HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 2024-06 - Updated Sidewalk Master PlanORDINANCE NO. 2.02-Z4—(p(o
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE SIDEWALK MASTER
PLAN; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Sidewalk Master Plan was adopted on March 8, 2015 and provided for
the inventory of existing public infrastructure within the City of Georgetown city limits,
identification of design and compliance deficiencies, evaluation of future program requirements
and developed a ten year implementation plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the Sidewalk Master Plan to account for
work done since 2015, identify new recommendations for future work, identify funding sources
for implementation and engage the community on priorities; and
WHEREAS, the City has completed technical studies and gathered public input on the
updated Sidewalk Master Plan and developed an implementation plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the best interest of the public health and
safety to adopt the updated Sidewalk Master Plan as set out herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS:
Section 1. The meeting at which this ordinance was approved was conducted in
compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551.
Section 2. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby
found and declared to be true and correct and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly
made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim.
Section 3. The Sidewalk Master Plan dated November 2023 is hereby adopted by the City
of Georgetown, and all references in the Code of Ordinances and the Unified Development Code
to the Sidewalk Master Plan are hereby updated to refer to the updated Sidewalk Master Plan dated
November 2023.
Section 4. All ordinances or resolutions that conflict with the provisions of this ordinance
are hereby repealed, and all other ordinances or resolutions of the City not in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. If any provision of this ordinance, or application thereof, to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
Ordinance Number: -ZO-Z q— 0 Y Page 1 of 2
Subject: 2024 Adoption of Updated Sidewalk Master Plan.
Date Approved: '�66y"C'r n 13' 7,67 y
application thereof, of this ordinance, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
Section 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to
attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect immediately [may
provide alternative date] in accordance with the provisions of the City Charter of the City of
Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 23rd of January, 2024.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 131 of February, 2024.
ATTEST: THE T OF GEORGETOWN:
Robyn DerYsmore, City Secretary joh
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
A,A---
`§- ye Masson, City Attorney
, Mayor
Ordinance Number: 207-L t r Q(* Page 2 of 2
Subject: 2024 Adoption of Updated Sidewalk Master Plan.
Date Approved: "T '0, n � j i 2pZA�
z A
111
lil!"!1:1111,0111"13
GEORGETOWN
SIDEWALK
MASTER PLAN
W—
ZIC
N
November 2023 - DRAFT
a
Acknowledgments
City Council
Josh Schroeder, Mayor
Amanda Parr, District 1
Shawn Hood, District 2
Mike Triggs, District 3
Ron Garland, District 4
Kevin Pitts, District 5
Jake French, District 6
Ben Stewart, District 7
City Staff
Anthony Aquilino
Mayra Cantu, M PA
Jackson Daly
Jorge Hernandez, P.E.
Keith Hutchinson
Chris Pousson
Molly Ritter
Lua Saluone
Nathaniel Waggoner, PMP, AICP
Wesley Wright, P.E.
`!
Prepared by
Kimley-Horn
10814 Jollyville Road,
Campus IV, Suite 200,
Austin, TX 78759
0--
GEORGETOWN
-TEXAS
KidepMorn
Expect More. Experience Better.
E
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
................. 4
1. Existing Conditions Analysis..........................................................................6
2. Public Engagement.........................................................................................9
3. Sidewalk Prioritization...................................................................................13
4. Implementation Strategies.........................................................................25
Appendix
.......................................... 30
City of Georgetown 0
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The city's growth rate was 14.4% from July 1, 2021, through
July 1, 2022, resulting in a population estimate of 86,507,
according to census data. Mirroring the overall growth
trend, the number of pedestrians, roadway network
and mobility needs within the City have also grown.
This increase in pedestrian activity, combined with the
aging pedestrian infrastructure, has created a demand
for a Sidewalk Master Plan Update. The original Sidewalk
Master Plan was created in 2014, identifying both capital
and maintenance needs as well as priority projects for
implementation.
The 2023 Update serves to revisit the priority projects,
update the sidewalk system inventory, and make
projected costs current for sidewalk programming in the
City of Georgetown. This plan also serves to complete
implementation strategy LU.15.c in the 2030 Plan to "Re-
evaluate and confirm priority of segments identified in
the Sidewalk Master Plan through an update to the plan
and secure potential funding for future years."
-759,112 LF OF EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE IN 2014
-2,188,333 LF OF EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE IN 2023
r,lr
?J
_n
t �o
► ' =,rr' - :.fir �,
•' �.
_"16 .
F1
In Progress ^
In Working Condltlon
Id-hRO N.pd g z i� Gh. aoN
Plan Vision
The City of Georgetown will repair, improve
and integrate its pedestrian network;
ensuring the condition, design and location
of all facilities promotes a safe, walkable
city which accommodates all users. This
plan identifies a framework for fulfilling
the goals of the 2030 Plan, including high
quality infrastructure and to maintain
high quality services as Georgetown
grows by improving and diversifying the
transportation network.
Plan Purpose
The City of Georgetown initiated the
Sidewalk Master Plan as an update to
the 2014 City of Georgetown Sidewalk
Master Plan (2014 Plan). The purpose
of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk
Master Plan, from this point on referred
to as the Master Plan, is to inventory
existing pedestrian infrastructure,
identify design deficiencies, and
develop an implementation plan for
all priority pedestrian facilities within
the City of Georgetown city limits. The
implementation plan will also be utilized
by City staff to assist in the prioritization
of future pedestrian infrastructure
improvements. The Master Plan will be
a stand-alone document, serving as the
primary sidewalk facility management
plan. The 2023 Update did not include
any updates to the project list for ADA-
compliance improvements within the City,
which was last completed in 2014.
Plan Boundary
The Master Plan includes all sidewalks
within right-of-way within the Georgetown
city limits as of April 2023, excluding the
extra -territorial jurisdiction. The plan is
intended to include an evaluation of all City
maintained sidewalks and potential future
City maintained sidewalks, but may include
some sidewalks that are maintained by
other entities.
Progress since 2074
Sidewalk Master Plan
Since completion of the 2014 Sidewalk
Master Plan, the City has made strides
to implement nearly all of the Priority 1
Sidewalk Projects in the 2014 Plan. As
of November 2022, 60% of the Priority
1 projects in the 2014 Plan have been
completed and the remaining 40% are in
progress (under construction or in design).
Additionally, all new neighborhoods since
the previous plan are building sidewalks on
both sides of the street and contributing
along frontage for major streets, which is
helping to avoid lack of infrastructure in
new development, but increasing long-
term maintenance at a high rate.
The Planning Process
The Master Plan process includes several
key steps to provide a comprehensive
assessment of the current state of sidewalk
planning within the City of Georgetown.
Existing Conditions Analysis
Public Engagement
Sidewalk Prioritization
Implementation Plan
City of Georgetown 0
0
1. Existing
Conditions
Analysis
The process of evaluating existing sidewalk infrastructure conditions provided crucial
insight into the current state of Georgetown's pedestrian network. Existing design
deficiencies and infrastructure gaps compromise connectivity, pedestrian safety and
ultimately mobility. The comprehensive evaluation process set a baseline to determine
where resources should be focused for improvements and new facilities.
LJ
Data Collection
Process
To develop a complete sidewalk inventory,
the project team initially used NearMap
Aerial Imagery current as of November
2022, existing City CIS data, and 311 reports
of pedestrian infrastructure related issues.
The sidewalk inventory included a review
of existing sidewalk segments, segments
along streets without sidewalks (referred
to as "no sidewalk present" segments),
curb ramps (which included reviewing
intersection crosswalks for adequate curb
ramps), and Audible Pedestrian Signals
(APS). Conditions were confirmed during
a field review in January 2023, where
pedestrian elements were assessed using
established evaluation criteria. Evaluation
criteria included sidewalk conditions,
types of sidewalk failures (i.e. faulting,
distortion, etc.), sidewalk obstructions,
curb ramp conditions, and presence of
pedestrian push buttons and corresponding
tone emitted. It should be noted that
the evaluations did not include detailed
information and analysis of slopes and
failures for ADA compliance that were
done previously in the 2014 Plan for the
Downtown overlay district. The City has
policies in place to annually update the
ADA Transition Plan. The City will include
the information collected in this Sidewalk
Master Plan to update the Public Right -
of -Way sections of the City of Georgetown
ADA Transition Plan.
Existing Condit40
ions
This evaluation inventoried the conditions
of approximately 10,500 sidewalk segments
totaling 905 miles (this includes existing
and not present segments). Additionally,
the characteristics of 1,122 curb ramps and
272 AIDS units were documented. The
2014 Sidewalk Master Plan rated sidewalk
condition based on 5 categories, including
Excellent for newer sidewalk, Good for
functional sidewalk, Passable for sidewalk
with no noticeable of failures that may
be insufficient width, Limited Failures for
functional with spot failures, and Failing for
nonfunctional sidewalk that cannot be used
by wheelchairs. The 2023 update included
a consolidation of categories in Good,
Substandard, and Failing. Significant results
of the sidewalk assessment include (Table
1-1 and Figure 1-1):
92% OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
IS IN GOOD CONDITION % OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN
3% OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE B TANDAI 00NDIT10N
IS IN FAILING CONDITION
This inventory of existing sidewalk infrastructure was used to develop an implementation plan for sidewalk
maintenance and construction of newsidewolks within the Georgetown city limits.
Table 1-1. Existing Sidewalk Conditions
Good I Functional sidewalk, good condition I Failing I Nonfunctional, cannot be used by
wheelchairs, difficult for pedestrians
Substandard Functional sidewalk of insufficient No Sidewalk Present No sidewalk exists or a gap in the
width or spot failures I sidewalk segment is present
Programmed to be Programmed or in a stage of design
Improved/Added or construction as of late 2023
City of Georgetown 0
Figure 1-1. Sidewalk Inventory, 2023
0 Click the following link to review the online version of the Sidewalk Inventory, 2023 Map (Online Map)
2. Public
Engagement
The people who live, work, and play in Georgetown use the transportation system daily.
A critical piece of the Sidewalk Master Plan was receiving feedback from stakeholders,
elected officials, and residents, to better understand the existing system and local priorities.
As part of the public engagement process, there was a series of meetings, online surveys,
and a project website with interactive engagement tools to collect feedback. All comments
and engagement tool outputs were tabulated and incorporated into the prioritization
process as weighted criteria, which are detailed in Chapter 3.
Interdepartmental
Working Group
An Interdepartmental Working Group (IWG)
was established with staff from multiple
City departments, including Planning,
Public Works, Engineering, Economic
Development, and Communications and
Public Engagement (CAPE). The purpose
of the IWG was to garner technical focus
with an emphasis on identifying conflicts
in recommendations or solutions on
implementation of projects or policies. The
IWG met monthly throughout the process
to provide feedback regarding sidewalk
priorities, facilitated the development
of a process to address challenges and
increased support for the Master Plan.
Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder meetings were conducted in
order to introduce the plan and engage
representatives in discussions about
sidewalk infrastructure challenges within
the City. These meetings were held as part
of the Future Mobility Plan, but sidewalk
needs were discussed. The meetings
solicited feedback regarding sidewalk
priorities and increased support for the
Master Plan.
o Sun City Neighborhood Representative
Organization
Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z)
Georgetown Neighborhoods Roundtable
Georgetown Independent School
District (GISD)
o City Council
Staff and Council
Workshops
The project team met with City staff and
City Council throughout the process to
City of Georgetown 0
introduce the project and ensure project
scoring and prioritization and align with
the City's goals and priorities. The following
workshops were held throughout the
planning process:
Fall 2022 Project Overview with Council
3 Staff workshops on prioritization of
projects in spring and summer 2023
Council workshop in spring 2023 on
prioritization goal weights
Council workshop in summer and fall
2023 to review priority projects
Phase ! Public
Feedback - General
Feedback
The first public open house was conducted
in November 2022, in combination with the
Future Mobility Plan. The public meeting
solicited feedback regarding all modes
of transportation, including sidewalks.
Exhibits displayed
existing sidewalks • •m,o
and other modes of
transportation, City land
uses, City facilities, GISD f
schools, park and trail
locations, and recent
pedestrian -automobile
crashes. Attendees were
encouraged to provide R'
comments regarding
safety and where current
gaps or issues existed.
An online engagement
tool (Figure 2-1) was
created using Social
Pinpoint, which was
available to the public
from October to December, 2022 and was
used to mimic the in -person version of the
comment map. Overall,167 comments were
received that were related to sidewalks.
These comments covered topics such as
ADA issues, bike -pedestrian conflicts, the
need for crosswalks, hazardous traffic,
the need for increased signage, missing
sidewalks, sidewalk obstructions, the need
for shade, poor sidewalk conditions, and
traffic signal issues.
Areas that received multiple sidewalk
related comments included downtown,
University Avenue, Blue Hole Park, and
Rivery Park. All sidewalk -specific data
collected during this open house and in
the online tool were incorporated into the
Master Plan.
Figure 2-1.Online Engagement Tool Summary
See Appendix for further detail
MW
•• •m ■• • •
•
r • il{$
Cluster Area
Downtown Georgetown
Northwest
/ Georgetown / Blue Hole
Park
Wolf Ranch
Rivery Park
• Southwestem University
San Jose Park / Purl
Elementary
G Unclustered Comments U o
1 •CW61...i 110�
025 0 6 Mlles
1" 1 1 "
3 �
b 151h 51
> rr.
arc,
M
N
A
io
Phase 11 Public
Feedback
An interactive map was
published online on the
project website that
asked participants to
leave sidewalk -specific
comments. The map
received 115 comments,
84% identifying missing
segments, 12% identifying
needed repair, and
4% identifying safety
concerns. Figure 2-2 is
a heat map that shows
where comments were
placed, with areas with
the deepest red color
indicating a higher
number of comments
received.
Figure 2-2. Sidewalk Comment Heat Map
See Appendix for further detail
THE MAP RECEIVED 1 ! COMMENTS, 84% IDENTIFYING MISSING SEGMENTS,
12% IDENTIFYING NEEDED REPAIR AND 4% IDENTIFYING SAFETY CONCERNS.
City of Georgetown 0
On March 7, a survey was sent to City of Georgetown
FlashVote subscribers. It was open for comment until
March 9. The survey asked about residents' walking
and biking habits, availability of sidewalks in their
neighborhoods, and their priorities for sidewalk
improvements. Results from the survey included data
collected from 454 local participants (see Appendix for
further detail). Results showed that:
Do you regularly walk or bike on Georgetown's local
streets? Most respondents do walk and bike locally and
do not have sidewalks in their neighborhoods
V
Where would you prioritize sidewalk improvements in Georgetown, if anywhere?
Respondents would generally prefer for sidewalk improvements be prioritized near
schools and downtown
o Which improvements to the trail and sidewalk systems would be most important to
you, if any? Connecting gaps and repairing cracks in sidewalks were the preferred type
of future improvements
The Sidewalk Master Plan project team also solicited feedback at the Red Poppy Festival
in April 2023. The in -person activity at the Red Poppy Festival received feedback from 83
participants. The same activity was available online on the project website from April 27
to May 8 and received feedback from 376 participants. Participants were asked to allocate
a fictional budget of $10,000 to different categories of transportation. The feedback from
this activity helped prioritize modes of travel, including automobile facilities, transportation
technologies, pedestrian facilities, public transit, bicycle facilities, and micromobility. While
the participants from Red Poppy Festival prioritized pedestrian facilities and public transit,
the final responses when combined with the online participation showed a prioritization
of automobile facilities and transportation technologies. This activity helped to prioritize
sidewalk facilities in the larger transportation network as a whole.
Fbd Fbppy Festival: 83 Participants
[ategoy Ntv"rnrur5
cinuap
based on
Social Pinpoint: 376
Participants
egOry
knountin$
(Ind.."nead�I
�'HksirianF;tdllil[vs
$2,614
Fl.utcnwbiloFadllllcs
$3,4B0
PublicTransit $2,072
Trrn�tcrla((onT�,'Itt:Vkiry"4
$1,938
ai_1 r-z7•^.os $ 1,627
Fi�G:7ri,.iF:-d1lHQ_- I
PublicTransit
$ 1,631
PeEvinohllhi Fadlilla, $ 1,530
$ 1,503
rye $1,277
$ 880
Unused $-
k BIV A UFadlul
$1,060
hllaonwhllity
Unused
$ 340
$ 48
TOTAL
$10,000
TOTAL
$ 10,000
—The individual category amounts are calculated
the averages per participant_
QDmbined Total: 459 Participants
Category
Anumnt in $
pn decarWn9 cedar)
AnuuoUfu Fadll
$ 3,128
Tflfr.�f.,siu4iurl TFjrJrrl�l,�•
F"tYk Yi[:rr�..Jldtr.
$ 1.880
$ 1,809
PublicTransit
..._ ......
Mrrsomottlhty
$ 1.606
$1.100
$ 438
Unused
$ 39
TOTAL
$10,000
2]
3., Sidewalk
Prioritization
The prioritization process was initiated to answer three primary questions asked in the
original Sidewalk Study:
What factors most dramatically affect pedestrian movement in the City?
o What land uses or pedestrian attractors generate the most pedestrian traffic?
o What improvements would most impact pedestrian safety and connectivity in the
City, specifically addressing gaps in the existing network?
Prioritization Methodology
A prioritization methodology was developed based on the 2014 methodology with updates
for current priorities, such as filling gaps along major corridors and improving connectivity
on the existing network. The Georgetown sidewalk prioritization methodology evaluated
five major categories:
Special Considerations
Pedestrian Attractors
Pedestrian Safety
o Public Feedback
Demographics
City of Ceorgetown
Prioritization Considerations
Among the major considerations for the prioritization of sidewalk facilities were stakeholder
input, public input, connectivity to existing facilities, residential demographics, pedestrian
safety, project readiness and existing sidewalk conditions. Government and stakeholder
meetings were conducted to obtain a list of key sidewalk projects considered important to
the functionality of that agency. In general, stakeholders identified critical routes, missing
sidewalk segments and safety concerns. Virtual engagement through surveys and online
comment maps facilitated similar input from the public on key sidewalk projects as well
as preferred pedestrian attractors. Results from this public outreach were included in the
prioritization process. This qualitative data was combined with a quantitative analysis of
varying performance measures within the City of Georgetown.
Performance measures were established for each major consideration and points were
allowed to projects based on whether that project met the criteria for that performance
measure, or in some cases met the range of eligibility of that specific performance measure
(i.e., within a 1/4 mile of a trail =10 points, within 1/8 mile of a trail =10 points, and not within
a 1/4 mile of a trail = 0 points).
E4
GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN
Special Considerations - 20%
Special Considerations include internal
and external agency requests and
sidewalk projects prioritized in the
2014 Sidewalk Master Plan. Each
special consideration was documented
to ensure input from stakeholders and
previous City planning efforts were
equally considered.
Pedestrian Attractors - 30%
Sidewalks were assigned points based on
their proximity to pedestrian attractors (see
p.16) (within 1/4 and 1/8 mile). A distance
of'A mile is commonly considered an
acceptable walking distance to a pedestriar
attractor. Sidewalk segments were then
weighted between the various attractors
based on the public input received during
open houses and online surveys and City
Council feedback.
Pedestrian Safety - 30% Public Feedback - 15%
Points were assigned to sidewalks on arterials Sidewalks were assigned
and collectors based on higher volumes and points if they received a high
speeds of vehicles experienced on these amount of attention from
roadways. The final pedestrian safety score was public engagement activities
based on both the functional classification of or 311 requests.
adjacent streets, pedestrian -automobile crash
history, and whether the project supported the
creation of a safe route to a school. `
Demographics - 5%
The Demographics category gave points to sidewalks within areas with high
population density and areas with lower incomes, low car ownership, areas where
residents travel to work by walking and workforce housing is located. The proximity
of affordable housing developments was also considered for a final demographics
score.
special Considerations
Special considerations were included in the sidewalk prioritization methodology to capture
unique factors impacting sidewalk prioritization that fall outside the categories defined
above. This category allows inclusion of recommendations identified in previous City of
Georgetown studies. It also incorporates feedback received through government and
stakeholder meetings and feedback received in the public comment period.
AGENCY REQUEST
Agency requests included both internal agencies requests (City departments), as well as
external agency requests (such as the GISD.
GISD PRIORITIES
The planning team met with GISD Construction and Facilities throughout the
project. GISD identified critical sidewalk needs adjacent to school facilities within the
City of Georgetown, as well as along known walking and biking routes.
2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN
The 2014 Sidewalk Study identified Priority 1, 2, and 3 sidewalk projects. Several of these
projects have been completed since 2014. Sidewalk facilities recommended, but not
installed, since the initial study were given additional weight for consideration.
Pedestrian Attractors
This criterion prioritizes projects that have close proximity to land uses that generate a large
number of pedestrian trips.
DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Downtown Georgetown is a vibrant district with places to work and play. The Downtown
Overlay District has the highest concentration of pedestrian activity in the City. It is
important that the sidewalks in the Downtown Overlay District are complete and
accessible.
GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) will have 23 facilities within the city limits
by 2024. Providing safe routes to schools provides a better quality of life for families in the
City. Sidewalk facilities near GISD facilities were prioritized based on need for safe routes to
schools, with elementary schools presenting the highest need, followed by middle and high
schools.
u
SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
The Southwestern University campus serves more than 1,500 students in the heart of the
City. Students and faculty often walk between the University and Downtown Georgetown.
A safe sidewalk system will facilitate these routes.
PARKS & TRAILS
The City of Georgetown has nearly 83 miles of trails and 53 park facilities. The City of
Georgetown Parks Master Plan calls for equitable access to the City parks, indicating they
should be readily accessible, no matter where residents live.
Ten minutes on foot in dense areas and ten minutes apart by bicycle in suburban areas is
recommended. A complete sidewalk network to trail heads will help facilitate this goal. City
parks vary in size from neighborhood "pocket" parks to the San Gabriel River Park, following
the existing trail system.
RETAIL
Approximately 3% of Georgetown is zoned for retail use. While not all retail developments
are conducive to walking, some are enhanced by quick trips from adjacent residential
developments. For example, complete sidewalks between restaurants and adjacent offices
enhance the convenience of employees. For the purposes of this study, restaurants are
categorized as retail due to a common zoning.
Pedestrian Safety
The safety of existing pedestrian facilities is paramount to providing a walkable City.
Sidewalks should not only be provided, but well -maintained and accessible for all citizens.
To better evaluate the existing sidewalk network, the following categories were evaluated.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
Traffic volumes and vehicle speeds increase correspondingly
with the roadway classification. Vehicle speeds can be
correlated to the severity of pedestrian injuries in pedestrian -
automobile crashes.
PEDESTRIAN/AUTOMOBILE CRASHES
A history of pedestrian -automobile crashes can be an
indicator of an existing safety concern. Texas Department
of Public Safety crash records were reviewed to determine
hot -spots and focus pedestrian infrastructure upgrades. 23
pedestrian related crashes were reported between 2018 and
2022.18% of these crashes occurred on 1-35, 13% occurred on
University Avenue (SH 29) and 13% occurred on Austin Ave.
City of Georgetown a
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS
Safe Routes to School appearing in both the pedestrian attractors category and the
pedestrian safety category emphasize Georgetown's desire to provide safe walking
conditions for students, with a prioritization on elementary schools, followed by middle
schools and high schools. Ensuring elementary schools are prioritized helps create a safe
walking environment for younger students who may be navigating to school facilities for
the first time. This also helps ensure younger students who rely on bus transportation more
heavily have a safe route to the nearest bus stop for pickup and drop-off procedures.
Public Feedback
This criterion seeks to prioritize projects that received a high amount of attention from
public engagement activities. This is separate from 311 or agency requests and was
purely based off engagement activities that supported common anecdotes highlighted
throughout the planning process.
INTERACTIVE MAP UPVOTES
During the public engagement activities, residents were able to pinpoint segments on the
map and make comments about sidewalk related issues. Residents could also upvote that
comment to indicate a feeling of agreement on this issue, indicating that the specific issue
was not only the feelings of one individual, but more so the feelings of multiple individuals
throughout the community.
PUBLIC INPUT
The residents of Georgetown are most familiar with the conditions of the existing network
and pedestrian needs. Public input received through Open House I, FlashVote Survey, Red
Poppy Festival pop-up, 311 requests, email and the project website were incorporated into
the prioritization process.
Demographics
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WORKFORCE HOUSING
Recent studies have shown that lower income neighborhoods experience higher
pedestrian crashes. These increased pedestrian safety concerns can be linked to an increase
in pedestrian activity and lacking pedestrian infrastructure. Median household income and
location of workforce housing developments were reviewed as a metric.
CAR OWNERSHIP
Where the car ownership rates are lower, pedestrian trips will increase.
MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK
Pedestrian trips increase in areas where the primary mode of travel to work is walking.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
With a population of 67,176, 18% of the City of Georgetown is zoned single family residential.
A significant portion of walking trips will generate from the residences in the City. Older
parts of the City of Georgetown severely lack sidewalk facilities. It is necessary to consider
the single-family residences in the study, as they will serve as a frequent origin.
MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Multi -family residential areas can generate more pedestrian trips than single-family
residential neighborhoods, as the population density is much greater. Multi -family units
were considered as a unique attractor.
Project Readiness
Once segments were scored using the above criteria, segments were then screened for
other factors that may make constructing certain sidewalk projects more difficult, such as
limited right-of-way, drainage issues, or steep slopes. It was also noted whether segments
were eligible for alternative funding programs. These factors were grouped into the
following category of Project Readiness.
Ease of Project
Sidewalk projects that would not require a complicated design process and could be easily
constructed in the field without intense engineering oversight.
Alternative Funding Sources
This criterion reviewed sidewalk segments for the inclusion of a larger transportation
project or the ability to be funded with some alternative source of funding.
Once ranked projects were then categorized into each tier of need, a screened prioritized
project list was established.
Needs Assessment
Based on Council and City staff feedback, "tiers" or themes of projects were identified.
These tiers include Downtown, Schools, Gaps, and Small Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) projects. These tiers were first established as priorities by residents through public
engagement efforts, as residents indicated that these areas were the most important in
terms of sidewalk connectivity and safety. The tiers also help to support momentum to
implement prioritized projects by directly connecting to community priorities identified
through public engagement events. These tiers were later endorsed through City staff and
City Council workshops.
Public Schools
Sidewalk segments that provided direct routes or access to schools were considered a
priority tier.
City of Georgetown
Caps
Connectivity gaps in the sidewalk network identified along
arterial roadways or those that could provide trail access.
Downtown
This tier of projects focused on completing the downtown
sidewalk network for Priority 1 projects not yet complete from
2014 Plan.
Small CIP
A subset of CIP projects that doesn't require professional
engineering or right-of-way acquisition and are less than 200'
in length.
Prioritization Results
Ultimately, each of the five major categories were weighted and a final ran -king was
assigned to each segment. A detailed prioritization matrix is provided in the appendix. The
prioritization tool assigned a score to each sidewalk segment within the City of Georgetown
based on their relation to each element. Sidewalk segment priority rankings ranged from 0
to 65 points, with a possible maximum score of 85.
In addressing the three questions, mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, a screened
project list was developed for the Master Plan by scoring the City's sidewalk inventory. The
complete list of sidewalk projects and estimated costs can be found in the Appendix.
The screened project list captures the public's three main
priorities: trail access, along arterials, and connectivity to
schools facilities.
75% of projects are supportive to trail access
36% of projects are recommended within 1/4 mile of a
school
12% of projects are recommended adjacent to an arterial
roadway
12%
60
of projects are
recommended
ects are
adjacent to
J:w:mended
an arterial
n 1/4 mile
roadway
school
Figure 3-1. Priority Projects - Northwest
eb
W
e�
o
s
w-11*ns
Dr
a ett�
Sa r
Serenada
MV
Gbe�p,ons pr
a9
dO
W Espar
ada Or Georgetown
Municipal
Airport
O
Bootys Crossing Lake-"
Park
gootys Crossing
Rd '
2338
O
B
o .ry Park And
o irad
o-
A �.
o-
Georgetown
Country Club
- Public School Projects
- Small CIP Projects
Downtown Projects ;
- Gap Projects N
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 w University Ave
Miles
Click the following link to review the online version of the Sidewalk
Inventory, 2023 Map (OnlineMao)
�r
Icaorgew
29 24rZ aim
i
City of Georgetown
Figure 3-2. Priority Projects - Northeast
0 0.38 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 C'414A
Miles
M
U
u
9
1 p3
95 GR
6crry Creek
Country Club
ors
O'
a
r
QGrp.'.
F
Nq%atio�0 c
eiv rgetown 3• 130
nicipal
irport
O�
eN
a
Berry Spring.
perk And
prvaervv
8a{ry:Crvok
A
>
- Public School Projects
- Small CIP Projects
Downtown Projects
- Gap Projects iN
Weir
f'n.an Branch"°
---
Givvnbvl�
1105
V
CR 1
l �1
Ga 1'JA
P E- 971: i /
1
�a rr.f� m GR12
O d
p J N
J ` G
Snn � % 4
11 0-1 Ce
m O
W �
Z 9
E SH,2
s P e 79 4
J
E V�rvej5,ty ��._
7qjiftwn (Southwestern
v>• University
c
130
o .o
Click the following link to review the online version of the Sidewalk Inventory, 2023 Map (Qnllna bJAQ)
5
If Ranch VNMI
Figure 3-3. Priority Projects - Southwest
M
O ;
O- Connell Family m y
?�
Cemetery Cir i,: r•n, t O
O� O• :vt r. n,nn.,l
Corn ry
d
17- test
c
O as°n
Pa
Wolf Ranch Pkv+y
Wolf Ranch
Woif Ranch
Perk
d
O` G�
O° ' S �•
3 f a m
a % 0 ° O a
a 0. 0
0
th Fork Sen Gay�lok Rrvet O
Lyndoch Pork
<00f�
�udJ'wr
w
b �s�
O ° Oa
0
o Rim t� O
$ P Dell Pickett El '
�i o A v
N� < Nr Ot
a
AoS 2243 S�sao
O o
ko
O
ata
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Southwest gyp
Miles
Click the following link to review the online version of the Sidewalk
Inventory, 2023 Map (Online Mao)
R
sr�
Z St David's
L. Georgetown
U. Hospital
- Public School Projects
- Small CIP Projects
- Downtown Projects
- Gap Projects N
r r
City of Georgetown
Figure 3-4. Priority Projects - Southeast
Z
Je
� ��n1Jets3cy p
f Southwestern
University
� a
oo
130
W
W
In
J'
❑ef'
1�
0'
tn60`. A
o kon Ave
U
o s
4
A
laeo goo
4
N
S
r
;N
o"se
•fie
zt'ng�
i
8\J a
n3Jerg�Ey
V
29
�J a
�'4'60 Un�J e�s�ty B
z o50
Ln
G
Public School Projects
Small CIP Projects
z
y Downtown Projects
3vistO-if 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 c Miles
Gap Projects N
1
e
Click the following link to review the online version of the Sidewalk Inventory, 2023 Map (Online Map)
4. Implementation
Strategies
The pedestrian network within public right-of-way, within the city limits of Georgetown,
presents a long-term asset management challenge in part because of its long useful life
cycle, steady growth and cost of repair. It is appropriate that the asset management and
financing strategies for the network account for Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects,
ongoing operations and maintenance costs and accommodation of future network needs.
Summary of Approximate Costs
Preliminary construction cost estimates were developed for the sidewalk projects identified
in the Master Plan. Many sidewalk projects were not included in screened priority list
(the complete screen priority project list can be found in the Appendix on p. 30-33). If all
sidewalks were built where missing segments exist based on inventory in Chapter 1, the
total cost would be close to $1 billion. A breakdown of potential sidewalk construction costs,
in present dollars, is as follows:
Table 4-1. Preliminary Plan Costs
City or Georgetown 0
Maintenance and Life -Cycle Programming
The planning cycle for operations and maintenance will follow the same 10-year cycle
proposed for prioritized projects. In determining life cycle costs, the 2014 Plan reviewed
industry literature and adopted best management practice life cycles for sidewalks.
Assumptions
According to that literature, a new sidewalk has an expected useful life of up to 50 years;
sidewalks in fair condition have an expected useful life of10 years. It is recommended
that retirement and replacement programming and maintenance budgeting be tied to
the staffing levels programmed through the annual budgeting process and materials be
determined based on current costs with approximate amounts of construction possible at
staffing levels.
This methodology assumes 16 curb ramps will need to be installed for about every mile
of sidewalk network. Estimates for sidewalk and curb ramps maintenance assume that it
would take 100 years to replace the entire system at current staffing levels; estimates for
intersection improvements assume that the current system will require replacement every
20 years for Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) and do not include labor estimates.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)
Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) units are audible push units with speech message
capability and audible locator tones. These units are required by federal law when traffic
signals are modified or upgraded. Where appropriate, it is recommended that upgrades to
existing pedestrian signal equipment should be considered a priority maintenance project.
Otherwise, upgrades or installations should take place on a standalone basis (see Table A-2
in the Appendix for prioritized crossing projects).
Cost per linear foot are based on recent sidewalk project bids provided by the City of
Georgetown as a 20% increase for soft costs. These costs will increase annually based on
inflation and are in today's dollars only. The methodology does not consider an increase in
system size to maintain (based on CIP infrastructure built by City or by development that
the City inherits); this would increase the total need estimated.
Table 4-2 illustrates the maintenance projects estimated to be completed on annual (or 1%
of total maintenance needed) and 20-year basis. In addition to maintenance of sidewalks
and ramps, this table represents a 20-year replacement cycle for crosswalks and APS
equipment at all signalized intersections in the City.
�2 J
Table 4-2. Maintenance Item Estimates
Sidewalk Repairs
$4,135,000 1 $82,670,000
Curb Ramp Replacement/Installation $363,000 1 $7,250,000
Intersection Improvements $278,000 I $5,550,000
In coordination with the Public Works Department, maintenance funding and efforts are
addressing the following project types within current budgets, which often includes small
CIP projects like the ones identified in Chapter 3 in the project tiers:
• Construction of new sidewalk projects that don't require professional engineering
or right-of-way acquisition and are less than 200' in length.
Repairs to failing existing sidewalks segments of 200' or less
Rebuilding curb ramps that are non-functional
Minor sidewalk adjustments due to conflicts
• APS unit upgrades during existing intersection or signal maintenance projects
Potential Funding sources
Outside of the City's general fund, there are four areas, which could be harnessed to
support the maintenance and operations of the City's pedestrian network.
1. Subsequent to the adoption of the 2014 Master Plan, the City passed bond referendums
in 2015 and 2021 focused on transportation improvements. These bonds included dollars
that helped make significant progress on the 2014 Plans' Priority I projects in the 2015 Bond.
The 2021 bond included an allocation for additional projects that may arise out of the 2023
Update to the Sidewalk Master Plan.
2. Special revenue districts are appropriate sources of funding because excess revenues
generated by that district above and beyond an established assessed value bring about
additional reinvestment in that district through infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure
within the Downtown, Rivery and Williams Drive Gateway Tax Increment Reinvestment
Zones (TIRZ) are designed to serve pedestrian needs. Maintenance expenses within those
districts should be supported by a dedicated source of funding directly related to the value
it creates.
3. Like TIRZs, the City administratively supports Public Improvement Districts (PIDs), which
through additional tax increments, manage infrastructure enhanced beyond minimal City
requirements. Although the City cannot directly harness the additional taxes raised by PIDs,
it could partner with PIDs to improve and maintain the pedestrian network.
City of Georgetown GO
Annual Review Process
An annual review process is paramount to the execution of the Master Plan. City staff
and management have made a concerted effort to include pedestrian infrastructure
within the same asset management schema as other capital items in the City's
inventory. The pedestrian network serves the community in the public right-of-way which
conveys liability and requires public expenditure.
The project team recommends that the Master Plan be reviewed annually in coordination
with CIP efforts. Every effort should be made to synchronize roadway and pedestrian
improvements to minimize impact to public and staff. Initial project prioritization and
recommended scheduling are included in this Master Plan; however, additional project
selection criteria will be included that allows staff to respond to public partners and elected
official requests in a transparent and predictable manner. The annual review should include
three components:
28
Appendix
City of Georgetown Q
Table A-1. Screened Priority Projects and Preliminary Costs
Location
Tier
DescriptionEstimated
Olive St from 15th St to 17th St
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$250,000
$250,000
Vine St & 19th St from Hutto Rd to Purl El
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$330,000
$580,000
Georgetown Inner Loop between Forbes MS
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$1,320,000
$1,900,000
and SH 29
17th St from Hutto Rd to Vine St.
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$260,000
$2,160,000
South side of Weir from San Gabriel Rd to
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$1,760,000
$3,920,000
Inner Loop
1002 E 16th St
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$27,000
$3,947,000
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$47,000
$3,994,000
West side of Vine St at 18th St
Williams Dr. from Olde Oak Dr. to 275' south
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$900,000
$4,894,000
of Woodlake Dr.
Carlson Cv from Rockride Ln to Bell Gin Rd
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$655,000
$5,549,000
Stagecoach Dr from Bluebonnet Trl to Cactus Trl;
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$140,000
$5,689,000
Cactus Trl from Stagecoach Dr to Arrowhead Ln
Wagon Wheel Trl from Williams Dr to sidewalk
Ar
connection between Old Mill Rd and
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$635,000
$6,324,000
Bluebonnet Trl
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
. New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
River Bow Dr from Norwood St W to Leander Rd
Schools
$300,000
$280,000
$6,624,000
Green Lee Dr from Tippit MS to Rockmoor Dr
Schools
$6,904,000
Thousand Oaks Blvd from Rockcrest Dr to SB
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$730,000
$7,634,000
I-35 FR
3rd St, from Austin Ave. to Main St.
Downtown
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$205,000
$7,839,000
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$235,000
Rockcrest Dr from Thousand Oaks Blvd to
Schools
$8,074,000
Tamara Dr
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$340,000
$8,414,000
River Wood Dr from Leander Rd to River Bow Dr
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$535,000
$8,949,000
Norwood Dr to Friendswood Dr to Talwood Dr
802 Wagon Wheel Trl
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$64,000
$9,013,000
Whisper Oaks Ln from Northwest Blvd to
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$375,000
$9,388,000
Lakeway Dr
Wood Stone Dr from Woodview Dr to Thousand
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$320,000
$9,708,000
Oaks Blvd
Lonesome Trl from Wagon Wheel TO to
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$790,000
$10,498,000
Lakeway Dr
$20,000
605 E 8th St
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$10,518,000
Buffalo Springs Rd from Western Trl to
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$330,000
$10,848,000
Lakeway Dr
4th St. between Austin Ave & Rock St.
Downtown
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$195,000
$11,043,000
Rock St from loth St to llth St
Downtown
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$110,000
$11,153,000
401 W 6th St
Downtown
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$55,000
$11,208,000
15th St from Laurel St to Hutto Rd
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$395,000
$11,603,000
*Based on 2023 dollars, for ,budgeting purposes assume 4% annual inflation for programming of projects
110
Table A-1. Screened Priority Projects and Preliminary Costs (Continued)
Location Mad=
Country Club Rd from Chandler Park trail to
Rivery Blvd
Tier
Gaps
.-scription Tr
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
Estimated
Fee
$970,000
Cumulative Fee
$12,573,000
Broken Spoke Trl from Wagon Wheel TO to
sidewalk connection north of Lakeway Dr
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$480,000
$13,053,000
Park Ln between McCoy Ln and Clay St,
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$185,000
$13,238,000
Church St. from 3rd St. to 2nd St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$90,000
$13,328,000
North side of 2nd St. from College St. to Holly St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$265,000
$13,593,000
Buffalo Springs TO from Hedgewood Dr to Wagon
Wheel TO
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$330,000
$13,923,000
Northwest Blvd from 1-35 to 300' south along
Apple Creek Dr from Northwest Blvd
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$190,000
$14,113,000
808 E 7th St
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$48,000
$14,161,000
Austin Ave from Stadium Dr to 1-35 FR
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$595,000
$14,756,000
Stadium Dr from Inner Loop to Crystal Knoll Blvd
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$750,000
$15,506,000
SW Corner of Rock St and 11th St
Downtown
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$85,000
$15.591,000
South side ofllth St. from Railroad St. to Rock St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$440,000
$16,031,000
6th St. from Myrtle St. to Elm St. (north side)
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$90,000
$16,121,000
CR 104 from East View HS sidewalk connection to
Ronald Rd
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$1,455,000
$17,576,000
Church St between 17th St and 21st St
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$590,000
$18,166,000
16th St from Main St to Church St
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$160,000
$18,326,000
6th St. from Church St. to Myrtle St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$90,000
$18,416,000
6th St. from Myrtle St, to Elm St. (south side)
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$85,000
$18,501,000
Northwest Blvd from sidewalk connection north
of Northwood Dr to sidewalk connection south of
Janis Dr
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$745,000
$19,246,000
Rocky Hollow Trl from sidewalk connection north
of Lakeway Dr to Lakeway Dr
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$80,000
$19,326,000
Primose Trl from Wagon Wheel TO to Lakeway Dr
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$610,000
$19,936,000
Laurel St. from University to 15th St.
Schools
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$270,000
$20,206,000
Janis Dr. between Shannon Ln and 525' East of
Northwest Blvd
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$745,000
$20,9S1,000
North side of loth St between Myrtle St and
Elm St
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$57,000
$21,008,000
West St. between 6th St, to 8th St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$200,000
$21,208,000
13th St. between Railroad St. and Hart St,
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$105,000
$21,313,000
Railroad St. between loth St. and University Ave
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$105,000
$21,418,000
Vine St. from University Ave. to 15th St,
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$235,000
$21,653,000
1904 S Austin Ave
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$46,000
$21,699,000
Based on 2023 dollars, for budgeting purposes assume 4% annual inflation for programming of projects
City of Ceorgetown 0
Table A-1. Screened Priority Projects and Preliminary Costs (Continued)
Location
Valley Dr. from Trails End Dr. to
Southwestern Blvd
Tier
Gaps
scription
DeFee
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
Estimated
$710,000
Cumulative Fee
$22,409,000
Morrow St from Saguaro Trl sidewalk connection
to trail connection on Morrow St
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$180,000
$22,589,000
Main St from 18th St to 21st St
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$285,000
$22,874,000
2202 Williams Dr
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$50,000
$22,924,000
loth St. between Scenic Dr. and West St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$175,000
$23,099,000
906 S Rock St
Downtown
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$25,000
$23,124,000
21st St. between Austin Ave. and Church St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$430,000
$23,554,000
Park Ln/Clay St. from 1-35 to Park Ln and from
Central Dr to Park Ln dead end
Gaps
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$420,000
$23,974,000
Chamber Way from Austin Ave. to Morrow St. trail
$1,130,000
$25,104,000
College St. from 2nd St. to Holly St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$495,000
$25,599,000
5th St from Rock St to Austin Ave
Downtown
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$100,000
$25,699,000
4th St. & 3rd St. & Church St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$275,000
$25,974,000
Central Dr. from Williams Dr„ to Golden Vista Dr.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$900,000
$26,874,000
Weir Rd between River Haven Dr. to Morrow St.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$1,005,000
$250,000
$27,879,000
$28,129,000
Hutto Rd from sidewalk connection north of
McCoy PI to 17th St
Hedgewood Dr from sidewalk connection north
of Foust Trl to Rocky Hollow Trl
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$460,000
$28,589,000
19th St from Hutto Rd to Southwestern Blvd
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$415,000
$29,004,000
San Gabriel Village Blvd from 1-35 N to Austin Ave.
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$420,000
$29,424,000
4th St. & Church
Rocky Hollow Trl from Hedgewood Dr to Wagon
Wheel Trl
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$180,000
$350,000
$29,604,000
Gaps
$29,954,000
1402 Olive St
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$43,000
$29,997,000
Churchill Farms Dr from sidewalk connection east
of Moulins Ln to Inner Loop
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$90,000
$30,087,000
Inner Loop from Rio Frio Ln to SH 29
Gaps
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$905,000
$30,992.000
905 N Church St (Northeast Side)
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$40,000
$31,032.000
Southeast corner of Riverbend Dr & Dawn Dr
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$41,000
$31,073,000
1015 Leander Rd
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$53,000
$31,126,000
5485-5515 RR-2338
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$34,000
$31,160,000
North side of 13th St between Elm and Ash
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$50,000
$31,210,000
30301 Berry Creek Dr
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$41,000
$31,251,000
30321 Berry Creek Dr
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$46,000
$31,297,000
410 Ranch Rd
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$49,000
$31,346,000
*Based on 2023 dollars, for budgeting purposes assume 4% annual inflation for programming of projects
32
Table A-1. Screened Priority Projects and Preliminary Costs (Continued)
Location
Tier
DescriptionEstimated
1001 E University Ave
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$40,000
$31,416,000
South side of Churchill Farm Dr between Inner
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$S0,000
$31,466,000
Loop and Keenland Dr
Rockride Ln to connect missing piece between
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$16,000
$31,482,000
Fairhaven Gtwy and Arrowpoint Rd
West side of FM 1460, 570' south of La Conterra
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$5,000
$31,487,000
Blvd
501 Debora Dr
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$40,000
$31,527,000
406 Debora Dr
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$63,000
$31,590,000
30709 Chi Chi Dr
Small CIP
New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps
$51,000
$31,641,000
*Based on 2023 dollars, for budgeting purposes assume 4% annual inflation for programming of projects
City of Georgetown 0
Figure A-1. Priority Croup Sidewalk Projects
White Wing
Golf Club
Sun City
mr
• r
z
r
195
k3wr +rims
Fri .rvr-
f� A
233� F LJ
8 '
O '
Gyrg�.�� z C]
1~
W L)niversity Ave H � s w
� o
w
a
Z f�
v �
1460
'x 2243 • •
2243
•
3
v
Serenada
- Public School Projects
- Small CIP Projects
Downtown Projects
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Teravista Golf 4�
Mlles Club Cap Projects N
AW
Click the following link to review the online version of the Sidewalk Inventory, 2023 Map (OnlineMao)
Figure A-2. FlashVote Survey Results
Do you regularly walk or bike on
Georgetown's local streets?
Where would you prioritize
sidewalk improvements in
Georgetown, if anywhere?
*Participants could choose up to four options
Which improvements to the
trail and sidewalk systems
would be most important to
you, if any?
*Participants could choose up to four options
Yes, and I don't have sidewalks in my
neighborhood
Yes, and I have sidewalks in my neighborhood
No, and I don't have sidewalks in my
neighborhood
No, and I have sidewalks in my neighborhood
Not sure 0%
0% S% 10% 15% 20% 2S% 30% 35% 40%
Near schools
Downtown
Near parks and trails
Near shopping and restuarants
In residential areas
In my neighborhood i
Nowhere, use the money on something else Ili
Near city facilities
Other: I:
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Add sidewalks to conned gaps between them
Repair or Improve sidewalks (remove obstructions,
fix cracks/bumps, etc)
Add amenities along existing trails (lighting, seating,
shade, etc)
Add new sidewalks where there aren't any
Add more signs along existing trails to help
naviga[iun
Pave trails that are currently unpaved
Not sure
Other
Trail and sidewalks improvements aren't that
important to me
0% 10% 20% 3096 40% 50% 60% 70%
City of Georgetown 0