Pflugerville council advances mobility master plan after weeks of debate over bike lanes and cross sections

Pflugerville — The City Council voted on first reading to advance the Pflugerville Forward Mobility Master Plan after a multi‑hour public hearing and extended council debate over roadway cross sections, bike facilities and how the plan should be implemented in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The ordinance before the council would amend the city’s land‑use code to adopt the combined mobility master plan, which merges the transportation and trails master plans and updates cross‑section standards, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and an East‑side grid of future roads and trails. Consultants from Kimley‑Horn presented the draft plan and described how community input, new mapping data and alignment with the Aspire 2040 comprehensive plan were folded into the document.

Councillors and several residents focused most of their attention on the proposed typical cross sections for arterials and collectors: plans show separated 10‑foot shared‑use paths and curb‑side bicycle lanes on both sides of many new roadways. Some council members and members of the public said those symmetrical cross sections would “future‑proof” the city and encourage active transportation; others said building full facilities on both sides of every street would be expensive, create excess pavement, and that one side of a corridor could be designated for a trail while the other retained a narrower sidewalk or bike facility.

Consultant Kelly Reese of Kimley‑Horn told council the draft is about 99 percent complete and that the firm expects to refine it based on council feedback. Reese said the plan increases the planned grid east of FM 685 and adds nearly 200 linear miles of planned lanes and trails in the ETJ and city limits to improve connectivity.

Jeff Whitaker, also with Kimley‑Horn, told council that moving bike facilities behind the curb in many cross sections is actually cheaper than installing on‑street bike lanes because it reduces the amount of full‑depth pavement required. "When we compared cost estimates, most of the new cross sections were not more expensive than the prior adopted cross sections," Whitaker said during the discussion.

Cyclists and residents who testified urged the council to adopt designs that enable safe biking and walking. Logan Ott, who said he rides a bicycle regularly, told the council that if facilities are built now “that’s pretty good at future‑proofing” and urged physical separation where bikes merge into roadways. Resident Andre Graham said he wanted bike lanes and well‑lit crossings so he could take short trips without driving.

Council members asked Kimley‑Horn and staff to return with edited cross‑section options that preserve the wider right‑of‑way the plan recommends while giving the city flexibility to build either a shared‑use trail or a narrower sidewalk/bike configuration on a corridor depending on context and budget. Council also asked staff to make the plan clearer about which features are policy guidance and which will be required in development standards, and to show the maps and condition ratings used to prioritize projects.

Mayor and council members said the city needs the right‑of‑way width and planning guidance now to avoid losing opportunities when subdivisions are platted, but several members insisted that final design details be more context‑sensitive so the city does not overbuild expensive pavement in places where demand is unlikely.

After the hearing and the amendments requested by council, the ordinance passed on first reading. The motion directed staff and Kimley‑Horn to revise cross‑section options and implementation text for the second reading and to provide cost clarifications and clearer guidance about how the plan will be used in capital budgeting and development review.

The plan includes: a unified roadway classification (arterial/collector/local) for new corridors, a denser collector grid on the east side, a spine/loop/arm structure for trails that includes creek‑ and easement‑based routes, and recommendations for coordinating with Travis County and TxDOT on corridors that cross jurisdictions.

Next steps: staff will return with the revised draft at second reading, with the expectation that the plan and ordinance will be adopted after council reviews the edits.

— END —