Update of Master Plans
The Carolina Thread Trail, collaborating with our partners and stakeholders, plans to conduct a process in 2026 to update each of the previously adopted county-specific master plans. The initial adoptions occurred between 2009 and 2015, according to locally-driven processes, and over time the Thread Trail and local governments have amended some of the plans as needed. Given many changes in the region in the last 10-15 years, a thorough assessment of the regional network is due.
Request for Proposals
Currently the Carolina Thread Trail is seeking firms to submit proposals for the “Region-wide Update of Carolina Thread Trail Master Plans,” covering the 15 counties in the Thread Trail footprint. Because this is an update of existing plans rather than creation of new plans, it is anticipated that the result of this procurement process will be the selection of a single firm to update all of the master plans.
For additional details, please see the full Request for Proposals at this link.
Proposals must be submitted electronically. The deadline for submission is 5:00 pm (EDT) on September 16, 2025. To submit a proposal, first request a file transfer link from Jane Love, Trail Development Manager, at jane@carolinathreadtrail.org. (The link can be requested multiple days ahead of actual submittal, and should be requested no later than 4:30 pm on September 16, to ensure sufficient time for response and upload.)
Pre-submittal Q&As
Optional pre-submittal meeting (virtual): Tuesday, August 12, at 11:00 am (EDT):
Microsoft Teams meeting: Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 225 344 239 278 8
Passcode: 7bw2Bx9X
Dial in by phone:
+1 980-505-7953,,858725949# United States, Charlotte
Find a local number
Phone conference ID: 858 725 949#
Questions via email: From the RFP release date through close-of-business on August 27, interested firms may submit written questions only to Jane Love, Trail Development Manager, at jane@carolinathreadtrail.org. The Thread Trail will respond to inquiries via email as soon as practicable. Additionally, the questions received and responses provided will be added to this page on an ongoing basis, until the deadline for submitting questions passes and final responses are posted.
Q: In the update process, what is the expectation for how counties are grouped?
A: Carolina Thread Trail (CTT) intentionally is allowing flexibility for the proposer to choose how to group the counties. We do not expect each of the 15 counties to be addressed separately, as that would involve a lot of meetings. For instance, geographic proximity could make sense for groupings (e.g. the four SC counties together), or rural vs more urban may be an idea, etc. Keep in mind these are updates, not creating brand new Master Plans. The update needed in some counties might be more than needed in other counties.
Q: Who did the original master plans?
A: There were several consulting firms. Some of the ones that current CTT staff are aware of were: Stewart, McAdams, Kimley Horn, Greenways Inc, LandDesign. Given that this in an update, we think it is doable for one firm.
Q: On the stakeholder and community engagement, it says “surveys and/or meetings” – is there some level of effort CTT has in mind?
A: That is another part of the RFP where CTT is allowing flexibility for the proposer. Given that we shared the project budget, we want to know what you are willing to do for that amount. We understand engagement is often the most expensive part of the process. Of course, it depends on how you group the counties – you might have more groups or you might have fewer groups. Also you can decide are surveys and meetings feasible for you, or just a survey or just a meeting (for each grouping)? We do want some kind of public input opportunity, but obviously it would be hard to have just one meeting for the whole 15-county region.
Q: The RFP describes initial and mid-point meetings of a Steering Committee, and near the end a meeting for stakeholders — please clarify who would be on the Steering Committee?
A: The Steering Committee would have perhaps one representative from the relevant trail implementation entities within the county grouping (e.g. a Planning Director or Park and Recreation Director from appropriate towns and cities). CTT staff knows the partner representatives and will flesh this out with consultant team at the beginning. On the other hand, the stakeholders are a broader group invited to review the recommendations – representatives who are not necessarily trail implementers, but who would care (such as certain other non-profits, people in the development community, etc). Note that the RFP states that certain meetings at certain points in the process would be virtual meetings.
Q: Regarding the $170,000 budget – is that for all 15 counties, or is that per county or per grouping of counties?
A: $170,000 is for this entire planning process – all 15 counties.
Q: Although this contract would be for planning, is CTT looking to put additional funding on the next step, like taking it into engineering? Is that on the horizon at all?
A: Because the implementers of the trails are primarily the different local governments, the next steps would be more incremental and determined by each jurisdiction. CTT is not expecting to lead one broad implementation effort, although we may provide grants, as they are requested by the implementers. Certain segments may go into feasibility studies or design next, but it depends upon other entities. This project is entirely planning – refreshing our Master Plans. We are not expecting to go into a lot of detail about the implementation or even the prioritization of certain corridors.
Q: Related to engagement efforts, some of the counties have greenway and trail plans that have been through a robust process and are essentially dialed in (e.g. Mecklenburg County) – would that effect the process we use in updating the CTT Master Plans?
A: We have not internally decided this, but it is a reasonable assumption that the CTT update would not need to re-open public discussion on some of the locally planned networks that have been well vetted in recent years. Some county Master Plans will need more revision than others. Also, one idea might be to piggy back engagement on other planning activity that is already going on in certain areas, if there are opportunities. We are not requiring that approach, but it might be possible to capitalize on other efforts to make our process more streamlined. Keep in mind that, even in the counties that have well-established plans, the CTT update would probably still recommend some altered routes for our Master Plans in those areas, due to findings of previous studies conducted by CTT and/or our partners.
Q: Is there any kind of official approval of the plans that is part of this scope, or would that be done by individual counties?
A: The RFP states that the consultant will not be expected to present the recommended updates of the Master Plans to any Boards. The approval process will be as follows: the CLC/CTT Board of Directors will consider adoption of all the county Master Plans and the appropriate Board of County Commissioners will consider adoption of their specific county Master Plan. The initial Master Plans had the same type of approval process. The adoptions by various County Commissions would occur at different times. CTT staff will cover the presentations to our own Board of Directors and to the various Boards of County Commissioners.
Q: Will the update result in an expansion of the CTT network?
A: Not necessarily. The goal of the process is to hone in on what is doable and identify what routing would take advantage of opportunities. We do not have any particular goal for mileage.