Denton mobility staff outline "boot camp" to align projects with comprehensive plan

Farhan, Deputy Director of the Transportation Services Division, told the Mobility Committee on Sept. 24 that staff will deliver a multi‑session "Mobility Plan Boot Camp" to explain how the city—s mobility plan should be integrated with the comprehensive plan and used to guide project decisions.

Farhan said the training will be a short course in four parts covering an introduction to the mobility plan and its integration with the comprehensive plan; goals and the thoroughfare plan; bicycle and pedestrian planning; and stakeholder engagement and update processes. "I think that's what it is intended for," he said, describing the boot camp as a focused training rather than a broad policy change.

The presentation stressed that the comprehensive plan sets long‑range growth policies (typically a 20–30 year horizon with a recommended five‑year update cycle) and that the mobility plan translates those land‑use policies into roadway functions, alignments and multimodal priorities. Farhan told the committee the city relies on regional demographic datasets, including NCTCOG forecasts, and that Denton—s population and employment are projected to grow substantially by 2050; those datasets and travel‑demand models will be inputs to the mobility‑plan update.

"Mobility plan is a guide for planning," Farhan said, noting it is a transportation policy document that should inform project design, right‑of‑way needs and multimodal investments. He recommended that major improvements align with the mobility plan to avoid short‑term work that must be retrofitted later.

Committee members used the presentation to press staff on several recurring issues. Councilmember Beck said the city has been too reactive to development and resident requests and urged staff to focus on destination planning (the nodes and edges of the network) as well as edges. "We need to be proactive and plan driven rather than reactive," Beck said.

Councilmember Byrd raised the practical side of reactivity, noting residents frequently see development without knowing long‑standing plans for roads and sidewalks. Byrd asked why sidewalks on some corridors appear earlier than expected; staff explained that some sidewalk segments are built with specific projects or external funding while other segments rely on frontage development or later city infill.

Several members, including Byrd and another participant, pressed equity questions: neighborhoods built earlier lack sidewalks and other features now provided with new development. Farhan and other staff said the city prioritizes projects based on mobility‑plan alignment and funding availability and that limited funds mean only a subset of prioritized sidewalk or safety projects can be implemented each fiscal year unless external grants are obtained.

Staff emphasized auditing as standard practice before implementing on‑street changes. Farhan said field audits typically take a few hours but that a full research and engagement effort for a requested location can take several weeks; audits, he said, reduce the risk of unnecessary work and retrofits.

The committee directed staff to continue the boot‑camp series and to bring more detailed materials during the mobility‑plan update process in October and later months. Members asked staff to include clear project timelines and to consider public communications that explain why some improvements are paced by development, funding and level‑of‑service data.

A copy of the full presentation and the scheduled boot‑camp sessions will be provided as staff prepares the mobility‑plan update.

Ending: Committee discussion continued into staff memoranda and other agenda items; staff said additional workshops and materials will be scheduled in coming months.