadway Standards and Master Thoroughfare Plan DISCUSSION The City Council is being asked to adopt by ordinance the 2009 Update to the Master Thoroughfare. Plan (MTP) Map This proposed update of the MTP Map includes the following modifications to the previous document, which was approved by City Council on August 31 2004 All MTP Amendments approved by the City of Fort Worth City Council since August 31 2004 65 Proposed MTP Amendments (Attachments 1 and 2) including 53 reclassifications and 12 realignments Early in 2008 City staff initially conducted a comprehensive analysis of existing and future MTP classifications and alignments and proposed 60 MTP amendments including 49 reclassifications and 11 realignments Four public meetings were held to gather comments on the proposed MTP amendments including a public hearing conducted by the City~Plan Commission on September 24 2008 City staff considered the comments received and recommended a modified list of amendments to the City Plan Commission The City Plan Commission conducted a public hearing on the modified list of MTP amendments on November 21 2008 No comments were submitted in opposition to the modified list of MTP amendments and the City Plan Commission recommended approval The City Council is also being asked to adopt the 2009 Update to the Street Development Standards. Roadway Standards and Master Thoroughfare Plan Streets are required by Article VI Section C of the City of Fort Worth Subdivision Ordinance (effective October 24 2006) to be developed in conformance with these standards and the MTP This proposed update to the standards includes the following changes to the previous document, which was approved by City Council on February 19 2002 Addition of a proposed Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Policy for Street Design CSS is a philosophy wherein safe transportation solutions are designed in harmony with adjacent land uses The proposed CSS alternative design standards provide additional flexibility in the design of city roadways and will be considered as the preferred approach for street design within higher-density mixed-use areas designated as Urban Villages and Mixed Use Growth Centers in the City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan Transportation and Public Works staff coordinated the development of the policy with assistance and input from the Planning and Development Department and Fort Worth South Inc. and made presentations to and received feedback from the Central City Logname 202009-MTPSTDS Page 1 of 2 Redevelopment Committee Development Advisory Committee Fort Worth League of Neighborhood Associations Downtown Fort Worth Transportation Management Organization and the City Plan Commission Addition of a policy encouraging the grade separation of new principal arterial roadways intersecting railroads Due to safety and mobility concerns at-grade intersections of principal arterials (six lane divided arterials) and rail lines should be avoided whenever possible Railroad authorities that operate within the City of Fort Worth require the closure of at least two existing at-grade crossings for every new crossing Addition of language regarding the accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians in the design of streets This practice was already incorporated into the design standards in the 2004 MTP but this change adds a written description and reasoning for accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians in the standards as well as a reference to the on- and off-street bicycle facility design guidelines to be included in Bike Fort Worth the City's comprehensive bicycle transportation plan scheduled for completion early in 2009 Encouragement of traffic calming design measures on residential collector streets Addition of language encour~inq greater street connectivity and pedestrian connectivity between and within developments. Update of Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines These guidelines clarify the requirements for traffic impact studies that address the mobility and transportation system impacts of proposed developments Addition of three-lane design alternative for major collector and minor arterial streets Language is added describing the conditions under which the City of Fort Worth will consider athree-lane design for collector and minor arterial streets This design is being added in response to increased demand from developers and neighborhoods that see it as a way to improve safety mobility and overall livability Addition of multi-modal arterial design alternatives incorporating features for rapid transit service bicyclists and pedestrians as well as automobiles within the same right-of-way The above-listed changes to the Street Development Standards will help give guidance to developers and street designers who are eager to incorporate some of the new design elements into their projects. These proposed revised standards were included in the public review and comment process along with the proposed MTP amendments No comments were submitted in opposition to these proposed standards at the City Plan Commission public hearing held on November 21 2008 FISCAL INFORMATION /CERTIFICATION The Financial Management Services Director certifies that this Amendment will have no material effect on City funds FUND CENTERS TO Fund/Account/Centers FROM Fund/Account/Centers CERTIFICATIONS Submitted for CitXManager's Office bv. Originating Department Head. Additional Information Contact: Logname 202009-MTPSTDS Fernando Costa (6122) William A. Verkest (7801) Jim Walker (8009) ,Page 2 of 2