HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/2026 - Regular Agenda Packet - Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory BoardCollege Station, TX
Meeting Agenda
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board
1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX 77840
Internet:www.microsoft.com/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeting
Meeting ID: 269 753 645 57 | Passcode: QfdsL9
Phone: +1 979-431-4880 | Phone Conference: 917 612 881#
The City Council may or may not attend this meeting.
April 13, 2026 3:30 PM Bush 4141 Community Room
College Station, TX Page 1
Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the meeting body will be present in the physical location
stated above where citizens may also attend in order to view a member(s) participating by
videoconference call as allowed by 551.127, Texas Government Code. The City uses a third
party vendor to host the virtual portion of the meeting; if virtual access is unavailable, meeting
access and participation will be in-person only.
1.Call meeting to order and consider absence requests.
2.Hear Visitors.
At this time, the Chairperson will open the floor to citizens wishing to address issues not already
scheduled on today's agenda. Each citizen’s presentation will be limited to three minutes in order to
allow adequate time for the completion of the agenda items. Comments will be received and city staff
may be asked to look into the matter, or the matter may be placed on a future agenda for discussion.
A recording may be made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.
3.Agenda Items.
3.1. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
Attachments: 1. March 30 2026 Minutes
3.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending
the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Thoroughfare Plan and Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan to remove the future extension of Pavilion Avenue, a Minor Collector,
between Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 South including associated future bike lanes and
sidewalks.
Sponsors: Jason Schubert
Attachments: 1. Thoroughfare Plan Amendment Exhibit
2.Bicycle Plan Amendment Exhibit
3.Pedestrian Plan Amendment Exhibit
4.East College Station Transportation Study Exhibit
5.Applicants Supporting Information
3.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the upcoming Cycle with Council
community bike ride on May 2, 2026.
Sponsors: Carl Ahrens
3.4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the draft Active Transportation Master Plan.
Sponsors: Jesse Dimeolo
Attachments: 1. Chapters 4-6
Page 1 of 74
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Advisory Board
Page 2 April 13, 2026
2.Table 6.4 Implementation Tasks
3.5. Presentation and discussion regarding the following items related to biking, walking, and greenways.
a.Public Meetings of Interest
b.Capital and Private Updates
3.6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the Bicycle Pedestrian and Greenways
Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings.
•May 11, 2026 ~ Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Advisory Board at 3:30pm in the Bush
4141 Community Room.
4. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
A member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to
a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
5. Adjourn.
Adjournment into Executive Session may occur in order to consider any item listed on the agenda if a
matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall,
1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on April 6, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.
City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting
and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters,
readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD
at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the
meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification
at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to
provide the necessary accommodations.
Page 2 of 74
MINUTES
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
March 30, 2026
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Scott Shafer, Board Members Kathy Langlotz, Joy
Chmelar, Carla Robinson, Thomas Woodfin, Neo Jang, Matthew
Jackson
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning and Development Anthony Armstrong, Public
Works Graduate Engineer Deanna Ordoñez, Transportation
Planning Administrator Jason Schubert, Senior Planner Jesse
DiMeolo, Staff Planner Joe Allen, Staff Planner Carl Ahrens and
Staff Assistant II Jocelyne Mora, Staff Assistant II Grecia Fuentes
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order, introductions and consider absence requests.
Chairperson Shafer called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors.
Robert Rose, former bike shop owner, shared an insight on Vision Zero. The City of Austin
adopted Vision Zero a few years ago as a strategy measure for transportation planning to reduce
fatality and serious injury crashes.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Agenda Items.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.1: Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting
minutes.
Board Member Langlotz motioned to approve the meeting minutes from February 9th,
Board Member Chmelar seconded the motion, minutes were approved 7-0.
3.2: Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance
amending the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Thoroughfare Plan and Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to remove the future extension of Pebble Creek
Parkway, a Minor Arterial, between St. Andrews Drive and the future Minor Arterial to
the south including associated future bike lanes and sidewalks.
Administrator Schubert presented this item and recommended denial based on the long-term
negative impact of transportation network, connectivity and emergency response time.
Page 3 of 74
Chairperson Shafer clarified that the question to the Board was whether they agreed or disagreed
to remove this off the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greensways Master plan.
Board Member Robinson asked for clarification on the shared-use path changes.
Administrator Schubert said that there would be a shared-use path along the utility corridor that
would ultimately connect from St. Andrews Drive to the future development to the south.
Chairperson Shafer pointed out that there was already a shared-use path on the last piece of that.
Administrator Schubert stated that the last part of Pebble Creek Parkway was a half boulevard
section and included a shared-use path on the west side that connected to a path to Lick Creek
Park. He added that on the adopted plan for the rest of Pebble Creek Parkway between the Lick
Creek trail and towards the park there is a sidewalk that would be upgraded to a shared-use path.
Chairperson Shafer asked for a timeline of the thoroughfare being built.
Administrator Schubert said that thoroughfare extensions like these where there are no existing
roads and undeveloped property, it really depended on the timing of development. It really
comes down to how they phase their development.
Board Member Jang asked what the difference was in including this in the plan versus not.
Administrator Schubert said that being included in the Thoroughfare Plan meant that it would be
a required connection by the city when they develop that part of the property.
Chairperson Shafer asked if a line could be added back later if it happened to be taken off.
Administrator Schubert responded that they could add and remove lines through the same
process the Board was doing now.
Director Armstrong added that while it could be added back later, if the property came in to be
developed and started a preliminary plan then it could not be required and the City would need to
do it.
Chairperson Shafer opened the public hearing.
Kerry Roper, resident of Pebble Creek, stated he was in favor of the amendment and against the
extension of Pebble Creek Parkway to the south. He mentioned he had a petition with over 1,500
signatures and 1,000 attendees at the three public meetings in order to try to stop this
thoroughfare. Mr. Roper said that they had 40 speakers who voiced their concerns about
neighborhood integrity, safety, and property values. His concerns included the safety of the
bikers, joggers, cyclists and golfers using the crossing during peak hours into Pebble Creek
Parkway because of the city’s estimated traffic increase which showed around 11,000 vehicles
per day. He mentioned that the plan talked about connectivity, but he pointed out that it also
mentioned neighborhood integrity and that was what this was all about integrity and safety.
Robert Rose, former bike shop owner, talked about his emergency medicine training at Texas
A&M and a saying they used when someone was having a stroke or a heart attack. The saying
was, “time is tissue”, which meant time is of the essence. Mr. Rose said if there was a way to
Page 4 of 74
allow this thoroughfare to be multifunctional to allow emergency vehicles it would help a lot of
people out and help keep the average response time of 6 and a half minutes.
Chairperson Shafer closed the public hearing.
Board Member Jang stated that not having the street would be an opportunity to create a great
LTS 1 facility that we want that would also include emergency access but no cars.
Board Member Woodfin stated that while he liked the shared-use path that would remain that the
City has not built trails since the Lick Creek trail several years ago and that it is more likely to be
built if part of a street project.
Board Member Langlotz said that she preferred to ride a bike in a bike lane than on a shared-use
path and have to ride around pedestrians and leashed pets that were also on the path.
Board Member Jang made a moved to approve the removal of the future extension of
Pebble Creek Parkway, a Minor Arterial, between St. Andrews Drive and the future Minor
Arterial to the south including associated future bike lanes and sidewalks.
Motion failed for lack of a second motion.
Board Member Woodfin moved to keep the existing Thoroughfare Plan and Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to remain in place. Board Member Robinson
seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-1. (Voting no: Board Member Jang)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.3: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a recap of
the Spring Bike Ride and upcoming Cycle with Council.
Planner Ahrens presented this item.
Chairperson Shafer asked about including the Wolf Pen trails in the route.
Board Member Jang mentioned using the crossing at Harvey Road.
Planner Ahrens said there was a midblock crossing there, but it was uncontrolled and that would
make it difficult in a large group, unless an officer was placed there to help cross.
Board Member Jang asked if there was a consideration of including Thomas Park.
Planner Ahrens said that the pavement in that area was a little rough to go through.
Board Member Woodfin said he had already committed to volunteer with the Native Plant Society
at Lick Creek for the Monarch March. He said that perhaps if the events did not get overlapped
people could have an opportunity to attend these events.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.4: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the draft Active
Transportation Master Plan.
Planner DiMeolo presented this item.
Board Member Langlotz said she was really impressed with how well this was put together. She
enjoyed reading through it and came up with a few ideas that might be future agenda items.
Page 5 of 74
Administrator Schubert stated that this document was currently being refined by the city’s Public
Communications Department to create the plan formatting.
Board Member Jang made a suggestion of language for page 25 in the 2nd paragraph to read: “To
set a definitive baseline for this evaluation, the City adopts the policy that all new or retrofitted
active transportation infrastructure located within the 2-mile walk zone of K-12 campuses shall be
designed to achieve an LTS1 (Low Stress) rating, ensuring these corridors are safely navigable for
an unaccompanied school-aged child.”
Chairperson Shafer said the language could be considered and could discussed more at the next
meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.5: Presentation and discussion regarding the following items related
to biking, walking, and greenways.
a) Public Meetings of Interest – Capital Projects City Wide Sidewalks and Trails Projects
on April 6, 2026 at 5:30pm in the Bush 4141 Community Room.
b) Capital and Private Project Updates – No updates
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.5: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings.
a) April 13, 2026 ~ Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Advisory Board Meeting
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
A Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Member may inquire about a subject
for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the
recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to
place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
Board Member Woodfin asked if there was going to be a discussion regarding micromobility.
Director Armstrong stated that there would be a discussion.
Administrator Schubert stated City Council had asked for a future agenda item and that multiple
departments were working on it and the discussion was scheduled for June.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
Scott Shafer, Chairperson Grecia Fuentes, Board Secretary
Page 6 of 74
April 13, 2026
Item No. 3.2.
Pavilion Avenue Extension Thoroughfare Plan Amendment
Sponsor: Jason Schubert
Reviewed By CBC: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Greenways Advisory Board
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an
ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Thoroughfare Plan and Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to remove the future extension of Pavilion Avenue, a Minor
Collector, between Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 South including associated future bike lanes
and sidewalks.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
• Improving Mobility
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the request.
Summary:
REVIEW CRITERIA:
1) Changed or changing conditions in the subject area of the City:
The future extension of Pavilion Avenue between Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 South is about
0.6 miles in length and was added to the Thoroughfare Plan as part of a group of changes proposed
by the East College Station Transportation Study completed in 2007 (see attached exhibit). The
purpose of this extension was to provide a backage road to the one-way frontage road of State
Highway 6 to allow circulation and access for future commercial development. This was intended to
reduce the potential for traffic circulating back through a residential area on Foxfire Drive, Stonebrook
Drive and Woodcreek Drive to access the future commercial properties. When the car dealerships
developed along the frontage road in 2018, cross access between them was required, as is done for
commercial developments fronting the same street. The dealerships wanted to have their private
parking lots gated off at night to protect their inventory, so they constructed cross access at the back
of their lots along with a sidewalk. This connects through to other commercial properties and
achieves much of the desired circulation from Sebesta Road to these properties that were intended
with the addition of the thoroughfare in 2007. With the State Highway 6 project that started
construction in December, TxDOT will be installing a shared use path along the length of the project
so will provide a bicycle and pedestrian connection from Sebesta Road to Woodcreek Drive. This
new shared use path will be reflected in the upcoming Active Transportation Master Plan and
provides a bicycle and pedestrian connection that the Pavilion Avenue extension with bike lanes and
sidewalks accompanied by a shared use path connection was planned to provide.
2) Compatibility with the existing uses, development patterns, and character of the immediate
area concerned, the general area, and the City as a whole:
The planned extension of Pavilion Avenue was intended to provide circulation and connectivity for
the transportation network in this area. The required cross access constructed by the car dealerships
along the frontage road provides access to surrounding future commercial properties. This has
provided the circulation that would help reduce commercially related traffic in the nearby residential
area for which the thoroughfare was intended.
Page 7 of 74
3) Impact on environmentally sensitive and natural areas:
The extension of Pavilion Avenue, or its removal, would have minimal impact on environmentally
sensitive or natural areas. It is anticipated that the area in which the street would develop would
otherwise be constructed with commercial site improvements such as buildings and parking lots.
4) Impacts on infrastructure including water, wastewater, drainage, and the transportation
network:
The proposed amendment does not impact water, wastewater, or drainage. A traffic study was
performed as part of this request and was developed in consultation with City staff. It compared the
full build-out of the surrounding commercial area and the impact of having or removing the planned
thoroughfare extension. The study determined that there is only a minor difference, as traffic delay in
the area would fluctuate within a second or two depending upon the intersection and changing traffic
patterns that would result from whether the thoroughfare extension occurred or not. The traffic study
does not account for the private cross access that has been provided, so the impact is likely to be
even to a lesser degree.
5) Consistency with the goals and strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan:
The Thoroughfare Plan and Bicycle Plan, and Pedestrian Plan are established to meet the long-term
transportation needs of the City’s residents and its visitors. Removal of the Pavillion Avenue
extension from the Thoroughfare Plan and the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan does
not have significant impact to achieving their goals and objectives, as the circulation intended by the
extension has been provided by the required cross access in the manner it was constructed and by
the forthcoming shared use path provided by TxDOT as part of the State Highway 6 project.
Budget & Financial Summary:
Attachments:
1. Thoroughfare Plan Amendment Exhibit
2. Bicycle Plan Amendment Exhibit
3. Pedestrian Plan Amendment Exhibit
4. East College Station Transportation Study Exhibit
5. Applicants Supporting Information
Page 8 of 74
Page 9 of 74
Page 10 of 74
Page 11 of 74
Page 12 of 74
1 of 4
Project Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Project Subtype: Thoroughfare Plan
Short Description: Pavilion Avenue Thoroughfare Amendment
(All fees for CSISD are waived)
Total Acreage:
Total site acreage is 40.943.
Community Character: This application is related to Community Character.
Not Applicable.
Transportation: This application is related to Transportation.
Applicable.
Other: This application is related to other (please explain below).
Not Applicable.
Element & Loc Amended: What specific element of the Comprehensive Plan (for
example, Land Use & Character designation, Thoroughfare Plan Context Class, or
thoroughfare alignment) and at what specific location (if applicable) is requested to be
amended?
Thoroughfare alignment (including the Pedestrian and Bicycle alignments) of the proposed two-
lane Minor Collector that is currently shown to extend the existing portion of Pavilion Avenue from
Sebesta Road to State Highway 6. The roadway alignment removal is a change to the
Thoroughfare Plan and the removal of the bike lane/sidewalks is a change to the Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan.
Amendment Request: Please list the amendment(s) requested.
Our request is to delete the segment of Pavilion Avenue from where it is proposed to be
extended from Sebesta Road to State Highway 6 from the Thoroughfare Plan. This would include
the proposed bike lanes, sidewalks and vehicle travel lanes. The removal of the bike
lane/sidewalks is a change to the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan.
Reason for the Amendment: Please explain the reason for the amendment(s).
We are requesting this amendment for two reasons. First, the purpose of this roadway is to
provide an alternative north south connection parallel to State Highway 6 (SH6). However,
because this roadway route extends from Sebesta Road to the one-way northbound frontage
road there is very limited southbound movement to four existing lots (three of which are
APPLICATION FEES:
Rezoning App Fee:
N/A
Total: N/A
COMP PLAN:
Page 13 of 74
2 of 4
developed a car dealerships) that already have north-south connectivity from Sebesta Road via a
private access easement and a single undeveloped tract south of the dealerships with access to
the SH6 frontage road. The second is since this roadway would only provide parallel southbound
access to one 19.95-acre undeveloped tract, the expected connectivity in this area does not
necessitate the construction cost for a Minor Collector roadway.
Changed Conditions: Please explain the changed or changing conditions in the subject
area of the City.
The properties in College Station along this proposed roadway extension are mostly built out
and traffic patterns are unlikely to change significantly in the future along this proposed route.
As mentioned above, since 2018, three (3) car dealerships were constructed that all have
north-south connectivity from Sebesta Road via a private access easement. This leaves a
single undeveloped 19.95-acre tract south of the dealerships with access to the SH6 frontage
road that this proposed Minor Collector would provide secondary access to since this proposed
roadway would only connect to a one-way northbound frontage road.
Existing Element: Please show the compatibility with the existing uses, development
patterns, and character of the immediate area concerned, the general area, and the city
as a whole.
The properties in College Station along this proposed roadway extension are mostly built out
and traffic patterns are unlikely to change significantly in the future along this proposed route.
As mentioned above, since 2018, three (3) car dealerships were constructed that all have
north-south connectivity from Sebesta Road via a private access easement. This leaves a
single undeveloped 19.95-acre tract south of the dealerships with access to the SH6 frontage
road that this proposed Minor Collector would provide secondary access to since this proposed
roadway would only connect to a one-way northbound frontage road.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Environment Impact: Please list any impacts on environmentally sensitive and natural
areas.
The planned alignment of this roadway extension does not necessitate a crossing of any creeks
and/or any other environmentally sensitive and natural areas.
Infrastructure Impact: List any impacts on infrastructure, including water, wastewater,
drainage and transportation network.
There are no planned utility extensions along the Pavilion Avenue extension route. Therefore,
there would be no impact to existing water, wastewater, or drainage networks. As mentioned
previously, this area is mostly built out except for CSISD’s property and three other properties.
Any required infrastructure for this future development has already been constructed. Existing
waterlines are located along Sebesta Road and the SH6 Frontage Road with existing sewer
already extended to the rear of all the undeveloped properties.
Goals & Objectives: Explain consistency with the goals and strategies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The goal of Chapter 8 – Managed Growth in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to have
“Fiscally responsible and carefully managed development that is aligned with growth
expectations and the ability to provide safe, timely, and efficient infrastructure and services.”
Page 14 of 74
3 of 4
As the Comprehensive Plan states, “the purpose of this chapter is to establish the necessary
policy guidance and associated strategic actions to enable the City of College Station to
manage its ongoing physical growth and development in a sensible, predictable, and fiscally
responsible manner.”
The construction of this roadway is not sensible nor fiscally responsible because it does not
serve the intended purpose of providing north-south connectivity since it loops back to a one-way
frontage road. Only one undeveloped tract benefits from this access. Therefore, the benefit of the
roadway does not mitigate the high construction cost to build it.
Additional Properties:
Not applicable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Acknowledgement (1): The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the
facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete.
Agreed.
Acknowledgement (2): IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of
attorney statement from the owner. If there is more than one owner, all owners must sign
the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application must
be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the
application on its behalf.
Understood.
Project Proposal Meeting Acknowledgement: Applicant acknowledges that they
understand a Project Proposal Meeting with neighborhood representatives is required for
all CPAs requesting changes to the Future Land Use & Character Map, as stated in UDO
Section 3.22.
Understood.
LOCATION:
Address: 1404 Sebesta Road
Parcel Number: 004601-0041-0000
Applicant Information:
Name: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP C/O Veronica Morgan
Address: 3204 Earl Rudder Freeway South
City: College Station
State: Texas
Zip Code: 77845-6457
Phone: 979-260-6963
Email Address: v@mitchellandmorgan.com
Page 15 of 74
4 of 4
Owner Information:
Name: College Station ISD C/O Paul Buckner
Address: 1812 Welsh Avenue
City: College Station
State: Texas
Zip Code: 77840
Phone: 979-764-5443
Email Address: pbuckner@csisd.org
Contact Primary Information:
Name: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP C/O Veronica Morgan
Address: 3204 Earl Rudder Freeway South
City: College Station
State: Texas
Zip Code: 77845-6457
Phone: 979-260-6963
Email Address: v@mitchellandmorgan.com
Contact Secondary Information:
Name: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP C/O Kerry Pillow
Address: 3204 Earl Rudder Freeway South
City: College Station
State: Texas
Zip Code: 77845-6457
Phone: 979-260-6963
Email Address: kerry@mitchellandmorgan.com
Contact Tertiary Information:
Name: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP C/O Tina Weido
Address: 3204 Earl Rudder Freeway South
City: College Station
State: Texas
Zip Code: 77845-6457
Phone: 979-260-6963
Email Address: tina@mitchellandmorgan.com
Engineer Information:
Name: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP C/O Veronica Morgan
Address: 3204 Earl Rudder Freeway South
City: College Station
State: Texas
Zip Code: 77845-6457
Phone: 979-260-6963
Email Address: v@mitchellandmorgan.com
Page 16 of 74
April 13, 2026
Item No. 3.4.
Draft Active Transportation Master Plan
Sponsor: Jesse Dimeolo
Reviewed By CBC: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Greenways Advisory Board
Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the draft Active Transportation
Master Plan.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
Improving Mobility
Recommendation(s): Staff requests the Board review the attached materials and Chapters 1
through 3 that were provided previously and provide feedback for any clarifications or revisions.
Summary: This item continues the Board’s review of the draft Active Transportation Master Plan,
building upon initial feedback on Chapters 1–3, project prioritization methodology, and the
identification of prioritized mode corridors that occurred at the March 30th meeting. Continuing from
there, this item provides the final three chapters.
Chapter 4 “System Development” focuses on the recommended active transportation network and
facility guidance, including proposed improvements for sidewalks, bike lanes, bike routes, and shared
use paths. This chapter introduces considerations for emerging modes, such as micromobility, and
emphasizes the importance of designing low-stress, intuitive connections between facilities. Key
highlights include recommendations for safer crossings, enhanced facility transitions, and plan
changes to improve overall network comfort and usability for a wide range of users.
Chapter 5 “System Management” outlines the policies and programs that will support implementation
of the network over time. This includes guidance related to design standards, maintenance practices,
education and safety initiatives, and coordination with development and redevelopment efforts. The
chapter also emphasizes the importance of consistent funding, ongoing evaluation, and partnerships
to ensure the system continues to develop in a way that meets community needs.
Chapter 6 “Implementation” addresses project prioritization, the renaming of the Board, and next
steps for advancing the Master Plan. Building on the last Board meeting, this chapter details how
projects are prioritized using a combination of factors such as safety, population, connectivity, and
key destinations. It also outlines how prioritized mode corridors can impact decision-making as the
City works toward a more complete and connected network.
City staff will host a public open house on April 15 in City Hall Council Chambers from 5:30 PM to
7:00 PM to introduce the proposed Plan to the public, followed by a two-week online engagement
period to gather additional community input. Staff will return to the Board on May 11 with a final
version of the Plan for consideration and recommendation.
Budget & Financial Summary:
Attachments:
1. Chapters 4-6
2. Table 6.4 Implementation Tasks
Page 17 of 74
Page 18 of 74
City of College Station
Active Transportation Master Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter 4: System Development ............................................................................................................................... 3
System Design .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Design Speed and Separation ............................................................................................................................ 4
Context Sensitive Design and Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors ................................................... 4
Micromobility Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Crossings ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
Facility Transitions and Connectivity ................................................................................................................ 13
Shade and Comfort ............................................................................................................................................ 15
High-Stress Corridor Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 16
Table 4.2 Existing High Stress Bicycle Corridors with Proposed Improvements ........................................ 17
Table 4.3 High Stress Bicycle Corridors without Identified Improvements ................................................. 18
Table 4.4 High Stress Pedestrian Corridors with Proposed Improvements ................................................ 19
Table 4.5 High Stress Pedestrian Corridors Without Identified Improvements .......................................... 21
Additional Plan Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 22
Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan Maps ................................................................................................................ 24
Table 4.6 Proposed Plan Mileage by Facility Type ......................................................................................... 24
Crossings and Grade Separated Recommendations ......................................................................................... 27
Chapter 5: System Management .............................................................................................................................. 29
Policies and Programs ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Program Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 30
Internal and External Partnerships ........................................................................................................................ 33
Table 5.2 Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Chapter 6: Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 35
The Active Transportation Advisory Board .......................................................................................................... 35
Project Prioritization ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 6.1 Sidewalk & Shared Use Paths (Along Street ROW) Prioritization Criteria .................................... 36
Table 6.2 Bike Lanes and Bike Routes Prioritization Criteria .......................................................................... 36
Table 6.3 Off-Street Shared Use Paths Prioritization Criteria ......................................................................... 37
Page 19 of 74
Evaluation and Monitoring .................................................................................................................................... 37
Data for Tracking Plan Outcomes ......................................................................................................................... 39
Funding and Facility Improvement Costs ............................................................................................................ 41
Local Funding Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 41
Federal and State Funding Sources ................................................................................................................. 42
State Funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 43
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... 44
City Council ......................................................................................................................................................... 44
Planning & Zoning Commission ........................................................................................................................ 44
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board ..................................................................................... 44
Administration ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
Planning and Development Services ............................................................................................................... 44
Staff Resource Team ........................................................................................................................................... 45
Commonly Used Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix D: Thoroughfare Cross Sections ............................................................................................................ 47
Page 20 of 74
Chapter 4: System Development
As College Station continues to grow, a robust multimodal transportation system will be necessary to
facilitate daily travel, improve traffic congestion, and reduce automobile dependency. A well-integrated
active transportation network is a crucial component of the broader multimodal system. This chapter
discusses best practices, guidelines and standards provided by state and national transportation
organizations, effective design components for a successful active transportation network,
recommendations on how to lower the high LTS network, proposed map changes, and recommendations
for crossing improvements.
System Design
Facility design influences the Level of Traffic Stress experienced by users of the active transportation
network. As a result, it is important that facilities within College Station’s active transportation network
adhere to best practices and standards for facility design. Figure 4.1 identifies the standards and guidelines
that apply to facility design.
Figure 4.1 Local, State, and National Design Standards and Guidelines
City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance
City of College Station Site Design Standards
Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
NACTO Urban Bike Design Guide
AASHTO Guide for Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian
Facilities
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD); and
Texas Department of Transportation Traffic Standards and Roadway
Design Manual
The following subsections highlight key design considerations that further refine how the design standards
and guidelines are applied in practice. The implementation approach and prioritization of facilities will be
addressed in Chapter 6. Each topic reflects important factors that influence user comfort, safety, and overall
system usability while supporting context-sensitive solutions tailored to the City of College Station:
1. Design Speed and Separation
2. Context Sensitive Design and Prioritized Corridors
3. Micromobility Design
4. Crossings
5. Facility Transitions and Connectivity
6. Shade and Comfort
Together, these elements provide additional guidance to ensure the network effectively serves active
transportation users.
Page 21 of 74
Design Speed and Separation
Design speed and separation are key factors in creating a safe and comfortable active transportation
network, as they directly influence LTS levels. As vehicle speeds and traffic volumes increase, a greater
degree of separation between active transportation users and motor vehicles is needed to maintain comfort
and safety. On lower-speed, lower-volume streets, shared or minimally separated facilities may be
appropriate, while higher-speed corridors require more separation to reduce exposure.
Separation can be achieved through horizontal elements such as buffers, landscaped strips, and on-street
parking, as well as vertical elements like curbs, vertical delineators, or barriers. Applying context-sensitive
design principles, higher levels of separation should be prioritized on arterial and collector roadways, while
more flexible designs may be used on local streets. Example thoroughfare cross sections illustrating varying
levels of separation and configurations for bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided in the Appendices.
Generally, the higher the classification of thoroughfare, the separation should be larger or to a greater
extent. Aligning design speed and separation with roadway context helps reduce traffic stress, improve
safety, and support a more accessible and connected network.
Context Sensitive Design and Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors
The “Integrated Mobility” chapter of the College Station Comprehensive Plan has adopted the use of
context-sensitive solutions to meet the city’s transportation needs and support its land use and character
objectives, consistent with Master Plan Policy 2. The context-sensitive approach seeks to balance the needs
of different transportation modes within constrained environments by establishing corridors that prioritize
different modes of transportation without hindering the overall efficiency of the transportation network.
Utilizing this approach, this Master Plan designates a series of corridors that prioritize active transportation
(see map 4.1). These prioritized active transportation corridors emphasize non-vehicular modes of travel by
optimizing limited right-of-way to establish enhanced active transportation facilities while accommodating
but not prioritizing automobile traffic. These corridors tend to be located on smaller thoroughfares such as
collectors where vehicular traffic demand is lower and greater utilization for active transportation users can
be achieved. Tailoring corridors to different transportation modes helps maximize the transportation
network in constrained environments and achieve greater safety and priority for vulnerable roadway users
while maintaining the functionality of the transportation network.
Page 22 of 74
Map 4.1 Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors
Source: City of College Station
Micromobility Facilities
The Texas Transportation Code provides rules and regulations for all forms of transportation within the state
and prevents local governments from excluding micromobility devices from any roadway or trail that allows
traditional bicycles. For this reason, it is important for the city to have infrastructure in place that can safely
accommodate micromobility devices alongside traditional bicycles. National guidance for construction of
bike lanes state that both traditional bikes and micromobility devices require lanes at least six feet wide, but
seven to eight feet is preferred to further allow a mix of device types to pass another due to differences in
operating speed. Current City standards have bike lane widths that meet best practice minimum though not
the preferred larger widths. There are existing bike lanes in areas that fall below the desired minimums that
should be further evaluated for additional width to ensure that the city’s bike facilities can safely
accommodate all device types (Action Item 4.1).
Page 23 of 74
Figure 4.2 Micromobility Device in Use
Bicycles and micromobility devices have similar ranges of operating speeds, but many micromobility device
types have average speeds and acceleration rates that are significantly higher than that of traditional bikes,
as shown in Figure 4.3. Bike lanes are generally designed for devices traveling upwards of 15 mph, meaning
they should be able to accommodate the average speed of most micromobility devices and traditional
bicycles, though the higher end speeds of some micromobility devices and traditional bicycles may exceed
that. A closer look is also needed at shared use paths where multiple user types interact in constrained
spaces. This Master Plan recognizes the need to evaluate advisory speed limits on select high-use, shared
use path corridors (Action Item 4.2) to support safer conditions for all users.
Page 24 of 74
Figure 4.3 Conventional and Electric Bike Speed Distribution
Source: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
Action Items:
4.1 Analyze where wider bike lanes are needed to better accommodate
passing for both bicycles and micromobility devices
4.2 Consider advisory speed limits on select shared use paths to ensure
safety for all users
Crossings
Intersections and driveways are among the most critical points in the transportation network, as they are
where conflicts between different transportation modes most frequently occur. Designing these areas to
prioritize visibility, reduce crossing distances, and manage vehicle speeds helps create a safer and more
comfortable environment for active transportation users. Applying context-sensitive solutions helps ensure
that treatments are appropriately scaled and effective.
A range of design strategies can be implemented to improve safety and reduce user stress at crossings,
including:
Page 25 of 74
Grade Separated Crossings
Provide active transportation
users spatial separation from
motor vehicles.
Refuge islands
Allow pedestrians and
bicyclists to cross in stages
and reduce exposure to
traffic.
Page 26 of 74
Curb extensions (bulb-outs)
Shorten crossing distances
and improve visibility
between users and drivers.
Dutch-style protected
intersections
Physically separate active
transportation users from
motor traffic using corner
islands, set-back crossings,
and dedicated signals.
Page 27 of 74
Pedestrian-only signal
phasing and restricted right
turns
Eliminate conflicts with
turning vehicles.
Bicycle signals
Provide dedicated,
predictable movements and
phasing for bicyclists and
micromobility devices.
Page 28 of 74
Leading Pedestrian
Intervals (LPIs)
Give pedestrians and cyclists
a headstart through
intersections before vehicles
receive a green signal.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
(HAWK signals) and
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs)
Enhance driver awareness
and improve yielding at mid-
block crossings.
Page 29 of 74
High-visibility crosswalk
markings and Raised
Crosswalks
Clearly define crossing
locations and increase driver
recognition.
Roadway narrowing and
traffic calming measures
Reduce vehicle speeds,
crossing distances, and
improve overall safety.
Action Items:
4.3 Analyze where street intersection improvements are needed to increase safety and
connectivity
4.4 Assess where improvements are needed for bicycle and pedestrian facilities crossing private
driveways, and consider changes to design standards
Page 30 of 74
Facility Transitions and Connectivity
As the city continues to grow and redevelop, it will be important to create smooth, intuitive transitions
between different types of active transportation facilities. Transitions such as moving from a shared use path
to an on-street bike lane, from marked bike lanes to signed bike routes, or navigating bike lanes through
intersections and vehicle turn lanes can introduce confusion and increase user stress if not provided or
carefully designed. Applying established design guidance, such as the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design
Guide, helps ensure these transition zones are clear, consistent, and safe through the use of appropriate
pavement markings, signage, and geometric design.
This is especially important for signed bike routes, where unclear or inconsistent signage can
unintentionally direct users to less comfortable or higher-stress routes. Action Item 4.8 calls for evaluating
the placement and effectiveness of existing bike route signage to improve clarity, user confidence, and
overall network legibility.
Figure 4.14 South of Bachmann Park Facility Transition to Arnold Road
Connectivity of these facilities with transit stops serves a role in expanding the range and usefulness of the
active transportation network. A robust active transportation network improves access to the public transit
system by providing users with high quality connections to and from transit stops and thus is beneficial that
both networks are well integrated. One method for increasing network integration is through facility
improvements. These improvements should focus on increasing user safety and comfortability, especially
for vulnerable populations, and could include:
Page 31 of 74
• Shade canopies and shelters to shield users from various weather conditions
• Adequate lighting at transit stops can improve safety in low light or dark conditions
• ADA accessibility improvements
• Amenities such as seating, bike racks, and trash cans
Figure 4.15 Eleanor Street Bus Stop and Sidewalk Connection at Lincoln Recreation Center
Action Items:
4.5 Analyze locations needing more seamless transitions between different active transportation
facilities, consider changes to design standards
4.6 Determine locations for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to transit stops,
develop design standards for facilities at these locations
4.7 Evaluate the location of existing bike route signage
Page 32 of 74
Shade and Comfort
Enhancing user experience through shade, landscaping, and amenities is a key priority identified in both
community input and the Master Plan’s goals. Incorporating street trees, planting strips, and other forms of
shading along active transportation corridors can significantly improve comfort, particularly in hot climates,
encouraging more frequent use of walking and bicycling facilities. In addition, the use of structural shading
elements at intersections, such as canopies or shade structures, can improve the pedestrian experience by
reducing exposure during crossings and wait times. As these design strategies are implemented, shade and
comfort could also serve as a factor in refining Level of Traffic Stress criteria within the local context.
Figure 4.16 City Hall Structured Shading
Action Items:
4.8 Consider design standard amendments to provide shading along the active transportation
network. Develop a methodology for determining shading element locations.
Page 33 of 74
High-Stress Corridor Recommendations
Following the completion of the city-wide level of traffic stress analysis, high stress facilities were identified
for further analysis and consideration. These high-stress corridors are illustrated on Map 4.1 for bicycles and
Map 4.2 for pedestrians. Despite some corridors already having facilities, many could be improved to
increase comfort for vulnerable users. The focus during this process was to address as many of the LTS 4
corridors as possible due to the higher barrier they represent for many bicyclists and pedestrians. This focus
is reflected in Table 4.2 and Table 4.4, which lists corridors this Plan, when implemented, would improve.
Not all corridors identified in Map 4.1 and Map 4.2 can be addressed through infrastructure improvements
due to existing roadway constraints. In some instances, a reduction to the speed limit would be sufficient to
improve the LTS score. The identified LTS 3 and 4 corridors that do not have proposed improvements
specified in this Plan are listed in Table 4.3 for bicycles and Table 4.5 for pedestrians. Further analysis of
these corridors should be completed at a future time or when opportunities arise when those corridors are
considered for rehabilitation or improvement.
Map 4.2 High Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Bicycle Network
Source: City of College Station
Page 34 of 74
Table 4.2 Existing High Stress Bicycle Corridors with Proposed Improvements
High Stress Corridors with Proposed Improvements
Proposed Facility
Improvement Type Corridor Current LTS
Score
Bike Lane
Bird Pond Rd. (from Rock Prairie Rd. to Gulf States Trail) 4
Brentwood Dr. (from Dartmouth St. to Anderson St.) 3
Cain Rd. (from Holleman Dr. S. to General Pkwy.) 4
Castlegate Dr. (from Victoria Ave. to Greens Prairie Rd.) 3
Deacon Dr. (from Brothers Blvd. to Rio Grande Blvd.) 3
Decatur Dr. (from Barron Rd. to Alexandria Ave.) 3
Dominik Dr. (from Munson Ave. to George Bush Dr. E.) 3
Holleman Dr. (from George Bush Dr. E. to bike lane west of Texas Ave.) 4
Holleman Dr. W (from Marion Pugh Dr. to Harvey Mitchell Pkwy.) 3
Luther St. W. (from Jones Butler Rd. to Harvey Mitchell Pkwy.) 4
Munson Ave. (from Gilchrist Ave. to Harvey Rd.) 3
N. Dowling Rd. (from Holleman Dr. S. to Junction Boys Rd.) 4
North Forest Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Gulf States Trail) 3
Parkview Dr. (from Lakeway Dr. to Spearman Dr.) 3
Rock Prairie Rd. W. (from Holleman Dr. S. to western city limits) 4
Rock Prairie Rd. (from Town Lake Dr. to eastern city limits) 4
Schaffer Rd. (from Arnold Rd. to Graham Rd.) 3
Spring Lp. (from University Dr. E. to Tarrow St.) 3
Tarrow St. (from University Dr. E. to Lincoln Ave.) 3
University Oaks Blvd. (from Munson Ave. to George Bush Dr. E.) 3
Wellborn Rd. (from Church Ave. to northern city limits) 4
Shared use Path
College Ave. (from Inlow Blvd. to University Dr.) 4
Emerald Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Corsair Dr.) 3
F&B Rd. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Turkey Creek Rd.) 4
George Bush Dr. (from Houston St. to Harvey Mitchell Pkwy.) 3/4
Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Longmire Dr.) 4
Harvey Rd. (from Texas Ave. to Booneville Rd.) 4
Krenek Tap (from Texas Ave. to State Highway 6) 3
Rock Prairie Rd. (from Longmire Dr. to Wellborn Rd.) 4
Southwest Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Wellborn Rd.) 4
Tarrow St., east and west (from city limits to University Dr. E.) 3
Texas Ave. (from northern city limits to State Highway 6) 4
Wellborn Rd. (from George Bush Dr. to Graham Rd.) 4
William D. Fitch Pkwy. (from Rock Prairie Rd. to eastern city limits) 4
William D. Fitch Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Wellborn Rd.) 4
Speed Limit
Reduction
Barron Rd. (from William D. Fitch Pkwy. to State Highway 6) 4
Dartmouth St. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Harvey Rd.) 3
Page 35 of 74
Deacon Dr. (from Wellborn Rd. to Welsh Ave.) 3
Graham Rd. (from Wellborn Rd. to State Highway 6) 3
Source: City of College Station
Table 4.3 High Stress Bicycle Corridors without Identified Improvements
High Stress Bicycle Corridors without Proposed Improvements
Existing Facility
Improvement Type Corridor Current
LTS Score
Bike Route
Arrington Rd. (from State Highway 6 to Decatur Dr.) 3
Church Ave. (from Nagle St. to First St.) 3
Copperfield Pkwy. (from University Dr. E. to Harvey Rd.) 4
Munson Ave. (from Lincoln Ave. to Gilchrist Ave.) 3
Ponderosa Dr. (from Rio Grande Blvd. to State Highway 6) 3
Southwood Dr. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Southwest Pkwy.) 3
Bike Lane
Arrington Rd. (from Greens Prairie Rd. to southern city limits) 3
Greens Prairie Rd. (from Royder Rd. to Wellborn Rd.) 3
Holleman Dr. E. (from George Bush Dr. E. to State Highway 6) 3/4
Jones Butler Rd/Penberthy Blvd (from Holleman Dr. to George Bush Dr.) 3
University Dr. E. (from State Highway 6 to Boonville Rd.) 4
William D. Fitch Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Rock Prairie Rd.) 3
Source: City of College Station
Page 36 of 74
Map 4.3 High Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Pedestrian Network
Source: City of College Station
Table 4.4 High Stress Pedestrian Corridors with Proposed Improvements
High Stress Pedestrian Corridors with Proposed Improvements
Proposed Facility
Improvement Type Corridor Current
LTS Score
Sidewalk
Birmingham Rd. (from Arnold Rd. to Graham Rd.) 3
Dexter Dr. S. (from Holleman Dr. to Concho Pl.) 3
Dominik Dr. (from Texas Ave. to George Bush Dr.) 3
Fairview Ave. (from Luther St. to Thompson St.) 3
Feather Run (from Briscoe Manor Ct. to Kerr Valley Ln.) 4
Foster Ave. (from Walton Dr. to Lincoln Ave.) 3
Foxfire Dr. (from Concord Cir. to Sebesta Rd.) 4
Great Oaks Dr. (from Rock Prairie Rd. W. to Walnut Rd.) 4
Holleman Dr. W. (from Jones Butler Rd. to Harvey Mitchell Pkwy.) 3/4
Live Oak St. (from McCullough Rd. to Victoria Ave.) 3
Longmire Dr. (from Ponderosa Dr. to Sara Dr.) 3
Manuel Dr. (from Dartmouth St. to Cornell Dr.) 3
Page 37 of 74
Maryem St. (from Grove St. to Luther St.) 3
Nimitz St. (from Ash St. to Cooner St.) 3
Park Pl. (from Maryem St. to Fairview Ave.) 3
Jones Butler Rd. (from George Bush Dr. W. to Holleman Dr. W.) 4
Raintree Dr. (from Wilderness Dr. S. to Sumter Dr.) 3
Rock Prairie Rd. (from Holleman Dr. W. to Feather Run) 4
Sandstone Dr. (from Sebesta Rd. to Emerald Pkwy.) 3
Southern Plantation Dr. (from State Highway 6 to Stony Creek Ln.) 3
Timber St. (from Park Pl. to sidewalk 500 ft. north of Anna St.) 3
University Oaks Blvd. (from Stallings Dr. to Munson Ave.) 4
Walnut Rd. (from Great Oaks Dr. to city limits) 4
Walton Dr. (from Foster Ave. to Francis Dr.) 3
Welsh Ave. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Holleman Dr.) 3
Shared use Path
Barron Cut-Off Rd. (from W.S. Phillips Pkwy. to Wellborn Rd.) 3/4
Barron Rd. (from William D. Fitch Pkwy. to Wellborn Rd.) 4
College Ave. (from Inlow Blvd. to University Dr.) 4
Emerald Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Corsair Dr.) 3
George Bush Dr. W. (from Wellborn Rd. to Harvey Mitchell Pkwy.) 4
Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Longmire Dr.) 4
Harvey Rd. (from Texas Ave. to Boonville Rd.) 3/4
Krenek Tap Rd. (from Texas Ave. to State Highway 6) 3
McCullough Rd. (from Wellborn Rd. to Brewster Dr.) 3
Rock Prairie Rd. (from Longmire Dr. to Wellborn Rd.) 4
Schaffer Rd. (from Arnold Rd. to Graham Rd.) 3
Southwest Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Wellborn Rd.) 4
Tarrow St., east and west (from city limits to University Dr.) 3
Texas Ave. (from northern city limits to State Highway 6) 4
University Dr. E. (from Lincoln Ave. to Research Pkwy.) 3/4
Wellborn Rd. (from George Bush Dr. to Graham Rd.) 4
William D. Fitch Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Wellborn Rd.) 4
Speed Limit
Reduction
Barron Rd. (William D. Fitch Pkwy. to State Highway 6) 4
Dartmouth St. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Harvey Rd. 3
Graham Rd. (from Wellborn Rd. to State Highway 6) 3
Source: City of College Station
Page 38 of 74
Table 4.5 High Stress Pedestrian Corridors Without Identified Improvements
High Stress Pedestrian Corridors without Proposed Improvements
Existing Facility
Improvement Type Corridor Current
LTS Score
Sidewalk
Anderson St. (from George Bush Dr. to Park Pl.) 3
Anderson St. (from Holleman Dr. to Bee Creek Park) 3
Armored Ave. (from General Pkwy. to Old Wellborn Rd.) 3
Arrington Rd. (from State Highway 6 to Old Arrington Rd.) 3/4
Athens Dr. (from Dominik Dr. to University Oaks Blvd.) 3
Atlas Pearl Dr. (from Health Science Center Pkwy. to Cul-de-sac) 3
Biomedical Wy. (from Health Science Center Pkwy. to Cul-de-sac) 3
Brentwood Dr. (from Dartmouth St. to Anderson St.) 3
Cornell Dr. (from Southwest Pkwy. to Brentwood Dr.) 3
Crescent Pointe Pkwy. (from Copperfield Pkwy. to Crescent Ridge Dr.) 3
Deacon Dr. (from Wellborn Rd. to Longmire Dr.) 3
Decatur Dr. (from Barron Rd. to Front Royal Dr.) 3
Dexter Dr. (from George Bush Dr. to Winding Rd.) 3
Eagle Ave. (from William D. Fitch Pkwy. to Newport Ln.) 3
Edelweiss Ave. (from Welsh Ave. to Rock Prairie Rd.) 3
Feather Run (from Kerr Valley Ln. to city limits) 4
Foster Ave. (from Walton Dr. to Francis Dr.) 3
George Bush Dr. (from Texas Ave. to Harvey Mitchell Pkwy.) 4
George Bush Dr. E. (from Holleman Dr. E. to University Oaks Blvd.) 3/4
Glade St. (from Anna St. to Holleman Dr.) 3
Glenhaven Dr. (from University Dr. to Dominik Dr.) 3
Guadalupe Dr. (from Nueces Dr. to Langford St.) 3
Gunner Trl. (from Three Bears Dr. to Deacon Dr. W.) 3
Holleman Dr. E. (from Texas Ave. to Post Oak Mall) 3/4
Langford St. (from Haines Dr. to Southwest Pkwy.) 3
Longmire Dr. (from Ponderosa Dr. to Rock Prairie Rd.) 3
Longmire Dr. (from Sara Dr. to Cul-de-sac) 3
Midtown Dr. (from State Highway 6 to Medical Ave.) 3
Momma Bear Dr. (from Holleman Dr. S. to Papa Bear Dr.) 4
Munson Ave. (from Lincoln Ave. to Dominik Dr.) 3
Newcomb Ln. (from Cain Rd. to Commando Trl.) 3
North Forest Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Appomattox Dr.) 3
Nueces Dr. (from Welsh Ave. to Harvey Mitchell Pkwy.) 3
Olympia Wy. (from Dominik Dr. to University Oaks Blvd.) 3
Pebble Creek Pkwy. (from William D. Fitch Pkwy to Royal Adelade Dr.) 3
Rio Grande Blvd. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Rock Prairie Rd.) 3
Page 39 of 74
Rock Prairie Rd. (from State Highway 6 to Medical Ave.) 3
South Traditions (from Health Science Center Pkwy. to Cul-de-sac) 3
Spring Loop (from University Dr. to Tarrow St.) 3
Tarrow St. (from University Dr. to Lincoln Dr.) 4
University Dr. (from College Main to Discovery Dr.) 4
University Dr. (from FM 158 to State Highway 6) 4
University Dr. (from State Highway 6 to Spring Lp.) 4
Victoria Ave. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to W.S. Phillips Pkwy.) 3
Victoria Ave. (from Etonbury Ave. to Woodlake Dr.) 3
Wellborn (from University Dr. to northern city limits) 4
Welsh Ave. (from Holleman Dr. to Rock Prairie Rd.) 3
William D. Fitch Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Rock Prairie Rd.) 4
Shared use Path
Anna St. (from Holik St. to Timber St.) 3
Holleman Dr. W. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Rock Prairie Rd.) 4
Park Pl. (from Anderson St. to Glade St.) 3
Source: City of College Station
Additional Plan Recommendations
Along with the proposals specifically meant to address high stress corridors are several additional
recommendations. The full list of network recommendations is the result of a comprehensive and data-
driven evaluation process that paired the previously discussed LTS analysis with public engagement efforts
to help ensure the proposed network reflects local priorities, travel patterns, and safety concerns.
Coordination across City departments and partner agencies also informed this balanced set of
recommendations and are covered in more detail in Chapter 5.
Two active transportation feasibility study efforts were completed in Fall 2025 with the objective to help
explore and implement alternatives along key corridors for inclusion in this Master Plan. Conceptual
designs and alternatives to existing street sections were created to improve safety and usability for active
transportation users. These network recommendations come from the needs assessment in Chapter 3. The
results of the corridor studies are listed below and are reflected in the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan
provided in the next section.
1. Fairview Avenue and Montclair/Eleanor Avenue (from George Bush Drive to Holleman Drive)
To provide ample space for improved facilities on Montclair Ave and Fairview Ave, it is proposed
to group the two streets together as a one-way pair with sidewalks on one side along with
buffered bike lanes and on-street parking. An existing sidewalk through W.A. Tarrow Park would
be converted to a SUP and connect into a new mid-block crossing on Holleman Dr.
2. Timber Street (from George Bush Drive to Park Place)
Intersection improvements are proposed and funded for the Timber St and George Bush Dr
intersection. Bike lanes and sidewalks are also proposed on Timber Street to extend down to
Park Place.
Page 40 of 74
3. Anderson Street (from George Bush Drive to Bee Creek Park)
The existing standard bike lanes are recommended to be converted to a two-way cycle track on
the west side of Anderson Street, providing improved and safer access to the parks, schools and
churches along the corridor.
4. Tarrow Street (from Autumn Circle to University Drive East)
A shared use path is proposed on one side of Tarrow Street from the city limit near Autumn
Circle to University Drive East. This shared use path would be a continuation of the shared use
path funded in City of Bryan along East 29th Street. A mid-block crossing at the Tarrow Street split
will provide active transportation users the option on which direction they need to travel to and
from University Drive East.
5. Park Place (from Texas Avenue to Anderson Street)
Given limited right-of-way, recommended improvements to Park Place are a sidewalk on the
north side from the HEB grocery store on Texas Avenue to Anderson Street. This would connect
to the improvements described for Anderson Street.
6. State Highway 40 / William D. Fitch Parkway (from Arrington Road to Wellborn Road)
A shared use path on the northside of William D. Fitch Parkway would help connect the
commercial area of Tower Point to Castle Rock Subdivision, Victoria Avenue and its existing
connection to College Station High School and finally connecting west to Wellborn Road.
Map 4.4 Locations of Corridors 1-4
Source: Kimley-horn and the City of College Station
Page 41 of 74
Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan Maps
The Master Plan establishes two updated maps for the Proposed Bicycle Plan (Map 4.5) and the Proposed
Pedestrian Plan (Map 4.6). These two networks are distinct systems with some shared facilities. The Bicycle
Plan includes bike lanes, bike routes, and shared use paths while the Pedestrian Plan provides sidewalks
and shared use paths. The changes were shared with key stakeholders and at public meetings by using
map books that compared the previous network with the proposed network that highlighted all additions,
removals, and realigned facilities. Table 4.6 summarizes the total mileage of each facility type proposed.
Table 4.6 Proposed Plan Mileage by Facility Type
All Facilities
Status Sidewalks Shared use
Paths Bike Lanes Bike Routes
Existing 403 miles 44.4 miles 57.4 miles 22 miles
Proposed 91.7 miles 105.6 miles 80 miles 73.4 miles
Funded 2.1 miles 20 miles 2.7 miles -
Total 496.8 miles 170 miles 140.1 miles 95.4 miles
Facilities Inside City Limits Only
Existing 387.4 miles 43.4 miles 56.4 miles 16.8 miles
Proposed 67.7 miles 91.8 miles 61.1 miles 31.3 miles
Funded 2.1 miles 20 miles 2.7 miles -
Total 457.2 miles 155.2 miles 120.2 miles 48.1 miles
Source: City of College Station
For the bicycle network, there are approximately 70 proposed changes with 45 of them related to shared
use paths or grade separations. The most significant changes occur on higher classification thoroughfares
where the LTS for cyclists is high due to little or no bicycle infrastructure. Similarly, there are about 90
changes to the pedestrian network with 45 of them being the same shared use path and grade separation
changes reflected in the updated bicycle network. The Texas Department of Transportation is adding
shared use paths to both sides of State Highway 6 and several changes to both networks provide planned
connections into it. Besides the same changes on major thoroughfares as done with the bicycle network,
many of the pedestrian network changes eliminate gaps and increase connectivity, especially near key
destinations.
Page 42 of 74
Map 4.5 Proposed Bicycle Plan
Page 43 of 74
Map 4.6 Proposed Pedestrian Plan
Page 44 of 74
Crossings and Grade Separated Recommendations
The Master Plan reflects a commitment to expanding safe, comfortable, and connected active
transportation corridors throughout the community. While many crossings can be improved through at-
grade design treatments, certain high-volume roadways and rail corridors create significant barriers for
active transportation users. In these locations, grade-separated crossings, such as bridges or underpasses,
can provide safer and more reliable connections by eliminating conflicts with vehicle traffic and the railroad.
Several grade-separated crossings are included as part of the proposed network.
One of the most significant projects planned is a grade-separated crossing at the intersection of Wellborn
Road and George Bush Drive. This project is funded through TxDOT and will create a separate level for
pedestrians and bicyclists crossing to avoid conflicts with roadway traffic and the railroad. The conceptual
design is shown in Figure 4.16. Once completed, active transportation users will be able to travel between
the surrounding areas and the Texas A&M University campus without needing to interact with vehicles or
waiting for trains as the railroad crossing will be removed.
Figure 4.16 Bush-Wellborn Grade Separation
Source: Bush-Wellborn Crossing.org
The TxDOT Bryan District completed The University Drive Active Transportation Concept Study in January
2025 which evaluated a series of bicycle and pedestrian grade-separation alternatives along University
Drive between Northgate and the Texas A&M University campus. This corridor experiences the region’s
highest walking and bicycling volumes. Building on earlier planning efforts, the study identifies four key
intersections, Spence Street, Nagle Street/Ireland Street, Polo Road/Century Square, and the College Main
Street/Houston Street/Boyett Street complex, where targeted improvements can significantly enhance safety,
reduce conflicts, and support the community’s mobility needs. The preferred concepts include pedestrian
tunnels at Spence Street and Nagle/Ireland, and at-grade pedestrian/bicycle decks supported by a sunken
roadway profile at Polo Road and College Main Street/Boyett Street. These designs prioritize direct,
intuitive connections, reduce exposure to high volumes of traffic, and improve the efficiency of both
motorized and non-motorized travel along the corridor. The design of grade separated crossings can vary
depending on local roadway context; both space and construction costs can heavily influence how the
grade separation is constructed. In some instances, it might make more sense to create a raised bridge for
one of the transportation modes, while in other instances a sunken tunnel is more feasible.
Page 45 of 74
Figure 4.17 Conceptual Design of University Drive Grade Separation
Source: Halff
A new proposal with this Plan is a future grade separation crossing at State Highway 6 to connect the
existing Wolf Pen Creek trail system with the future Gulf States trail. Currently there is no existing crossing of
State Highway 6 that is an off-street facility. Once additional trail systems are completed east of State
Highway 6, this grade-separated crossing would connect an off-street trail system that is miles in length that
connects the core of the city to natural corridors to be preserved to the east and south. Figure 4.18 provides
an example of what grade-separated crossing over a highway could look like.
Figure 4.18 Example Active Transportation Grade-Separated Highway Crossing
Source: Google Earth (Petaluma, California)
Page 46 of 74
Chapter 5: System Management
Achieving the goals and objectives of this Master Plan will require ongoing coordination, management, and
support across City departments and community partners. This chapter describes the importance of
supportive policies, coordinated programs, and strategic partnerships in advancing the Plan’s vision,
followed by a discussion in the final plan chapter of how these tasks will be implemented. Together, these
elements define the roles and responsibilities of City departments in supporting College Station’s growing
active transportation network and guiding its long-term expansion, operation, and upkeep.
Policies and Programs
Policies provide a supporting framework to guide the development of a safe, accessible, and connected
active transportation network. Together, they outline the standards, design principles, and implementation
strategies necessary to support walking, biking, and rolling as viable and comfortable modes of travel. By
establishing clearer expectations for infrastructure, funding, integration with land use and transit, and
ongoing evaluation, these policies ensure that future investments and work plans contribute to a cohesive
system that enhances mobility, promotes public health, and supports the community’s long-term vision for a
more vibrant and sustainable transportation environment.
• Policy 1:
Design facilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and in accordance with
the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD), American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG), and other federal, state, and local applicable guidelines.
• Policy 2:
Utilize a context-sensitive solutions approach that balances the needs of different modes of
transportation in constrained environments to establish certain prioritized mode corridors for non-
vehicular users.
• Policy 3:
Plan and design all new and reconstructed collectors, arterials, and crossings to ensure safe and
comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be included on
both sides of thoroughfares. The development of this network, including the connection of off-street
and on-street facilities, should be designed at the pedestrian scale. This may include implementing
additional access ways or connections for pedestrian and bicycle use only.
• Policy 4:
Establish safe and accessible routes for active transportation and transit users during street
construction and/or site development to address disruptions to normal traffic patterns. Internal site
circulation for active transportation users also needs to be taken into account to ensure appropriate
sidewalk connections between buildings, bicycle parking, and public facilities.
• Policy 5:
Develop data-backed performance measures including user counts, level of stress analysis, and crash
reports to inform network improvements that benefit user experience and promote active
transportation as a primary mode of travel.
Page 47 of 74
• Policy 6:
Pursue consistent funding to address network and infrastructure improvement projects to realize a
complete, low stress network for all users. As the network expands through both public and private
development, make sure adequate funding is available for operations and maintenance of
infrastructure.
• Policy 7:
Utilize environmental design to promote safety within the active transportation system by increasing
visibility and directing access. Strategies for implementing environmental design include the
installation of lighting, appropriate location of fencing, signage and maintaining clear lines of sight.
• Policy 8:
Promote land use development patterns that provide pedestrian scale, mixed-use areas, allowing for
closer destinations that can be more easily reached by pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
• Policy 9:
Better integrate the active transportation network with the local transit system. This would include
improved amenities at transit stops and better access to these areas to help strengthen first and last
mile connectivity, leading towards a more flexible, user-centered transportation that is efficient and
sustainable.
• Policy 10:
Provide programs that educate, encourage and evaluate active transportation efforts in the city. These
programs, along with all other planning efforts, should reflect related planning documents by other
planning organizations, educational institutions, and governmental agencies at the local and state
level to help better connect facilities and align program initiatives across the regional system.
Context-sensitive solutions will be vital to the successful implementation of these Policies. Acknowledging
that each active transportation facility type and user group has unique needs, this Master Plan promotes
flexible and context-sensitive strategies. At the same time, it emphasizes the importance of an integrated
approach that connects all modes of active transportation. By taking a comprehensive view, the City can
better identify service gaps, strengthen network connectivity, and outline a plan to enhance active
transportation and meet the needs of the community.
Program Recommendations
Along with the proposed network facilities, programs are vital to help achieve the plan’s goals and policies.
The program recommendations are classified into four categories: Education, Encouragement, Evaluation
and Planning, and Health and Safety. These programs aim to promote and educate safe use of the active
transportation system, utilizing a variety of communication methods, and provide direction on efforts to
further evaluate and create a robust active transportation network for users to know and enjoy.
Programs considered below only represent examples of what can be done to begin efforts. The level of
expenditures and resources available will need to be evaluated in relation to effectiveness of the programs
offered to determine what a comprehensive and successful program should entail.
Page 48 of 74
Education Programs
Strong education and outreach programs should focus on teaching all ages and abilities how to utilize
active transportation safely, while also promoting awareness of current regulations. When combined with
initiatives that encourage participation, involve careful planning and evaluation, and prioritize public health
and safety, these programs can lead to lasting improvements in community well-being. Key collaborators in
such efforts may include College Station Parks and Recreation, Police, Public Communications, and Public
Works departments, local businesses, healthcare organizations, College Station Independent School
District, and Texas A&M University. Educational strategies should be tailored to suit different groups of
active transportation users as well as motorists and how they use the transportation system. The following
programs to be carried out over the course of the plan:
5. 1 Promote a Safe Routes to School program for students to have safe options to walk, bike, and roll to
school. Through this program, it is recommended that the City support activities that correlate with
Safe Routes to School while educating the public on how the program should be accomplished.
Coordination with the school district and related groups will be key to the success of this program.
5.2 Establish a Share the Road campaign that educates bicyclists and motorists about their rights and
responsibilities in sharing roadway space. “Share the Road” signs should be placed along
appropriate locations. With this, educational and promotional material should be distributed using
both print and electronic media.
5.3 Expand the footprint of the bike share program to include more of the city to allow for greater
access to bicycle and micromobility options.
5.4 Coordinate with local League Certified Instructors (LCI’s) to host classes that cover basic cycling
skills, commuting, motorist education, and classes specifically designed for different age groups
and abilities.
Encouragement Programs
To increase use of non-vehicular modes of transportation, promotional materials, community events,
proclamations, providing end of trip facilities, and partnerships with businesses and other local entities help
create avenues to make more users aware of and feel comfortable using the network. Programs are as
follows, but not limited to:
5.5 Encourage and assist private businesses and organizations to install bike racks and bike repair
stations. This will help expand the reach of the active transportation network beyond public
infrastructure, making it easier for users to safely and conveniently access key destinations. Providing
secure parking and basic maintenance amenities also increases user confidence and supports
longer, more frequent trips by reducing concerns about theft, breakdowns, and overall trip
reliability.
5.6 Develop a wayfinding system for the active transportation network that leads users to key
destinations. A clear and easy to follow wayfinding system can encourage users to utilize the active
transportation system by creating an increased awareness and sense of place along their route.
5.7 Promote, encourage, and participate in community active transportation events that promote biking
and walking activity. These can be either City or community-led events and should occur multiple
times a year to help create greater awareness and participation from the public.
5.8 Collaborate with local community organizations that promote active transportation to
get additional support for implementing identified programs. These partnerships can be with the
College Station Independent School District, local bike shops, community advocacy groups and
Page 49 of 74
individuals, among other local organizations, and can be used as a method to inform and distribute
information.
5.9 Recognize May as National Bike Month and promote related events such as Bike to Work Week,
Bike to Work Day, National Ride a Bike Day, and the city-initiated Cycle with Council event.
5.10 Maintain and strive toward a higher Bicycle Friendly Community designation through the League of
American Bicyclists. Through the implementation of the programs listed in this plan and paired with
analyses such as the level of traffic stress, the City should take action to continue improving the
network and its supporting educational components and outreach.
5.11 Maintain the Bicycle Friendly Business designation received for the City of College Station City Hall
and help provide information to local businesses to become a Bicycle Friendly Business. Public and
private investments in bike infrastructure create positive customer experiences and economic gains
across all levels.
5.12 Increase awareness of available active transportation programs and eliminate barriers for people
who do not typically utilize these modes of travel. These educational programs promote active
transportation as a viable and potentially more convenient travel mode choice.
5.13 Promote active transportation through social media, newsletters, and City Council proclamations.
This includes multilingual communication and involves methods such as local news broadcasting,
radio, City podcasts and blogs, utility bill inserts and brochures, educational booklets and others.
Evaluation and Planning Programs
To ensure that this plan can accomplish what it is set out to achieve and that the existing network can
handle what is being proposed, continued evaluation and planning is essential throughout the
implementation of this plan. Data driven initiatives can help identify system needs and paired with visual
map aids can provide helpful tools for citizens to use when navigating the system. Evaluation and Planning
Programs should be focused on providing safe and comfortable routes and providing information to
citizens to help better identify these routes when planning their trips.
5.14 Update maps of where bicycle parking is located both on private and public property to help create
a network easier to navigate with potential end points identified. This map would include the
number of bike racks at a location and their general location.
5.15 Annually update the bicycle and pedestrian maps on the City's website to reflect the level of stress
to include finished projects. This interactive map will provide users the most comfortable route to
their destinations.
5.16 Create a travel data collection program to assess travel habits and counts of active transportation
users. These counts can be beneficial in planning network expansions/enhancements and
understanding where people’s frequent trips are. Before and after data of new project completion
should be collected to help analyze the effect the project had on travel in the area.
5.17 Provide a walking report card measurement similar to the report card received from the Bicycle
Friendly Community designations. The City can utilize data methods from outside organizations to
provide an accurate report on the walkability of the community at large. A key metric for creating
the report would be analyzing pedestrian connectivity to key destinations like schools, parks,
shopping centers, and offices.
Page 50 of 74
5.18 Seek out grant funding for projects with active transportation components, including ADA
projects. These can be focused on older existing sections of sidewalks, ramps and paths to bring
them into compliance.
5.19 Evaluate best practices and collaborate with peer cities, agencies, and institutions regarding active
transportation programs. Using these best practices can aid in growing City programs and
comparing them to other successful implementation initiatives.
Health and Safety Programs
Health and safety programs have an important role to ensure that users of the active transportation system
can travel safely to and from their destinations. The City will need to lead initiatives such as crash data
method evaluations and also aid in citizen-led efforts to create a network that is safe for all ages and
abilities. Partnerships with health organizations can help promote active transportation as a healthy way of
living, and creating programs that assist in evaluating the overall safety and comfortability of the network
will help with ensuring that users are safe, comfortable, and have useable facilities in both their commute
and recreational routes.
5.20 Establish partnerships with local and state health organizations to promote active transportation as
healthy options for citizens and visitors alike.
5.21 Implement a speed management/reduction program that can supplement the City’s traffic calming
program to ensure that vehicular traffic does not travel at dangerous speeds in areas that have high
counts of active transportation users. An additional speed management program would be focused
on active transportation users and provide speed limit signage along off-street shared use paths.
This would help create a safer environment for all users along the same shared paths, especially in
higher traffic areas.
5.22 Analyze crash data to evaluate if improvements are beneficial to the network. This includes regular
meetings with City departments to assess what the data implications are, and how they could be
worked into future projects to reduce safety risks. Create a walk and bike audit program to assess
safety and comfortability on active transportation routes. These can be City or citizen-led and can be
useful in identifying areas that need improvements and addressing desire paths where sidewalks do
not exist. Walk and bike audits can act as a first step to implementing change in policy as well as
design considerations for future projects.
A complete list of all the programs and action items proposed in this Plan can be found in Table 6.2 of
Chapter 6, alongside information regarding each item’s funding and timeline for their implementation.
Internal and External Partnerships
Successful system management requires close collaboration with both internal and external partners.
Internal partners consist of City departments like Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital
Projects, Public Communications, and Police, all of whom play a role in developing and maintaining College
Station’s transportation network. External partners include other governmental agencies at the state level as
well as non-governmental community groups. Table 5.2 lists some of the partners and in what aspect the
City can collaborate with them on items related to system management.
Page 51 of 74
Table 5.2 Partnerships
Partners Planning Advisory Funding
Design
&
Construction
Regulation Maintenance
Plan Programs
Education Encouragement
Evaluation
&
Planning
Health
&
Safety
Capital
Projects X X X X X X X
Parks &
Recreation X X X X X X X X X X
Planning and
Development
Services
X X X X X X X X X
Police Dept. X X X X X X
Public Comm. X X X
Public Works X X X X X X X X X
B/CS MPO X X X X X X
Brazos Transit
District X X X X X X X
City of Bryan X X X X X
Texas A&M
University X X X X X X X X X X
TxDOT X X X X X X X X X
Developers X X X X X X
Employers X X X X X X X X
HOAs X X X X X X X
Special
Interest
Groups
X X X X X X X
Source: City of College Station
Page 52 of 74
Chapter 6: Implementation
Realization of the Active Transportation Master Plan as it outlined in previous chapters requires a clear
roadmap for plan implementation. Such a roadmap should outline responsibilities of the Advisory Board,
the process for prioritizing projects, evaluation and monitoring of these projects, a system for collecting
data and tracking plan outcomes, and an overview of implementation costs and funding sources that will be
used to carry out infrastructure projects and plan programs. Chapter 6 discusses each of these aspects of
plan implementation in greater detail to help achieve success.
The Active Transportation Advisory Board
One of the early tasks to implemented with this Master Plan will be the realignment and renaming of the
City’s advisory board for active transportation. Originally formed in August 2010 as the Bicycle Pedestrian
Greenways Advisory Board, the board’s responsibilities include the implementation of this new Master Plan
as the City’s greenway system will be incorporated into the new Parks Master Plan. The board will be
renamed the Active Transportation Advisory Board to reflect its expanded role in guiding all aspects of the
City’s walking, biking, and active transportation network. This organizational framework provides the
leadership, coordination, and oversight needed to advance all subsequent tasks and ensure the Plan’s long-
term success.
Action Items:
6.1 Review board member requirements for the Active Transportation Advisory Board and revise
the purpose, powers, and duties of the Board.
Project Prioritization
In the Proposed Plan section of Chapter 4, this Master Plan proposes approximately 250 miles of bicycle
and pedestrian facilities (inside city limits) to be implemented. Since such a significant number of facility
miles cannot be constructed in a short timeframe and are to be accomplished in a variety of ways, project
priorities need to be established to focus limited funding resources. These priorities will be ordered from
highest priority to lowest priority through criteria and the use of weighted spatial analysis model that takes
into account different geographic, demographic, and safety factors. Once ordered, the proposed projects
will be grouped into categories based off their score: high priority, medium priority, and low priority.
The GIS analyst model that is utilized will use preset proximity distances for walking and biking. The
standard is 0.5-mile distance for walking and 2-mile distance for biking with buffer increments of 1/10th the
distance to give various levels of points based on proximity to help prioritize areas most need and benefit of
bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Most of the criteria in the prioritization have been utilized in prior
plans and include:
• Bicycle, pedestrian, and micromobility crash locations – A history of crashes involving vulnerable
roadway users can indicate a need for enhanced facilities to reduce the risk of future crashes from
occurring. Considering crash records for these users helps meet Goal 1 of the plan.
• Current and expected population density – Greater demand and use potential is likely in areas of
higher population density and diversifying transportation options in these areas can be a useful
method of traffic mitigation. Key destinations within high population density areas also tend to be
closer, making these locations better suited for active transportation. Including these areas in project
prioritization aligns with Goal 5 of the plan.
• Proximity to key destinations – Schools, parks, Texas A&M University campus, commercial and
employment areas, and transit are identified as key destinations in the transportation network.
Page 53 of 74
Ensuring that these spaces, and the individuals that frequent them, are prioritized when projects are
considered helps meet Goal 1 and Goal 2 of the plan.
The criteria for project prioritization have been updated to include new forms of system analysis and
network considerations. The criteria now include high stress roadway segments and intersection crossings
that were identified in the Level of Traffic Stress Analysis. Other criteria added are prioritized active
transportation corridors, filling a small gap in the network, whether there is not a sidewalk already existing
on the street, and if ROW or easement acquisition is necessary. The projects to be prioritized are stand-
alone bicycle or pedestrian-related projects. Projects that are already have funding or anticipated to occur
as part of a street capital project done by the city or private development are not included for consideration
as they will be completed as part of those efforts.
Table 6.1 Sidewalk & Shared Use Paths (Along Street ROW) Prioritization Criteria
Factors Scoring Weight
Safety (Fatality and Serious Injury Crashes) 10
Safety (Minor Crashes) 5
Population Density (Existing) 10
Population Density (Future) 5
Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors 8
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) High Stress Segment or Crossing 7
Fills gap in existing network (<=0.1 miles) 8
On Thoroughfare without Existing Sidewalk 8
On Non-Thoroughfare without Existing Sidewalk 6
Schools 10
Parks 8
Texas A&M University 6
Major Commercial Areas and/or Employers 5
Transit Connectivity (Bus Stops and Routes) 4
Total 100
Table 6.2 Bike Lanes and Bike Routes Prioritization Criteria
Factors Scoring Weight
Safety (Fatality and Serious Injury Crashes) 12
Safety (Minor Crashes) 6
Population Density (Existing) 12
Population Density (Future) 6
Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors 8
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) High Stress Segment 10
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) High Stress Crossing 6
Page 54 of 74
Schools 12
Parks 10
Texas A&M University 8
Major Commercial Areas and/or Employers 6
Transit Connectivity (Bus Stops and Routes) 4
Total 100
Table 6.3 Off-Street Shared Use Paths Prioritization Criteria
Factors Scoring Weight
Safety (Fatality and Serious Injury Crashes) 12
Safety (Minor Crashes) 6
Population Density (Existing) 12
Population Density (Future) 6
Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors 8
Fills gap between existing facilities 8
On City property or existing easement 8
Schools 12
Parks 10
Texas A&M University 8
Major Commercial Areas and/or Employers 6
Transit Connectivity (Bus Stops and Routes) 4
Total 100
Action Items:
6.3 Create an unfunded prioritization map
6.4 Develop high priority facilities
6.5 Develop medium priority facilities
6.6 Develop low priority facilities
Evaluation and Monitoring
All tasks and action items identified in this Master Plan can be found in Table 6.4 Implementation Tasks. The
table lists each individual task and the major details surrounding its implementation, including the
implementation schedule, the task coordinator, and any funding sources meant to support implementation
activities. The tasks listed in this table were determined through the entire planning process of the Master
Plan, including coordination with the Advisory Board and other key stakeholders. Additional tasks and
action items necessary for successful plan implementation can be added on an annual basis when the City
determines its yearly plan of work.
Page 55 of 74
Table 6.4 Implementation Tasks
[11.25 x 7.25 Foldout Table]
Source: City of College Station
Page 56 of 74
Data for Tracking Plan Outcomes
In order to properly track the progress of plan implementation, performance measures and community
indicators are necessary. These measures should include both qualitative and quantitative data types to
provide a holistic understanding of changing network conditions. Some of the quantitative data points that
should be considered for performance measures would include pedestrian and bicycle facility usage, transit
ridership, and facility miles constructed.
Similar to performance measures, community indicators provide insight into how plan implementation is
progressing. Examples of some quantitative community indicators would include daily traffic volumes and
annual crash statistics. Community indicators also include the qualitative data collected and observed
during public engagement events, such as community surveys, facility audits, and attendee counts.
Feedback collected during these events is typically open ended, making it more difficult to synthesize into
trackable trends with specified performance goals. While valuable for understanding the public’s
perception of existing conditions, these indicators would not be used for evaluating the City’s performance
or progress towards full plan implementation due to their qualitative nature. Rather, community indicators
are used for monitoring ongoing conditions and determining whether further actions are needed to
address public concerns.
Figure 6.1 Jingle Bell Community Bike Ride Event
Source: City of College Station
The process for developing performance measures should start with determining a set of baseline numbers
for analysis. Once established, these numbers can be tracked over time as a method of monitoring the
existing system and documenting the impact of new programs or projects. Some of these datasets can be
collected and synthesized internally by City staff, while other datasets require the help of external partners.
Some of the data for these new performance measures can be collected by City staff. Additional data can
be provided by our state and local partners like the Brazos Transit District, Texas A&M University, and
TxDOT. Both Brazos Transit District and Texas A&M can provide the City with transit ridership-related data.
Texas A&M can provide additional data regarding micromobility and bicycle usage based on their annual
device registration records. These datasets can be used to target multimodal transportation integration
Page 57 of 74
projects to the locations where they are most needed and track the impact of those projects once they have
been completed.
Figure 6.2 Micromobility devices parked at Texas A&M bike rack facility
Source: City of College Station
TxDOT is also able to provide College Station with transportation data directly, through annual reports the
department publishes, and indirectly, through partnerships and contracts it has with data groups like INRIX.
These partnerships allow cities and MPOs to access a wide range of state-wide databases describing traffic
volumes, levels of roadway service, congestion rates, and travel patterns.
As an added benefit, the results of these performance measures can be used to support further planning
efforts in the future. If City-implemented projects can be shown to have an impact on service quality, safety,
and/or system efficiency, it can help foster community support for additional projects and expanded
programs. These performance measures can also be used as supporting documentation for the City’s grant
writing efforts. Having robust sets of performance measures to pull supporting data from will help the city
create more competitive applications.
Any performance measure program established by College Station should also include specific target goals
for system performance. These target goals for the transportation network should be set after performance
baselines can be established to guarantee that those goals are within reason. As mentioned previously, the
City’s performance measure program should provide a holistic understanding of system performance with
data that covers the following topics:
• System Development – The number of facilities/projects completed that include accommodations
for active transportation users, the number of linear miles of new facilities added, etc.
• Safety – The number of crashes involving bicyclists, pedestrians, and micromobility users
• Usage – The number of active transportation users and where they are using the facility
• Programs – The success of the proposed Active Transportation Master Plan programs should be
tracked with programmatic metrics that will depend on each program’s structure and goals
• Maintenance – The quality, condition, and age of existing facilities
• Cost – Amount of funding allocated to implementing the active transportation network
Page 58 of 74
To ensure that the performance measure program is maintained, a schedule of progress reports should be
established by City staff. The frequency of these progress reports will depend on the specific performance
measure being tracked.
Action Items:
6.7 Establish performance measures with specified, trackable goals
Funding and Facility Improvement Costs
Implementation of the expanded and upgraded bicycle and pedestrian network proposed in this plan will
take substantial investment over a long period of time. Realization of these improvements, however, are not
solely the responsibility of the City to construct as requirements on new development will realize many
improvements and projects completed by TxDOT will accomplish some others. Cost estimates for new
active transportation facilities were calculated in 2023 based on recent projects with substantial
contingency added and provide planning-level assumptions that include design, construction, and right-of-
way acquisition costs. At that time, sidewalk construction was estimated at approximately $1.2 million per
mile, and shared use paths at approximately $2.0 million per mile plus bridges. These figures are intended
to support high-level planning and prioritization and should be refined through project-specific analysis as
implementation advances. Actual costs may vary over time due to inflation, market conditions, and site-
specific factors.
As the active transportation network continues to expand, it will be equally important to establish a
sustainable approach to operations and maintenance. Consistent with Master Plan Policy 6, the City should
pursue reliable funding sources not only for new infrastructure, but also to ensure that existing facilities are
properly maintained, safe, and functional over time as the system grows through both public investment
and private development.
Local Funding Sources
Capital Projects Fund
Capital project funds typically the primary source for the city to construct infrastructure. The types of
infrastructure financed by the Capital Projects fund could include streets, parks, off-road trails, and other
public buildings and facilities. A list of funding sources utilized or capital projects includes:
• General Obligation Bonds – A General Obligation Bond is a municipal bond approved by a voter
referendum that is secured through the taxing and borrowing power of a jurisdiction. The City
Council must approve calling an election for a General Obligation Bonds to be voted upon. The
bonds are repaid by levy through a municipal pledge and the tax revenue of the jurisdiction.
• Certificates of Obligation Bonds – Certificates of Obligation Bonds, also known as COs, are also
secured through the taxing and borrowing power of a jurisdiction and can be used by municipalities
to fund infrastructure projects. Certificates of Obligation require approval by City Council but unlike
other types of bonds, they do not require an election of voter approval to issue.
• Impact Fees – Impact fees are collected from new developments to offset the cost of the
infrastructure that is attributable to the demand they place on the infrastructure network and can be
used to support public infrastructure, such as waterlines, sanitary sewer lines, and street and
intersection projects. Impact fees can act as an indirect funding source for the active transportation
Page 59 of 74
projects since many of the larger street projects include new or upgraded bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure.
• Sidewalk Fund – The fund facilitates the construction of sidewalks.
General Fund
Another primary source of funding for municipalities is the General Fund, which consists of property tax,
sales tax, fines, and fees that are collected. The General Fund typically covers the day-to-day operational
needs of the City such as staff salaries and supplies needed for Active Transportation programs and events.
General Fund is typically not utilized for funding capital projects on an on-going basis though if extra
revenues are collected, they could be utilized for one-time expenses including contributing to a capital
project.
Federal and State Funding Sources
Funding for projects is frequently available through various grant programs operated by federal and state
agencies. In many cases, these grants require a local funding match in order to qualify for the grant.
Federal Funding
• Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - The FHWA is an
agency within the Department of Transportation and helps to support state and local governments
with the construction and maintenance of the country’s national highway system. The agency
accomplishes its goal through the financial and technical assistance it provides to state and local
governments.
ο Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) – This program provides funding to reduce
traffic related fatalities and injuries on the land adjacent to roadways. Funds from HSIP can be
used to make improvements related to bicycle and pedestrian safety.
ο Safe Routes to School (SR4S) – FHWA distributes funding for state-level SR4S programs
through TxDOT.
ο Transportation Enhancement Activities – Contains funding for 12 different activities, which
includes; pedestrian and bicycle facilities, safety and educational activities, conversion of
abandoned railway corridors to trails, landscaping and scenic beautification, and
environmental mitigation to maintain habitat connectivity.
ο Surface Transportation Program (STBG) – The Surface Transportation Block Grant program
provides funding for a wide range of projects, including highways, bridges, tunnels, and
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. This program is managed at the state-level by TxDOT.
ο Recreational Trails Program – This program provides funding to states for the development
and ongoing maintenance of recreational trails and trail-related facilities. Trails for walking,
hiking, and biking are all eligible for funding.
• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - The federal agency responsible for
providing housing and community development assistance programs.
ο Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - This program supports
neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and community facility improvement
efforts in areas with low and moderate incomes. These funds have been used numerous
times to construct public facilities including bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in eligible
areas of the City.
Page 60 of 74
State Funding
There are multiple state agencies that provide funding for projects and programs meant to support active
transportation. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) provides funding for both on and off-
street projects while the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is primarily focused on improving off street
trails and greenways.
• Texas Department of Transportation – The government agency responsible for planning,
designing, building, operating, and maintaining the state’s transportation infrastructure.
ο Safe Routes to Schools Program (SR4S) – The SR4S program tries to encourage school age
children to bike and walk to school by funding the implementation of traffic safety programs
and construction of bike and pedestrian facilities within a two-mile radius of schools.
ο Texas Mobility Fund – Maintained by TxDOT, the Texas Mobility Fund holds taxes and fees
separate from those in the State Highway Fund. The Transportation development credits, or
toll credits, in this fund can be requested and applied as local match funding for federal
transportation projects.
ο Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA) Program – The TA program provides funding
through local Transportation Management Areas to be used for bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure and planning projects. Applicants are encouraged to submit proposals aimed
at improving transportation accessibility, safety, and multimodal integration.
• Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) – The state agency tasked with the management
and conservation of the natural and cultural resources of Texas.
ο Recreational Trails Program – Supports the creation of non-motorized and motorized
recreational trails and associated facilities meant to hiking and bicycling. Funding for the
Recreational Trails Program is provided by Federal Highway Trust Fund, which is supported
by gas taxes paid on fuel for non-highway recreational vehicles.
ο Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLP) – This program is a competitive grant under
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which provides matching funds to facilitate
the acquisition and development of outdoor recreational areas and trails.
Action Item:
6.8 Develop a maintenance plan for the system
6.9 Establish and ensure consistent capital and operating funding sources
6.10 Seek out alternative funding sources through grants, programs, and partnerships
Page 61 of 74
Acknowledgements
The City of College Station would like to express their sincere gratitude to all the following individuals,
groups and citizens of the community who contributed to the preparation and adoption of this Master Plan.
Without your help, this would have never been achieved.
City Council
John Nichols, Mayor
Mark Smith, Place 1
William Wright, Place 2
David White, Place 3
Melissa McIlhaney, Place 4
Bob Yancy, Place 5
Scott Shafer, Place 6
Planning & Zoning Commission
Jason Cornelius, Chair
David Higdon
Marcus Chaloupka
Aron Collins
Warren Finch
Michael Buckley
TreVion Watson
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board
Scott Shafer, Chair
Carla Robinson
Kathy Langlotz
Joy Chmelar
Neo Jang
Thomas Woodfin
Matthew Jackson
Administration
Bryan Woods, City Manager
Jeff Capps, Deputy City Manager
Jennifer Prochazka, Assistant City Manager
Jeff Kersten, Assistant City Manager
Planning and Development Services
Anthony Armstrong, Director
Molly Hitchcock, Assistant Director
Jason Schubert, Transportation Planning Coordinator
Jesse DiMeolo, Senior Planner
Carl Ahrens, Staff Planner
Joe Allen, Staff Planner
Julie Svetlik, GIS Analyst
Chris Griffin, GIS Analyst
Page 62 of 74
Eric Siaba, GIS Technician
Staff Resource Team
Carol Cotter, City Engineer
Raney Whitwell, Community Services
Michael Ostrowski, Economic Development
Susan Monnat, Capital Improvement Projects
Kenneth Preterit, Police Department
Emily Fisher, Public Works
Randell Smith, City Traffic Engineer
DeAnna Ordonez, Public Works
Kelsey Heiden, Parks Department
Richard Mann, Fire Department
Barbara Moore, Neighborhood Services
Page 63 of 74
Commonly Used Acronyms
• AASHTO – American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
• ACS – American Community Survey
• ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
• BCSMPO – Bryan College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization
• BPG – Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board
• BLTS – Bicycle Level of Stress
• BTD - Brazos Transit District
• CRIS - Crash Records Information System
• FHWA – Federal Highway Administration
• LPI – Leading Pedestrian Interval
• NACTO – National Association of City Transportation Officials
• PLTS – Pedestrian Level of Stress
• PROWAG – Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
• TxDOT – Texas Department of Transportation
• TXMUTCD – Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• ROW – Right-of-Way
• USDOT – United State Department of Transportation
Page 64 of 74
Appendix D: Thoroughfare Cross Sections
Crossing Section Makeup
Street cross-sections are composed of various discrete zones. These zones serve different users and include
different cross-section elements. The table below lists the cross-section zones alongside their identifying
traits. Refer to the diagram below table for illustrative examples of each element.
Zone Location Cross Section
Elements Definition
Frontage Immediately adjacent
to right of way edge
Utilities, grade
changes
Edge or ROW allocation for
commercial or residential transition
to adjacent grades and place for
utilities
Pedestrian
Parallel to street
between land use and
curb
Sidewalks Space dedicated to activities like
walking and jogging
Visual Barrier Buffer
Between travel lanes
(bike or vehicles) and
pedestrians
Xeriscaping, color
concrete, pavers, or
landscape elements*
like low shrubs,
decorative grasses,
lawn, and trees
Buffered landscape that separates
walking and stationary activities
from travel lanes
Non-Vehicular
Travel
Immediately adjacent
to the curb or sidewalk
edge
Curbside space,
bicycle lanes, and on-
street parking, shared
use paths
Intermediary zone adjacent to
travel lanes
Travel Center of the right of
way
General purpose
lanes, bus lanes,
medians
Lanes used primarily for motorized
transportation
*Landscape elements require approval by public works
Page 65 of 74
Visual Barrier Buffer Examples
Xeriscape Buffer Landscape Buffer Hardscape Buffer
Typical Sections
Note: All dimensions measure from back-of-curb and center of stripe. Not to scale
Note: Separated bike lanes may be the preferred alternative in the Urban Context in College Station's Thoroughfare
Plan Context Zone Map
Page 66 of 74
Page 67 of 74
Alternative Sections
Note: All dimensions measure from back-of-curb and center of stripe. Not to scale
Page 68 of 74
Page 69 of 74
Page 70 of 74
Page 71 of 74
Page 72 of 74
Short termMedium termLong termInternal Partners
External PartnersConsultant Work?City - General FundCity - Capital BudgetOther GovernmentGrants Private/Other4.1 Analyze where wider bike lanes are needed to better accommodate passing for both bicycles and micromobility devices Planning & Development Services, Public Works X
4.2 Consider advisory speed limits on select shared use paths to ensure safety of all users Planning & Development Services, Parks & Recreation, Public Works X
4.3 Analyze where street intersection improvements are needed to increase safety and connectivity Planning & Development Services, Public Works X X X X
4.4 Assess where improvements are needed for bicycle and pedestrian facilities crossing private driveways, consider
changes to design standards Planning & Development Services, Public Works X X X X
4.5 Analyze locations needing more seamless transitions between different active transportation facilities, consider changes
to design standards Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Parks & Recreation X X X
4.6 Determine locations for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to transit stops, develop design standards for
facilities at these locations Planning & Development Services, Public Works X X X X X
4.7 Evaluate the location of existing bike route signage Planning & Development Services, Public Works X
System Design: Shade &
Comfort
4.8 Consider design standard amendments to provide shading along the active transportation network. Develop a
methodology for determining shading element locations Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Parks & Recreation X X
5.1 Promote Safe Routes to School Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Police X X X X
5.2 Create a Share the Road Campaign Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Police X X X
5.3 Expand the Bike Share Program Planning & Development Services X X X X
5.4 Coordinate with local League of Certified Instructors (LCI) to create roadway safety classes and workshops for bicyclists
and micromobility users Planning & Development Services, Police X X
5.5 Encourage installation of bike parking racks and bike repair stations at private businesses, organizations, and other key
destinations Planning & Development Services X X X
5.6 Develop a wayfinding system for the active transportation network that leads users to key destinations Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Parks & Recreation X X X X X
5.7 Encourage and participate in community active transportation events Planning & Development Services X X X
5.8 Collaborate with community organizations to gain additional support for implementing plan programs Planning & Development Services, Neighborhood Services X X X
5.9 Recognize May as National Bike Month and promote related events Planning & Development Services, Public Communications X
5.10 Maintain and pursue higher Bicycle Friendly Community status through the League of American Bicyclists. Planning & Development Services X
5.11 Maintain the Bicycle Friendly Business designation received for City Hall and support other local businesses in
achieving it. Planning & Development Services X
5.12 Increase awareness of available active transportation programs and eliminate barriers for people who do not
typically utilize this mode of travel Planning & Development Services, Neighborhood Services X X X
5.13 Promote active transportation through social media, newsletters, and City Council proclamations Planning & Development Services, Public Communications X X
5.14 Update and maintain inventory of bike racks within the City Planning & Development Services X X X
5.15 Update the bicycle and pedestrian maps on the City's website to reflect the level of stress as projects are finished. Planning & Development Services X
5.16 Create a travel data collection program to assess travel habits and counts of active transportation users. Planning & Development Services, Public Works X X X
5.17 Provide a walking report card measurement similar to Bicycle Friendly Community designation Planning & Development Services X
5.18 Seek out grant funding for city led ADA projects Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects X X X X X
Implementation Tasks Table
Implementation
Schedule Implementation and Coordination Roles Funding Sources
Task TypeSectionChapter
Programs: Encouragement
Programs: Evaluation &
Planning
System Design: Facility
Transitions
4. System DevelopmentSystem Design:
Intersections & Driveways
System Design:
Micromobility
5. System ManagementPrograms: Education
Page 73 of 74
5.19 Evaluate best practices and collaborate with peer cities, agencies, and institutions regarding active transportation
programs Planning & Development Services X X X
5.20 Create partnerships with health organizations at local and state levels Planning & Development Services X X X
5.21 Speed management program/speed reduction program Planning & Development Services, Public Works X X X
5.22 Analyze crash data to evaluate if improvements are beneficial Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Police X X X X
5.23 Create a walk and bike audit program to assess safety and comfortability Planning & Development Services, Public Works X
Advisory Board 6.1 Review board member requirements for the Active Transportation Advisory Board and revise the purpose, powers, and
duties of the Board. Planning & Development Services X
Evaluation & Monitoring 6.2 Review and update Master Plan in ten years and amend as needed through other planning efforts Planning & Development Services X X X
6.3 Create an unfunded prioritization map Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation X X X X X X
6.4 Develop high priority facilities Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation X X X X X X
6.5 Develop medium priority facilities Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation X X X X X X
6.6 Develop low priority facilities Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation X X X X X X
Performance Measures 6.7 Establish performance measures with specified, trackable goals Planning & Development Services, Public Works X X
6.8 Develop a maintenance plan for the system Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Planning & Development Services X
6.9 Establish and ensure annual capital and operating funding sources Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Fiscal Services, Capital Improvement
Projects, Parks & Recreation X X
6.10 Seek out alternative funding sources through grants, programs, and partnerships Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Fiscal Services, Capital Improvement
Projects X X X X X
Programs: Evaluation &
Planning
Funding
Programs: Health & Safety
Project Prioritization
6. Implementation5. System ManagementPage 74 of 74