Highland Village CDC narrows trail priorities: Barnett‑District, Briar Hill and Highland Village Road–Unity Park top the list

City parks staff presented a detailed Trails Master Plan priority list and engineering options; after wide-ranging discussion the board identified three near‑term priorities and outlined a process for design, community engagement, and funding.

Phil opened a multi‑part briefing that reviewed priority routes in the city’s Trails Master Plan and explained how staff developed a recommended top‑10 list. He said staff and consultants prepared detail on segments including Barnett Boulevard to the District Trail connector, Briar Hill Boulevard trail/sidewalk upgrades, the Highland Village Road to Unity Park connection, and several on‑street bicycle facilities (Tartan Trail, DoubleTree Drive, Medina Drive). He noted some items will be removed from the city priority list if they are already covered by TxDOT or other agencies.

Board discussion prioritized three projects as highest near‑term importance: Barnett Boulevard connection to the District Trail (engineering will need to address elevation changes and ADA ramping), Briar Hill Boulevard trail and sidewalk connections near Unity Park and the schools, and the Highland Village Road to Unity Park connection (an 8‑foot trail was discussed, with an emphasis on safe crossings of Highland Village Road and coordination with CIP roadway projects). Several board members said these projects deliver the largest safety and connectivity benefits for students and typical users without extensive homeowner impacts.

On on‑street bike lanes, members flagged constraints: narrow residential streets and on‑street parking limit the feasibility of striped bike lanes on Tartan, DoubleTree and Medina in their current cross sections. Board members suggested alternatives such as routing bicycle connectivity behind homes using existing park corridors (e.g., Brazos to Sellmeier) and pursuing single‑side sidewalks or shared paths rather than dual on‑street lanes where parking displacement would be politically difficult.

Staff described next steps: obtain engineer opinions of probable cost and feasibility (30/50/90% concept stages), confirm right‑of‑way and utility constraints with Public Works, collect traffic and safety data (police/crash reports) for priority corridors, and prepare a refined funding strategy that could include 4B (park/municipal capital) funds and regional/state/federal grants. Phil said staff will ask SPI (or run an RFQ) for design services, collect cost estimates, and return to the board with probable costs and recommended sequencing. The board agreed to emphasize community workshops and targeted outreach for segments that would affect private property and to reserve higher‑level neighborhood engagement for later design milestones (50%/90% plans).

Several members requested that staff supply usage and safety data for priority corridors to justify choices and to strengthen grant applications. Board members also asked staff to evaluate sidewalk (concrete) options versus on‑street striping where right‑of‑way allows, with a preference expressed by some members to build at least one continuous sidewalk rather than stripe bike lanes where parking and safety concerns exist.

The board did not take a formal funding vote at the meeting. Staff will return with cost estimates, feasibility determinations, and a community engagement schedule.