HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/2026 - Regular Agenda Packet - Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board
College 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: 283 217 264 064 007 | Passcode: 6aW3aA9z
Phone: +1 979-431-4880 | Phone Conference: 355 683 545#
The City Council may or may not attend this meeting.
May 11, 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. April 13, 2026 Minutes
3.2. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending
the Comprehensive Plan by repealing the official City of College Station Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-3226 and adopting a new Active
Transportation Master Plan.
Sponsors: Jesse DiMeolo
Attachments: 1. Active Transportation Master Plan
3.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a recap of the annual Cycle with Council
bike ride.
Sponsors: Carl Ahrens
Attachments: None
3.4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding safety considerations of active
transportation users at railroad crossings and shared use paths.
Sponsors: Joe Allen
Attachments: None
3.5. Presentation, discussion regarding the following items related to biking, walking, and greenways.
Page 1 of 167
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Advisory Board
Page 2 May 11, 2026
a. Public Meetings of Interest
b. Capital and Private Updates
Sponsors: Jason Schubert
Attachments: None
3.6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings.
• June 8, 2026 ~ Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Meeting ~ 3:30 p.m. ~
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 May 4, 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 167
MINUTES
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
April 13, 2026
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Scott Shafer, Board Members Kathy Langlotz, Carla
Robinson, Thomas Woodfin, Neo Jang, Matthew Jackson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joy Chmelar
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning and Development Molly Hitchcock,
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 Grecia Fuentes
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order, introductions and consider absence requests.
Chairperson Shafer called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors.
There were no visitors who wished to speak.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Agenda Items.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.1: Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting
minutes.
Board Member Jang pointed out a grammatical correction in how the initial motion read for Item
3.2 at the March 30th meeting. Board Member Langlotz motioned to approve the meeting
minutes from March 30th with the correction identified by Board Member Jang, Board
Member Woodfin seconded the motion, minutes were approved 6-0.
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 Pavilion Avenue,
a Minor Collector, between Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 South including associated
future bike lanes and sidewalks.
Page 3 of 167
Administrator Schubert presented this Public Hearing.
Administrator Schubert told the Board that staff recommended approving this request due to the
changing conditions in the area. He said that staff felt the purpose of the backage road circulation
was being accomplished.
Board Member Woodfin asked if the road located behind the car dealerships was a private road.
Administrator Schubert confirmed and added that it had a cross-access easement on it, and was
different than the typical ones because it was constructed as a wide drive aisle and a sidewalk so
it was more of a private street. This was required to be there in accordance with the city’s
development ordinance to meet the cross-access requirements.
Chairperson Shafer asked what the likelihood of that area continuing to develop was.
Administrator Schubert said that the property would eventually be developed further to the south
at some point and would likely add a new driveway that would connect to the frontage road.
Chairperson Shafer said that theoretically the city funds dedicated for that stretch were no longer
needed because the Big Six project by TxDOT would be taking place there.
Administrator Schubert confirmed and said that a shared use path along State Highway 6 was
now shown as funded because of being part of TxDOT’s Big Six project.
Board Member Woodfin asked what College Station ISD had planned to develop in that area.
Administrator Schubert stated that this was an application that was submitted by Mitchell &
Morgan on behalf of the school district. He mentioned that they owned more than forty acres that
included frontage and access to Sebesta Road. He added that they had different plans for the
property but referred to them for further details.
Chairperson Shafer opened the Public Hearing.
Veronica Morgan, Managing Partner at Mitchell & Morgan Engineers, stated she was there
representing College Station ISD. Ms. Morgan stated that the property was intended for an
administration building and any other type of office facility. The property was not intended for a
school and there was no intention of placing one in that area. She added that the use of this
facility had been provided by the backage road and that the bike and pedestrian facilities would
be accommodated by the shared-use path through a different route.
Chairperson Shafer closed the Public Hearing.
Board Member Jang made a move to approve the removal of the future extension of
Pavilion Avenue, a Minor Collector, between Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 South
including associated future bike lanes and sidewalks. Board Member Langlotz seconded
the motion. Motion was approved 6-0.
Page 4 of 167
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.3: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the
upcoming Cycle with Council community bike ride.
Planner Ahrens presented this item.
Planner Ahrens informed the Board that the Cycle with Council was rapidly approaching, and a
route for the event had been chosen. He told the Board that flyers were already in the process of
being printed by the Public Communications Department. He also mentioned that this year the
route was going to use Dominik Drive making it a little closer to five miles total in distance. After
last year’s success there were several sponsors reaching out and wanting to join in this year’s event,
which would be providing several goodies for the participants.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.4: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the draft Active
Transportation Master Plan.
Planner DiMeolo presented this item.
Chairperson Shafer suggested taking out the first sentence on page 21 in the box titled, “What is
active transportation,” that read, “Active transportation is human-powered mobility, such as biking
or walking”. He pointed out that the last sentence in that same box described what it is, “Bicycle
electric bikes, wheelchairs, scooters, skateboards, and even walking are all considered active
transportation.”
Planner DiMeolo said the verbiage used on this was taken straight from the United States
Department of Energy website but could look for a way to modify it and perhaps start the quote
on the second sentence instead.
Chairperson Shafer asked staff if they had planned to bring back some ideas on how to improve
safety on electric scooters. He said that this was requested by Chairperson Melissa McIlhaney in
the previous City Council meeting.
Administrator Schubert confirmed that there were future agenda items for staff and other
departments to discuss options and share their thoughts on the topic. He added that there was an
implementation of some of those components already stated in the plan such as Speed Management
and Share the Road Campaign that would be embedded as part of the new Master Plan.
Board Member Woodfin asked Chairperson Shafer if what he was asking was about policies on
micromobility devices.
Chairperson Shafer confirmed and said that there were several policies included, but he wanted to
know if there were any policies specifically that they should be considering because of the safety
concerns brought up in the crash data. He said the crash data showed that scooters were going up.
He mentioned that he understood some of the things were tough to enforce, but some people were
using basically electric motorcycles and riding them at 30 miles per hour on sidewalks and bike
lanes.
Page 5 of 167
Board Member Robinson mentioned that there was a reference to the Texas Transportation code
that prevented cities from excluding micromobility from any roadway or trail that allowed
bicycles. She suggested that maybe the city could control other aspects such as the speed limit.
Board Member Woodfin said he had asked this question about the policy at the last meeting and
the response was that multiple city departments were scheduled to discuss it in June. He noted that
the crash data analysis was missing some of the most critical takeaways relevant to the Active
Transportation Plan, particularly those related to bicycle and pedestrian crashes. He recommended
that staff point out safety issues identified by the data and propose ideas to address them. He also
suggested incorporating the partnership with Texas A&M.
Planner DiMeolo said that chapter 3 contained an analysis of the data and stated that other
information could be added.
Board Member Woodfin stated that the charts and maps are somewhat confusing, partly due to
formatting issues. He explained that the presentation jumps between text and visuals, making it
harder to interpret the data, especially in sections discussing pedestrian crash data like page 62.
Planner DiMeolo responded and said that the later chapters would propose a new network map
and plan to help address these issues. He said that they make some edits to make a clear reference
in the analysis.
Board Member Woodfin suggested using the “Floating and Colored Bike Lanes” as an example to
improve pedestrian and bicycle crossing safety issues.
Administrator Schubert said that in Chapter 4 stated in section “5.22”, that they would use the
crash data to evaluate if improvements were beneficial which would allow staff to dive further to
see all the different components.
Board Member Jang made a suggestion of adding language on page 25 for “Goal 1: Enhance Safety
for All Users” to read “ To define a measurable baseline for this safety, prioritize a ‘Primary Safe
Route’ network within the 2-mile walk zone of K-12 campuses, establishing at least one
continuous Level of Traffic Stress 1 (LTS-1, Low Stress) spine from these residential subdivisions
to their zoned schools, ensuring these corridors are safely navigable for an unaccompanied school-
aged child.”
Planner DiMeolo said the goals on the plan were more general and was not sure where the best
place to connect the language would be.
Chairperson Shafer explained that the idea Board Member Jang suggested was more specific than
a broad goal to help achieve a larger target. He said that this approach was not wrong, but it was
just a different way of framing things.
Planner DiMeolo suggested that staff could revise the pedestrian LTS to make it more accurate.
Another idea would be increase the weighting projects near schools receive in project
prioritization.
Page 6 of 167
Board Member Jang showed the Board the Hazardous Exception information from the College
Station ISD website, which read, “Students within two miles may be eligible if their neighborhood
qualifies as hazardous under the district’s hazardous transportation rating system.” He stated that
the school board discussed and voted on their list of hazardous roads. He also added that TEA
reimbursed $107,000 to CISD for the miles school buses that had driven within those 2 miles
because of the hazardous condition that prevented students from walking to school. He mentioned
that to him it seemed that it was the city’s responsibility due to the disconnects.
Administrator Schubert replied by saying that citizens may not want to see kindergartners cross
over State Highway 6 even if there was a shared-use path, therefore he would not suggest stating
that a lack of facilities was the defining point.
Board Member Jang stated that there was data that had very specific information including the
street names when defining these hazardous roads.
Chairperson Shafer said the Board would keep it in mind and suggested Board Member Jang to
consider how his idea could be incorporated into the larger plan. He mentioned that existing plans
included safe routes to schools that already encouraged this kind of understanding to improve
things for students.
Board Member Woodfin suggested adding CSISD specifically under 5.20 on page 51 or make the
connection however appropriate to empower the plan.
Chairperson Shafer asked what the staff’s timeline was to get this done.
Administrator Schubert suggested having an additional alternate meeting that would allow more
time for the Board to be able to discuss this further and have it finished in time.
Board Member Jang expressed his concern to pass up an opportunity to make a difference in
updating the plan this time around stating that this only happened every 8 years.
Administrator Schubert responded that this was much different than the 2018 plan update as it is
more of an overhaul to rewrite the language that had been used in the previous 2010 plan. He said
he would like to aim to work on implementing the plan.
Chairperson Shafer asked Board Member Jang what he was specifically wanting to stop and look
into.
Board Member Jang responded that he agreed that the language needed to be included, but maybe
not in the goals themselves. He said he would make it his personal goal to look at how the language
could possibly fit into the plan by the next meeting.
Administrator Schubert said that ultimately the goal was to be further along by the time of the next
meeting and have a more polished document rather than still looking into formatting and language
of policy statements. He expressed the urgency of this timeline due to this document also being a
Page 7 of 167
part if the agenda packets going to the Planning and Zoning Commission Board and City Council
shortly after.
Board Member Woodfin stated that from his personal point of view he appreciated the mention of
the connection and partnership CSISD that were also going to be addressed. He said there should
be sufficiently robust framework for future actions.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.5: Presentation and discussion regarding the following items related
to biking, walking, and greenways.
a) Public Meetings of Interest –
• Open House Meeting for the Active Transportation Master Plan ~ Wednesday
April 15, 2026 at 5:30pm in City Hall
• Council and Transportation Mobility Committee ~ Tuesday April 21, 2026 at
3:30pm at City Hall
• City Council Meeting – May National Proclamation ~ Thursday April 23, 2026 at
6pm in Council Chambers at City Hall
• Cycle with Council ~ Saturday May 2, 2026 at 8am at City Hall
b) Capital and Private Project Updates – No updates
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.6: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings.
a) May 11, 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.
There were no inquiries for future agenda items.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
Scott Shafer, Chairperson Grecia Fuentes, Board Secretary
Page 8 of 167
May 11, 2026
Item No. 3.2.
Active Transportation Master Plan
Sponsor: Jesse DiMeolo
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 repealing the official City of College Station Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-3226 and adopting a new
Active Transportation Master Plan.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
Improving Mobility
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the proposed Active Transportation Master
Plan.
Summary: A new Active Transportation Master Plan (ATMP) is proposed for the Board’s
consideration and recommendation. The ATMP establishes a comprehensive framework for
advancing active transportation in College Station and will replace the existing Bicycle, Pedestrian,
and Greenways Master Plan. Chapter 1 defines active transportation and introduces micromobility as
an important and growing component of the system. The updated Plan name reflects a shift in focus
toward transportation and mobility, as greenway planning transitions to the Parks & Recreation
Master Plan. Chapter 2 identifies existing conditions, including demographics, infrastructure,
micromobility trends, key destinations, and connections to public transit. Chapter 3 provides public
input along with technical analysis, including crash data and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) to identify
areas of need and inform data-driven, community-supported recommendations.
Chapters 4 through 6 focus on system development, management, and implementation. Chapter 4
establishes updated bicycle and pedestrian networks proposed for implementation, emphasizes
reducing user stress along high LTS corridors, and introduces key design strategies such as
prioritized active transportation corridors and enhanced crossings, including grade-separated
facilities. Chapter 5 establishes the foundation for long-term success through policies, programs, and
partnerships that support education, safety, and system coordination. Chapter 6 provides an
implementation framework, including project prioritization criteria, performance measures, and
funding strategies, along with an implementation table that helps guide phasing and investment
decisions.
Since the last Board meeting, staff hosted a public open house on April 15 that was attended by 35
participants and facilitated a two-week online engagement period to gather input that resulted in 25
additional responses. Following the public engagement period, staff completed a series of targeted
refinements to improve the clarity of the Master Plan. Some minor updates included correcting
grammatical and formatting inconsistencies, and standardizing naming conventions throughout the
document. Several maps and figures were consolidated or relabeled to improve readability and
reduce overall length, and mapping information was updated where necessary. Some content
revisions were also made across chapters, including refining the definition of active transportation,
reorganizing micromobility content, emphasizing safe facilities near schools within Policy 3, adding
College Station ISD as a key partner to Table 5.1, and making slight adjustments to project
prioritization tables to improve clarity and consistency.
Page 9 of 167
Following the Board's consideration and recommendation, the ATMP will be considered as part of
public hearings by the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation on May 21 and by
the City Council for potential adoption on May 28.
Budget & Financial Summary:
Attachments:
1. Active Transportation Master Plan
Page 10 of 167
MASTER PLAN
City of College Station
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Page 11 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026ii
CHAPTER 1: PLAN FOUNDATION
Organization and Scope
Planning Area
Community Vision
Master Plan Goals
Plan Development
Citizen Engagement
Staff Resource Team
Elected Officials and Appointed Boards
Planning History
A History of College Station Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Efforts
Other Related Planning Efforts
Existing and Proposed Active Transportation Facility Types
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Street Network
Active Transportation Network
Micromobility
Key Destinations
External Reports of Existing Conditions
Public Transit
CHAPTER 3: NEEDS ASSESSMENTPublic EngagementPedestrian, Bicycle, and Micromobility Crash AssessmentLTS Level of Traffic Stress AssessmentGaps, Connectivity, and SafetyThe League of American Bicyclists’ Bike Friendly Community Report Card
CHAPTER 4: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
System Design
Design Speed and Separation
Context Sensitive Design and Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors
Micromobility Facilities
Crossings
Facility Transitions and Connectivity
Shade and Comfort
High-Stress Corridor Recommendations
Additional Plan Recommendations
Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan Maps
Crossings and Grade Separated Recommendations
CHAPTER 5: SYSTEM MANAGEMENTPolicies and ProgramsProgram RecommendationsInternal and External Partnerships
CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION
The Active Transportation Advisory Board
Project Prioritization
Evaluation and Monitoring
Data for Tracking Plan Outcomes
Funding
Acknowledgements
Commonly Used Acronyms
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-6
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-9
1-10
2-1
2-3
2-9
2-14
2-17
2-24
2-25
3-13-13-43-93-273-28
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-6
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-23
4-24
4-30
5-15-15-35-6
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-4
6-10
6-12
6-15
6-15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 12 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |iii
Appendix A: DemographicsAppendix B: LTS MethodologyAppendix C: Low Stress Network MapsAppendix D: Thoroughfare Cross Sections
PLAN FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Multiple Active Transportation Modes
Figure 1.2 Cycle with Council Event
Figure 1.3 Community Vision Board
Figure 1.4 Master Plan Goals
Figure 1.5 Fall 2024 Active Transportation Master Plan Kickoff Meeting
Figure 1.6 Historical Photo of Bicycling in College Station
Figure 2.1 Population Projections
Figure 2.2 - 2.3 Commuting Statistics
Figure 2.4 Thoroughfare with Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Adjacent
Figure 2.5 Texas A&M AggieSpirit Bus Service
Figure 3.1 ATMP Fall 2024 Kickoff Meeting
Figure 3.2 Example Bus Island
Figure 3.3 Active Transportation Crash Locations
Figure 3.4 LTS Ratings
Figure 3.5 BFC Survey Results
Figure 4.1 Local, State, and National Design Standards and Guidelines
Figure 4.2 Micromobility Device in Use
Figure 4.3 Conventional and Electric Bike Speed Distribution
Figure 4.14 South of Bachmann Park Facility Transition to Arnold Road
Figure 4.15 Eleanor Street Bus Stop and Sidewalk Connection at Lincoln Recreation Center
Figure 4.16 City Hall Structured Shading
Figure 4.16 - 4.18 Grade Separations
Figure 6.1 Jingle Bell Community Bike Ride Event
Figure 6.2 Micromobility devices parked at Texas A&M bike rack facility
PLAN MAPSMap 1.1 City of College Station Planning AreaMap 2.1 Existing Thoroughfare PlanMap 2.2 Traffic VolumeMap 2.3 - 2.4 Existing FacilitiesMaps 2.5 - 2.7 Veo Ride MapsMaps 2.8 - 2.9 Key Destinations and Existing FacilitiesMap 2.10 Floodplain and Shared use PathsMap 2.11 Transit RoutesMaps 3.1 - 3.3 Crash Maps (2021 to 2025)Maps 3.4 - 3.7 Bicycle LTS MapsMap 3.8 - 3.10 Pedestrian LTS MapsMap 4.1 Prioritized Active Transportation CorridorsMap 4.2 High Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Bicycle NetworkMap 4.3 High Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Pedestrian NetworkMap 4.4 Locations of Corridors 1 - 4Map 4.5 - Map 4.6 Proposed Plans
PLAN TABLES
Table 2.1 Transportation Network Mileage
Table 2.2 Micromobility Device Typology Table
Table 2.3 Largest Employers in College Station
Tables 3.1 - 3.4 Annual Crash Counts (2021-2025)
Table 3.5 2021-2023 Texas A&M University Capacity Report
Table 4.2 - 4.3 Existing High Stress Bicycle Corridors with and without Proposed Improvements
Table 4.3 High Stress Bicycle Corridors without Identified Improvements
Tables 4.4 - 4.5 High Stress Pedestrian Corridors with and without Proposed Improvements
Table 4.6 Proposed Plan Mileage by Facility Type
A-1B-1C-1D-1
x-iv
1-1
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-8
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-25
2-28
3-2
3-8
3-9
3-29
4-1
4-4
4-5
4-11
4-11
4-12
4-30
6-10
6-11
1-32-42-62-102-162-182-222-273-53-103-204-34-134-174-224-26
2-92-152-173-43-84-144-164-174-24
Page 13 of 167
Page 14 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |1-1
PLAN FOUNDATION1
This Active Transportation Master Plan serves as a roadmap for achieving the
community’s vision of a safe, connected, and well-designed active transportation
network. As a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, it reinforces and expands
upon the goals and strategies established in that process. This Master Plan reflects
the shared priorities of College Station residents and community leaders as described
in Chapter 6, Integrated Mobility, of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: “The
economic vitality, character, and identity of College Station depend, in part, upon a
well-connected mobility system… one that provides for multiple modes in the face of
increasing population and traffic demands.”
Designing active transportation facilities that are accessible and inviting for everyone,
including children, youth, older adults, and individuals with mobility challenges, is critical
in helping to create a healthy community. Providing safe routes to schools and parks
encourages independence and healthy habits among young residents, while ensuring
that all users can confidently navigate the city’s network.
A thoughtfully designed and interconnected system of sidewalks, trails, and bike
facilities provides residents with viable alternatives to automobile travel. These facilities help reduce traffic congestion, enhance safety, and promote active, healthy lifestyles. In addition, they contribute to environmental sustainability, support local economic activity, and create opportunities for outdoor recreation and community interaction. With housing costs rising nationwide, more funds can be
available to residents to cover these costs if a connected network is in place, allowing
them to not be solely dependent on the automobile for travel. By planning for an active
transportation system that truly serves everyone, College Station strengthens its sense
of community and enriches the quality of life for current and future generations.
Since the adoption of the City’s previous Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan
in 2010, the transportation landscape has evolved to include the rapid emergence and
widespread use of micromobility devices such as electric scooters and e-bikes. While
these devices were not a significant consideration at that time, they are now a common
and growing mode of travel within the community. Micromobility devices are generally
compatible with bicycle facilities and their inclusion in this Plan reinforces the need for
infrastructure that is designed to support a range of users with varying speeds and
operating characteristics.
Page 15 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20261-2
By acknowledging this shift, a new Master Plan with a new name sets the expectation that future facility design, policies, and investments will consider not only traditional bicyclists and pedestrians, but also emerging mobility options. This approach ensures that the system remains adaptable, relevant, and responsive to changing transportation trends over time. The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan will be renamed the Active Transportation Master Plan, intentionally incorporating micromobility as a core component of the active transportation network and moving the greenway component to the purview of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
WHAT IS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION?
”Active transportation directly replaces motor vehicle miles traveled, so these modes are effective at reducing vehicle emissions, bridging the first and last mile gap, conserving fuel, and improving individual and public health. Bicycles, electric bikes, wheelchairs, scooters, skateboards, and even walking are all considered active transportation.”
- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE
This Plan provides goals, strategies, and action items for system development, management, and
implementation. These recommendations provide a long-term vision that should be referenced to build
and improve the system over the next few decades.
College Station has continued to experience significant growth since the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan was adopted in 2010. A first step in creating a new master plan is acknowledging
the importance of a thoughtfully planned, comprehensive and safe bicycle and pedestrian system for
users to navigate outside of a vehicle. As change and development occur, it is vital to ensure that residents of all ages and abilities can move comfortably and safely throughout the city. A community
where people can walk to a neighborhood park, jog along a trail in a natural environment, or bicycle to
school or work fosters a more livable, healthy, and connected environment.
This Plan includes the following major sections organized into the following chapters:
• Plan Foundation – Presents an explanation of the planning purpose, development, history, and
engagement along with the establishment of a community vision statement and plan goals.
• Existing Conditions – Provides an overview of existing conditions in College Station, including current
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, key destinations, micromobility trends, public transit connections,
and other factors that influence how people move throughout the city.
• Needs Assessment – Summarizes public engagement efforts to identify issues and needs, examines
safety trends based on recent crash data, and evaluates the existing bicycle and pedestrian network
using a level of traffic stress assessment.
• System Development – Proposes the additional and upgraded facilities for all active transportation
users, including micromobility users.
• System Management – Provides an overview of Master Plan policies, programs, and partnerships that
will help manage the system effectively.
• Implementation – Outlines implementation methods, identifies funding sources and planning level
costs, and prioritizes projects.
• Appendices – Provides information related to local demographics, Level of Traffic Stress methodology,
thoroughfare cross section updates and additional information that supports the active transportation
system.
Page 16 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |1-3
PLANNING AREA
The city of College Station covers approximately 50 square miles of Brazos County. To the east is Grimes
County and to the west, Burleson County. A portion of the city’s northern limit line is shared with the city
of Bryan. Map 1.1 shows the College Station planning area included as a part of this Plan, which includes
the city’s 5-mile extra-territorial-jurisdiction (ETJ) that is outside the city limits. While the ETJ is an area
of potential future growth of the city, public bicycle or pedestrian-related facilities are not permitted by
Brazos County so minimal infrastructure is planned in these areas at this time. As of December 2025, the
population estimate for College Station is 132,477. More detail regarding population growth and trends is
provided in Appendix A: Demographics.
Map 1.1 City of College Station Planning Area
Page 17 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20261-4
Figure 1.3 Community Vision Board
COMMUNITY VISION
In Fall 2024, the City of College Station hosted an online engagement and an in-person meeting to receive
input from citizens on the City’s current and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Participants shared
their vision ideas with three common themes emerging on the Community Vision Board (shown in Figure 1.3): increased safety for all ages and abilities, increased shade and landscaping to improve comfort
levels, and more separated bike lanes. Attendees provided comments for the community and how to
increase bicycle and pedestrian activity. A summary of these public engagement activities is provided in Chapter 3 Needs Assessment.
Building upon the former Master Plan and incorporating the input from the public, a single Community
Vision statement is established to help guide planning and implementation efforts into the future.
COMMUNITY VISION STATEMENT
“College Station envisions a safe, interconnected active transportation network that enhances user comfort, promotes healthy living, supports economic growth, utilizes natural green space, and enriches the community’s quality of life.”
Page 18 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |1-5
Enhance Safety for All Users - Improve safety for active transportation users by implementing protected bike lanes, enhanced intersection designs, and increased visibility measures to reduce conflicts with vehicles. Ensure safe crossing points near major streets, schools, parks, key destinations, and public transit stops that all lead to a more comfortable and enjoyable experience
Increase Connectivity and Accessibility - Create a seamless active transportation network that connects key destinations, including Texas A&M University, neighborhoods, schools, employment and shopping centers, public and private amenities, and public transit. Enhance convenience and encourage active transportation by creating more efficient, direct routes and easier use of bike parking facilities.
Improve Infrastructure and Maintenance - Develop a contiguous and well-maintained network of bike lanes, sidewalks, and shared-use paths. Identify funding to cover maintenance tasks for expanding network needs such as markings, signage, and surface conditions, to ensure safety and usability.
Promote Comfort and Enjoyment - Establish a low stress network with appropriate separation between different modes of travel that incorporates shade, landscaping, and amenities along active transportation routes. Design routes that create a pleasant, safe, and inviting environment that promotes outdoor activity.
Support Active Transportation as a Primary Mode of Travel - Promote land use and development patterns that support commuting and daily travel by means of active transportation. Provide programs that educate and encourage active transportation as a viable and safe option to travel throughout the city.
1
2
3
5
4
Figure 1.4 Master Plan Goals
MASTER PLAN GOALS
The goals provided are key to collectively advance the Community Vision of creating a safer, more
connected, and more livable community. By improving safety for all users, strengthening network
connectivity, and maintaining high-quality infrastructure, the City can make active transportation
more practical and appealing for residents of all ages and abilities. Together, these goals help build a
transportation system that not only moves people efficiently but also contributes to the city’s overall
quality of life, economic vitality, and sense of community.
These goals build upon the goals provided in the 2010 Master Plan. The public continues to prioritize
safety, connectivity, and enjoyment of the outdoors. Two new goals are included and relate to improved
infrastructure, maintenance, and supporting active transportation as a primary mode of travel. As the city’s
active transportation network continues to grow and add facility mileage, further evaluation is needed
to ascertain whether the existing infrastructure is sufficient for the demand placed upon it. The better the
facility, the more likely residents will use it regularly and provide opportunities to replace vehicular travel
with active transportation trips.
Page 19 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20261-6
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
This planning initiative formally retires the 2010 Master Plan and establishes a comprehensive, updated
framework to guide future decision-making. The development of this Plan incorporated a broad and
structured public involvement process—engaging residents, City staff, partner agencies, and elected and
appointed officials. The following section outlines the specific roles and contributions of each stakeholder
group in the creation of the Plan.
Citizen Engagement
Citizen engagement was key to the creation of this Active Transportation Master Plan as it helped ensure the needs, priorities, and daily experiences of the people who use the system are reflected.
Residents, business owners, and community groups provided valuable insight into where safety issues
exist, which routes are most used, and what improvements would make active transportation more
accessible and enjoyable. Their input helped identify gaps that data alone could miss. Moving forward,
continuously engaging the community will foster shared ownership and trust, making implementation
more effective and building public support for proposed projects.
Figure 1.5 From One of Our Engagement Efforts
Page 20 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |1-7
A variety of techniques were used to gain input from citizens, including an online hub site available through the City’s webpage. Residents were able to access an interactive online GIS map of the city to input comments on current and future proposed conditions. Community meetings and open houses were held to gather public feedback on proposed vision statements, improved infrastructure, facilities, programs and ultimately the draft of the Plan itself.
Staff Resource Team
A Staff Resource Team consisted of representatives from various City departments that were instrumental in the planning process. The Staff Resource Team’s responsibilities included:
• Identifying issues and concerns during the development of the Plan;
• Identifying and solving potential problems during future implementation of the Plan;
• Reviewing and proposing any needed modifications as necessary to recommendations presented in the Plan;
• Gathering and disseminating information to and from various City departments; and
• Serving as advocates and consensus builders during the planning process.
Elected Officials and Appointed Boards
The Bicycle Pedestrian and Greenways Advisory Board served as the effective steering committee for the new Master Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council’s Transportation and Mobility Committee were also engaged. These bodies provided guidance to ensure the Plan aligns with established policies, long-term community priorities, and regulatory frameworks. Their involvement also reinforced accountability to the public by incorporating both representative perspectives and subject-matter expertise. Because these groups play a central role in approving budgets, ordinances, and/or capital improvements, their input helped shape a Plan that is both realistic and feasible to implement.
PLANNING HISTORYA History of College Station Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Efforts
Active transportation planning in College Station can trace its origins back to 1975 when local community groups started an initiative to collect data on daily commutes by bicyclists. This data, which was collected by the Brazos Valley League of Women Voters, the Environmental Action Council, and the A&M Wheelman Club, concluded that there were more than 10,000 bicycle trips occurring on a daily basis between the Texas A&M campus and the surrounding neighborhoods. In response to this data, the City began planning new bike routes meant to help facilitate bicycle travel in the Southside and Eastgate areas.
Active transportation planning efforts continued in the years that followed. In 1980, City staff and community members worked together to develop College Station’s first City Bike Plan. The plan called for the construction of bikes lanes, signed bike routes, and paths on a handful of major streets in the city. A major component of this planning effort was the separation of different transportation modes. Spacing constraints created by existing development forced City staff and community members to prohibit bike travel and automobile parking on certain streets where roadway space was limited.
This planning document was updated and expanded in 1992 to also cover pedestrian planning. The update added new sidewalks and shared-use paths to better facilitate pedestrian travel. This update also called for the construction of approximately 40 miles of bike lanes, 50 miles of bike routes, and 30 miles of shared-use paths. Alongside the plan update, the City of College Station also modified its Subdivision Regulations to require bicycle and pedestrian facilities on certain thoroughfare types. These actions helped bolster College Station’s active transportation planning efforts by eliminating the burden of retrofitting newly built thoroughfares as well as distributing some of the construction responsibility onto private developers completing individual infill and redevelopment projects. Later in 1994, the Sidewalk Master Plan was created with the help of a newly created Sidewalk Committee.
In 2002, the Bikeway Master Plan and Sidewalk Master Plan were combined as one document and named as the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan Update. This update called for an additional 20 miles of bike
Page 21 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20261-8
lanes, 50 miles of bike routes, and 40 miles of shared-use paths. Just as the 2002 Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan Update was the result of two previous planning documents, the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan was adopted in 2010 and built upon prior planning documents. Combining these previously siloed planning documents created greater connectivity and opened up new route options for both commuters and recreational users.
A major update of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan began in 2017. A community-wide survey was conducted that had 821 respondents and gathered detailed feedback on residents’ comfort levels with biking and walking and helped inform revisions to the Master Plan. This update was completed in 2018 and key outcomes included expanding the City’s “toolbox” of bicycle facilities to include separated bike lanes, addressing access to emerging activity centers such as the BioCorridor and Midtown areas, enhancing safe routes to schools, filling sidewalk and network gaps, and prioritizing stand-alone projects using objective GIS-based criteria.
Figure 1.6 Historical Plan Update
Page 22 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |1-9
OTHER RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS
Bryan College Station MPO Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (2024)
The Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (BCS MPO) first Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) is designed to improve the safety of the entire transportation network, whether people
travel by car, bicycle, foot, or transit, by reducing or eliminating fatalities and serious injuries through
targeted projects. Developed under the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and aligned with
the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe System Approach, the CSAP formalizes the shared Vision
Zero commitment adopted by Brazos County, the MPO, and the Cities of Bryan and College Station to
reach zero deaths or serious injuries by 2035. Guided by a year-long study, technical committees, and
extensive community input, the CSAP provides a coordinated, data-driven roadmap for safer streets
across the region. Its goals directly support the City of College Station’s Active Transportation Master Plan
by reinforcing the need for safer walking and biking conditions, improving multimodal connectivity, and
advancing projects that create a more protective and accessible network for all users.
ADA Transition Plan (2015)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan outlines the City’s ongoing commitment to improving accessibility and in accordance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a living document, the Plan guides continuous evaluation, planning, and implementation efforts to remove physical barriers and enhance the accessibility of public services, programs, and facilities. This focus on access directly supports the goals of the City’s Active Transportation Master Plan by reinforcing the need for a pedestrian and bicycle network that serves people of all ages and abilities. By addressing accessibility challenges and prioritizing inclusive design, the ADA Transition Plan strengthens the foundation for a safe, comfortable, and universally accessible active transportation system.
Texas A&M University Transportation Mobility Master Plan (2022)
This plan outlines the university’s shift toward a multimodal future that reduces single-occupant vehicle travel and prioritizes walking, bicycling, transit, and complete streets. By focusing on safety, congestion reduction, emissions reduction, and overall campus quality of life, the plan aims to create a connected, comfortable, and low-stress mobility system for all users. This direction aligns closely with the City of College Station’s Active Transportation Master Plan, as both emphasize safe, convenient multimodal travel and infrastructure that supports people of all ages and abilities. Together, these efforts strengthen regional mobility and reinforce a shared commitment to a safer, more sustainable transportation network.
2050 TxDOT Statewide Active Transportation Plan (2025)
TxDOT’s 2050 Statewide Active Transportation Plan (SATP) establishes a long-term, statewide vision
for active transportation options across Texas. Developed with extensive public input and supported by
TxDOT’s Bicycle and Advisory Pedestrian Committee, the SATP outlines strategic priorities and policies
that will guide active transportation investments through 2050. This statewide framework complements
the City of College Station’s Active Transportation Master Plan by reinforcing shared goals, such as safer,
more connected multimodal networks, and by aligning local planning efforts with broader regional and
statewide strategies for enhancing active transportation.
City of Bryan Comprehensive Plan: BluePrint 2040 (2016)
The City of Bryan BluePrint 2040 includes a sidewalk master plan, a hike and bike plan, and transportation
recommendations that emphasize coordinating transportation networks with land-use objectives and
encouraging alternative modes of travel for people of all ages and abilities. These priorities closely align
with the City of College Station’s Active Transportation Master Plan, which also promotes interconnected
pedestrian and bicycle networks, supports multimodal travel choices, and reinforces development
patterns that make walking and biking safer and more accessible. Together, the two cities’ planning efforts
help create a more cohesive, user-friendly active transportation system across borders.
Page 23 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20261-10
EXISTING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITY TYPES
The City of College Station has different types of facilities to accommodate the needs of active
transportation users. Facilities include bike routes, sharrows, bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, protected bike
lanes, sidewalks, shared use paths, grade separated crossings, and crossing enhancements. Example
descriptions and images are shown below.
Bike Routes
A street designated with signage that is
shared by both bicyclists, micromobility,
and motor vehicles. Typically, the road will
have lower traffic speeds and volumes. It
could also be a heavily used street if it is the
only route available. Speed limits on streets
should be 35 miles per hour or less to be
designated as bike routes.
Sharrows
Also known as shared lane markings,
sharrows can help convey to bicyclists,
micromobility users, and motorists that
they must share the roads on which they
operate when there is not a marked bike
lane. The sharrow markings create improved
conditions by indicating when users need
to share the same space safely and
respectfully.
Bike Lanes
A designated part of the street, typically 5-7 feet in width, that is striped, signed and has pavement markings to be used by bicyclists and micromobility devices. Vehicular parking is typically not allowed in a bike lane. Typically a unidirectional facility that follows the flow of traffic.
Figure 1.7 Bike Route
Figure 1.8 Sharrows
Figure 1.9 Unidirectional Bike Lanes
Page 24 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |1-11
Buffered Bike Lanes
A street with bike lanes that has a painted
buffer, typically 2-3 feet in width, to increase
the lateral separation between bicyclists,
micromobility devices, and motor vehicles.
Protected Bike Lanes
Also commonly referred to as separated bike lanes, is an exclusive facility for bicyclists and micromobility devices that is located within or directly adjacent to the street and is physically separated from motor vehicles with a vertical element.
Sidewalks
A paved walkway alongside a street intended for pedestrians that may also used by cyclists if there is no bike infrastructure in the area.
Figure 1.10 Buffered Bike Lane
Figure 1.11 Buffered Bike Lanes with Vertical Separation
Figure 1.12 Sidewalks
Page 25 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20261-12
Shared Use Paths (SUP)
A facility physically separated from motor vehicles along a greenway or adjacent to a road corridor. It is a paved surface about typically 10 to 12 feet wide that is all-weather and meets accessibility requirements.
Grade Separated Crossings
A grade separated crossing provides active
transportation users spatial separation from
motor vehicles. Typically, they are at busy
intersections or along natural corridors and
take the form of an overpass (bridge) or
underpass (tunnel).
Crossing Enhancements
A group of designs to help protect vulnerable users as they cross the road. Examples include high-visibility crosswalk markings, raised crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands and curb extensions.
Figure 1.13 Off-Street Shared Use Paths
Figure 1.14 Grade Separated Crossings
Figure 1.15 Crossing Enhancements
Page 26 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |1-13
ADDITIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
The following images and descriptions are facility types that could be a safer, more comfortable
experience for the active transportation user and provide potential solutions in areas where standard
approaches might not be feasible or desirable.
Bicycle Boulevards
Bike boulevards provide continuous,
comfortable bike routes through the local
street network and are characterized by
slow motor vehicle speeds and low motor
vehicle volumes. Design attention is typically
needed to reduce speeds, divert motor
vehicle traffic, and prioritize bikes at street
crossings.
Advanced Stop Lines and Bicycle Box
Sidepaths
On-street shared-use paths. Designed for and used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and people using other mobility devices. These exist within the same right-of-way as the roadway and are bidirectional for all users.
Figure 1.16 Bicycle Boulevards
Figure 1.18 Sidepaths
Designated areas at the front of traffic lanes
that provide people on bikes with safe and
visible ways to get ahead of queuing traffic
and to position themselves for a left turn.
Figure 1.17 Advanced Stop Lines & Bicycle Box
Page 27 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20261-14
Bidirectional Bike Lanes
Also known as a two-way Cycle Track, bidirectional bike lanes are dedicated paths for cyclists that allow them to travel in both directions on one side of the street, physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a barrier. They are typically installed on one side of the road to increase cyclist safety, improve connectivity, and create a more comfortable riding experience for a wider range of users.
Floating and Colored Bike Lanes
A “floating” bike lane, also called a “side-
running” or “floating parking” lane, is a
protected bike lane that is physically
separated from the vehicular traffic by
another element, such as parked cars or a
raised bus stop island. This design allows for
a continuous, protected bikeway to be built
alongside parked cars, and helps manage
situations like bus stops by allowing transit
to stop within a traffic lane while cyclists are
routed behind the stop. Coloring the bike
lane helps increase visibility of cyclists and
possible conflict areas.
Figure 1.19 Bidirectional Bike Lanes
Figure 1.20 Floating And Colored Bike Lanes
Page 28 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-1
Source: City of College Station
EXISTING CONDITIONS 2
In order to properly plan for the future needs of College Station, it is important to
take into consideration the city’s current and projected demographics and existing
infrastructure. As the city changes, so too do the needs of the community. Having an
active transportation plan that accounts for these changes ensures that the proposed
policies, programs, and projects will have a positive impact on the lives of College
Station residents. Population projections for College Station show the city could increase
by another 20,000 or more residents in the next several years with growth expecting to
continue as new development and redevelopment continue. Additional demographics
such as population density and age distribution can be found in the appendices.
2023 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0 2010 2015 2025 20302020
2018 Projections 2023 Projections Recorded Population
109,927(2016)109,927(2016)
128,370(2023)128,370(2023)
3.0%, 156,7172.5%, 151,6532.0%, 146,729
Figure 2.1 Population Projections
Page 29 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-2
Source: United Stated Census Bureau 2024 ACS 1-Year Estimates
Source: United Stated Census Bureau 2024 ACS 1-Year Estimates
The United States Census Bureau provides survey data that is helpful to further contextualize how vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians travel and interact. Figures 2.2 and 2.3, which depict workers’ commute method and commute time respectively as collected by the Census Bureau’s 2024 American Community Survey (ACS), show that nearly 80% of all workers commute to work by vehicle and 4% of workers choose to commute by walking or biking. The rate of walking and biking as a method of commuting in College Station is higher than walking and biking rates at both the state and national levels, which are 1.8% and 3.1% respectively.
A major factor that can limit biking and walking as commuting methods is the time it takes for workers to reach their place of employment. If a worker’s commute takes them a far distance or the route itself is difficult to traverse on foot or by bike, they will likely choose to commute by car instead. Census Bureau data shows that the average commute time for College Station residents is lower than both the state and national averages at 18.8 minutes, with 61% of College Station workers having commutes shorter than 20 minutes. Such a significant proportion of the total population having relatively quick commuting times would indicate that time and distance are not the major factors preventing more workers from walking or biking to work. Rather, the rate of walking and biking to work might be influenced by the infrastructure network, safety concerns, climate, and/or other personal considerations.
Car, truck, or van
Public Transportation
Walked
Bicycle
Taxi
Worked from home
78%
12%
3%1%
3%
4%TRANSPORTATION MODESFOR COMMUTING
10%15%
Proportion of all CommutersCommute Length (In Minutes)20%25%30%5%0%
60 or more
45 to 59
35 to 44
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
Less than 10 12%12%
22.8%22.8%
26.2%26.2%
17.4%17.4%
5.1%5.1%
6.6%6.6%
2%2%
4.6%4.6%
3.3%3.3%
Figure 2.2 Transportation Modes for Commuting
Figure 2.3 Local Average Commute Time to Work
Page 30 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-3
Figure 2.4 Thoroughfare with Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Adjacent
STREET NETWORK
This section of the Master Plan provides an assessment of existing conditions of the city’s transportation
infrastructure and how it is currently being used by residents. Map 2.1 depicts the City’s existing Thoroughfare Plan, which includes both the existing and planned major street networks. The thoroughfare
network consists of freeways/expressways, arterials, collectors, and grade separated interchanges. Local
residential and commercial streets are not identified on this map. College Station’s economic strength,
community character, and overall identity depend on a well-connected and efficient transportation
system. The City’s Comprehensive Plan guides transportation investment decisions and categorizes
roadways based on their intended function, including access to adjoining land uses, movement of
through traffic, and the surrounding context. As part of the Comprehensive Plan, the thoroughfare network
incorporates context-sensitive design to accommodate multiple modes of travel while supporting land
use goals and reinforcing community character.
While College Station’s major thoroughfares may include facilities for bicycle and pedestrian travel, this does not necessarily mean that they are comfortable or well utilized. Factors such as the speed and volume of traffic on nearby roadways can act as a deterrent for more vulnerable users like bicyclists and pedestrians. Taking into consideration these factors can provide a more accurate picture of how these facilities are utilized and how both networks influence each other. Map 2.2 shows the average daily traffic along College Station’s thoroughfares and can influence the viability of streets to serve as good bicycle and pedestrian corridors.
Page 31 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-4
Map 2.1 Existing Thoroughfare Plan
Page 32 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-5
Page 33 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-6
Map 2.2 Traffic Volume
Page 34 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-7
Page 35 of 167
Page 36 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-9
Source: City of College Station
Table 2.1 Transportation Network Mileage
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Since the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan was published in 2010, a considerable amount
of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure has been constructed. The table below shows total mileage for
each facility type in 2010 and in 2025, as well as the change in the total mileage and percentage increase
over that time.
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK MILEAGE
FACILITY TYPE 2010 2025 MILEAGE CHANGE PERCENT CHANGE
Miles of street 286 miles 580.1 miles +294.1 miles +103%
Miles of sidewalk 130 miles 387.4 miles +257.4 miles +198%
Miles of shared-use path 8 miles 43.4 miles +35.4 miles +443%
Miles of bike lane 33 miles 56.4 miles +23.4 miles +71%
Miles of bike route 26 miles 22 miles - 4 miles -15%
Since 2010, sidewalks had the highest mileage increase in the network. Starting in 2008, new developments were required to construct sidewalks on both sides of the street. Plan implementation efforts to retrofit existing neighborhood streets and thoroughfares that did not have existing sidewalks also contributed. The highest increase percentage relates to shared-use paths, which increased from 8 miles to 43.4 miles. Completion of the Lick Creek Greenway trail and new shared-use paths along major streets such as Harvey Mitchell Pkwy (FM 2818), Greens Prairie Road, Holleman Drive South, and Town Lake Drive significantly contributed to this increase. The miles of bike lanes increased by 71% between 2010 and 2025, with 23.4 more miles of bike lanes. City capital projects such as Barron Road, Dartmouth Street, Rock Prairie Road, Royder Road, and Victoria Avenue all provided contributions along with developer-constructed streets like Brewster Drive, Double Mountain Road, and Victoria Avenue. The number of bike route miles had a slight decrease as some bike routes were converted to bike lanes. Viewed holistically, Table 2.1 illustrates progress of plan implementation as the active transportation network continued to grow following the 2010 adoption of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan.
Page 37 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-10
Map 2.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Page 38 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-11
Page 39 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-12
Map 2.4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Page 40 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-13
Page 41 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-14
Figure 2.4 Micromobility Devices in Use
MICROMOBILITY
Micromobility devices have surged in popularity in recent years as they are a very practical alternative for
individuals that do not have access to personal vehicles. These devices can be used for daily commutes
and errands that cannot be easily completed on foot or by bike due to a trip’s distance or an individual’s
carrying capacity. Additionally, considering the local climate experiences extended periods of high
temperatures, micromobility devices offer users an alternative with less physical exertion than walking
and traditional bicycles and can decrease exposure to heat-related illnesses. Micromobility also has the
potential to increase active transportation network use by drawing in new users that are willing to utilize
motorized devices over traditional devices.
Micromobility represents a relatively new and quickly evolving mode of transportation. Some micromobility
devices are simply motorized versions of traditional devices, such as e-bikes, e-scooters, or e-skateboards,
while others are entirely new device designs, such as hoverboards or onewheels. To help overcome the
challenge associated with categorizing and regulating such a wide range of designs, the Federal Highway
Administration developed broader performance-based categories for micromobility devices. These
categories are shown in Table 2.2.
Page 42 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-15
Table 2.2 Micromobility Device Typology Table
Source: Federal Highway Administration
MICROMOBILITY DEVICE TYPOLOGY TABLE
DEVICE CLASS TYPE WEIGHT SPEED
Electric standing or sitting scooters (e-scooters)
Typically, less than 50 lbs.
20 mph or less, some cities apply additional speed restrictions
Electric Bicycles (e-bikes)
Class 1: Pedal Assist
Typically, less than 100 lbs., multi-passenger version less than 200 lbs.
20 mph or less
Class 2: Throttle Assist Typically, less
than 100 lbs.20 mph or less
Class 3: Pedal Assist at
higher speeds
Typically, less than 100 lbs., multi-passenger version less than 200 lbs.
28 mph or less
Other
Typically, less
than 50 lbs.
Some 20 mph or less, others 30 mph or less
In addition to performance-based classifications, micromobility devices can also be defined and discussed
along lines of ownership. The two ownership-based categories for micromobility are shared devices and
personal devices. Shared micromobility devices are owned by companies and deployed in mass. Once
deployed, individuals can rent these devices for a short time. Personal micromobility devices are owned by
individuals and come in a wider range of designs. Since personal devices lack the same company branding
that is typically seen on shared devices, they’re more likely to be mistaken for traditional bikes, scooters,
and skateboards. Micromobility devices typically have higher rates of acceleration as compared to their
traditional counterparts. If drivers are unable to distinguish micromobility devices from traditional ones, they
might underestimate a device’s abilities, leading to additional crashes.
Page 43 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-16
SHARED MICROMOBILITY PROVIDERS IN COLLEGE STATION
Veo Ride is currently the main provider of shared micromobility in College Station and has an exclusive
contract with Texas A&M that allows the company to deploy both scooters and bikes for use on and around
the university’s campus. A geofence programmed into Veo Ride’s devices prevents the scooters and bikes
from operating outside of a specified geographic area. The extent of this geofence is shown in Map 2.5.
Map 2.5 Veo Ride Shared Micromobility Geofence The existing geofence boundary for
Veo Ride’s devices prevents the service
from being a city-wide transportation
option for the general public. Rather
these devices have been tailored to
serve students and visitors commuting
to, from, and across the Texas A&M
University campus and Northgate. Map 2.6 depicts Veo Ride trips entering and
leaving the Northgate area.
The heat map helps showcase the
major role that shared micromobility
plays in facilitating movement in and
around Northgate as well as Texas A&M
University. Rides appear most frequent
along the Church Avenue and College
Main Street corridors. As these roadways
are the preferred route of many shared
micromobility users, it is crucial that
these streets have facilities that can
accommodate micromobility devices
alongside more traditional forms of
transportation.
Map 2.6 Veo Ride Heat Map Users Entering Northgate
Page 44 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-17
Source: Greater Brazos Partnership, 2024
LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN COLLEGE STATION
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES EMPLOYER
5,000+Texas A&M University
1,000 – 4,999 City of College Station
College Station Independent School District
500 - 999
Baylor Scott and White
FUJIFILM Biotechnologies
Reynolds and Reynolds
250 - 499 Cognizant Technology Solutions
100 - 249
C.C. Creations
Kelsey-Seybold Clinic Contact Center
Matica Biotechnology
Table 2.3 Largest Employers in College Station
KEY DESTINATIONS
The College Station Comprehensive Plan emphasizes that growth should occur in a sustainable manner,
noting that compact development patterns help limit sprawl, mitigate related impacts, and support
efficient infrastructure and municipal services. Research1 further indicates that most individuals are willing to walk approximately half a mile and bicycle between two and five miles to reach destinations such as workplaces, schools, or commercial areas.
Below are several maps illustrating popular community destinations and attractions as identified through
public engagements. Developing an effective active transportation network will require a strategic
approach that considers the arrangement of wayfinding methods to safely guide citizens around town, to
and from their desired destinations.
The following is a list of key destinations in the city:
• City Parks: 73 parks covering more than 2,000 acres
• Texas A&M University
• Grocery stores: HEB, Kroger, Walmart, Brookshire Brothers, Costco, Sam’s Club, and more.
• Libraries: George Bush Presidential Library, Larry J. Ringer Library
• Shopping and entertainment centers: Northgate, Post Oak Mall, Century Square, Jones Crossing,
University Town Center, Caprock Crossing, Tower Point, and others.
• School Districts: the College Station Independent School District has 19 school sites and International
Leadership of Texas (ILT) operates two public charter schools.
1 Carmona, M. (2021). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Routledge
Page 45 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-18
Map 2.8 Key Destinations and Bicycle Network
Page 46 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-19
Page 47 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-20
Map 2.9 Key Destinations and Pedestrian Network
Page 48 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-21
Page 49 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-22
Map 2.10 Floodplain and Shared Use Paths
Page 50 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-23
Page 51 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-24
EXTERNAL REPORTS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
League of American Bicyclists
The League of American Bicyclists, founded in 1880 with the mission to promote the creation of a bicycle-
friendly America, awards communities and businesses with various levels of Bicycle Friendly designations
which are retained for four years. A designation is awarded based on an assessment of a community
or business’ efforts towards fostering greater bicycle use. The assessment criteria for Bicycle Friendly
designations are separated into five categories:
• Engineering
• Education
• Encouragement
• Evaluation & Planning
• Equity & Accessibility
College Station applied and received an Honorable Mention as a “Bicycle Friendly Community” by the
League of American Bicyclists in 2011 and received Bronze-Level Designation in 2020 and in 2024. College
Station also received a Silver-level designation in 2024 as a “Bicycle Friendly Business” for City Hall that was
completed in late 2021. Additional details regarding the report card for College Station will be provided in Chapter 3, Needs Assessment.
Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization
The City of College Station is a member agency of the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning
Organization (BCSMPO). The BCSMPO is the entity tasked with coordinating transportation planning within
Brazos County. The BCSMPO completed county-wide Comprehensive Safety Action Plan in 2024 which
assessed transportation safety conditions and recommended improvements intended to minimize
transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries.
According to the BCSMPO Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, crashes involving vulnerable road users
represent a major crash type within College Station. Within the Plan’s analysis, both bicyclists and
pedestrians are defined as vulnerable road users and were present in 10% of crashes that resulted in
either serious injuries or fatalities within College Station city limits. Those same vulnerable road users were
present in 17% of all fatal crashes, indicating that roadway crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians are more likely to result in fatalities relative to crashes where these roadway users are not present. To
address this safety concern, the Plan proposes a set of systemic countermeasures aimed at reducing the
number of transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries including:
• Improved lighting along roadways and at intersections to increase visibility and prevent crashes.
• Providing additional pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements meant to protect vulnerable
roadway users, such as bike lanes, shared use paths, sidewalks, leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at
traffic signals, and refuge islands at pedestrian crossings.
Page 52 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-25
Regional Health Assessments
Community Health Needs Assessments were published by both Baylor Scott & White and CHI St. Joseph
Health in 2025. These assessments include qualitative and quantitative data describing existing conditions
in College Station as well as the region broadly. These reports highlight low walkability and transportation accessibility as barriers for individuals seeking medical care. These barriers are especially significant for vulnerable individuals that lack access to a reliable vehicle. The reports suggest expanding transit
services and constructing additional pedestrian facilities as solutions to these concerns.
PUBLIC TRANSIT
Public transit provides an important link for shortening the length of daily trips that would otherwise be
too difficult or inconvenient to be completed solely by foot or bicycle. Local healthcare providers also cite
public transit as a critical service that helps eliminate barriers to access medical care for many of the
city’s underserved communities. The City of College Station does not operate its own public transit system,
rather those services are provided by two different third-party organizations: The Brazos Transit District and
Texas A&M’s AggieSpirit Transit Services.
Figure 2.5 AggieSpirit Bus
Page 53 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20262-26
Brazos Transit District (BTD)
The Brazos Transit District is the federally designated public transportation provider for the College Station-
Bryan Transportation Management Area (TMA). A Transportation Management Area is a designation given
by the Secretary of Transportation to each urbanized area with a population of more than 200,000 people.
The Brazos Transit District has a funding agreement with Brazos County as well as the cities of College
Station and Bryan to provide public transportation within the B/CS urbanized area. The organization also
operates in each of the counties surrounding Brazos County with weekly cross-county transit services.
Brazos Transit District services are offered only on weekdays from 5am to 7pm, with buses generally
operating on an hourly basis. Of the 8 total transit routes that the Brazos Transit District operates, 5 are
either fully or partially within the city limits of College Station.
• Route 7 (Pink) and Route 8 (Grey) operate exclusively in College Station and are based out of the C.S./
South Terminal located at 300 Krenek Tap Road.
• Route 3 (Green), Route 4 (Maroon), and Route 5/6 (Yellow) operate in both College Station as well as
Bryan and are based out of the Midtown Terminal located at 3350 S. Texas Avenue in Bryan.
The Brazos Transit District network does not currently utilize a fixed-stop system so riders must flag down
BTD buses as they travel along their set route. The Brazos Transit District has plans to implement fixed stop
locations along some of its routes and install bike racks on its buses.
Texas A&M’s AggieSpirit Transit Services
The AggieSpirit Transit System is focused on providing Texas A&M students, staff, and faculty with reliable
transit services to, from, and within its campus. Also, any individual with a Brazos Transit District annual
pass is able to use the AggieSpirit system at no additional cost. The organization operates 13 transit routes
with services on weekdays and weekends that vary between academic semesters and holiday periods.
The Texas A&M Transportation Services website or a downloaded AggieSpirit app provides riders with real
time information on bus locations and expected pickup times. The AggieSpirit system utilizes a fixed stop
network with specified pick-up/drop-off locations along each transit route. Using their fixed stop locations,
a connectivity analysis similar to what was conducted on the Brazos Transit District’s network was
performed for the AggieSpirit transit system. Rather than analyze the entire transit corridor, the AggieSpirit
connectivity analysis focused on infrastructure and facilities in the areas immediately surrounding each
fixed-stop location.
Page 54 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |2-27
Map 2.11 Transit Routes
Page 55 of 167
Page 56 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-1
NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3
A comprehensive needs assessment was conducted to evaluate existing conditions from the previous chapter, understand community priorities via public outreach, and identify gaps, connectivity, and safety issues for active transportation in College Station. These assessments incorporate crash and traffic volume data compiled by TxDOT, which were used to create crash density maps and charts alongside a city-wide Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) evaluation. Collectively, these efforts identify key deficiencies in the current network and inform targeted recommendations (Chapter 4) to improve active transportation infrastructure, safety, and connectivity. Addressing these needs will enhance mobility options, promote active lifestyles, and improve overall accessibility, while supporting broader community benefits such as increased recreational opportunities and improved public health.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
To kick off the development of the Active Transportation Master Plan, a public meeting
was held in November 2024. In addition to the in-person meeting, an online website was
created to receive input regarding the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. Residents provided comments on their vision for the community and how to
increase bicycle and pedestrian activity as described in Chapter 1, Plan Foundation, that
led to the creation of the Community Vision Statement and Master Plan Goals.
Page 57 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-2
There were a total of 353 comments with 217 comments on the bicycle plan mapping exercise and 136 comments on the pedestrian plan mapping exercise. The common themes from the input are as follows:
Bicycle-Related Input
1. Infrastructure Enhancements:
• Protected Bike Lanes - Install more protected bike infrastructure on major roads such as Harvey Road (State Highway 30), Rock Prairie Road, and University Drive (FM 60) to ensure safer cycling conditions.
• Shared-Use Path Expansion - Develop and connect shared-use paths to create a comprehensive, city-wide network that facilitates seamless bike travel.
• Bicycle Detection - Add or improve bicycle-detection at key intersections (e.g., Anderson Street & Southwest Pkwy, Welsh Avenue & Harvey Mitchell Pkwy) to improve traffic signal responsiveness.
• Enhanced Lane Markings – Provide and maintain more visible markings for bike lanes and add sharrows in appropriate areas to increase driver awareness of cyclists.
2. Safety Improvements:
• Grade-Separated Crossings - Introduce overpasses or underpasses at busy locations to minimize cyclist exposure to traffic.
• Lane Maintenance - Regularly clean and maintain bike lanes and intersections to remove hazards like mud, sand, and debris.
• Reduced Conflicts - Design routes that have reduced conflicts between bicycles, buses, and pedestrians by introducing items such as bus islands and/or re-routed bike paths.
3. Increased Accessibility:
• Destination-Specific Routes - Create a wayfinding system of dedicated bike facilities to key destinations such as major commercial areas and Texas A&M University.
• Improved Crossing Connectivity - Address gaps in connectivity particularly with the railroad and with major roadways to provide safe and more direct bike travel.
• Neighborhood Links - Expand bike path connections in neighborhoods to improve local commuting options.
Figure 3.2 Bus Island
Page 58 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-3
Pedestrian-Related Input
1. Sidewalk Continuity and Maintenance:
• Sidewalk Gaps - Fill gaps in sidewalks in critical areas such as Rock Prairie Road, Francis Drive, and
near commercial areas.
• Continuous Sidewalks - Extend sidewalks on both sides of streets in high-traffic volume areas to
provide consistent pedestrian access.
• ADA Compliance - Ensure all sidewalks meet ADA standards to accommodate all users including
those with mobility challenges.
2. Safer Crossings:
• Pedestrian Bridges and Crosswalks - Install grade-separated crossings and improve existing at-
grade intersections to make crossings safer for pedestrians.
• Signal Synchronization - Synchronize pedestrian signal timings to align with actual crossing
conditions and reduce conflicts with turning vehicles.
• Mid-Block Crosswalks - Add mid-block crosswalks in areas with high pedestrian volume such as
Southwest Parkway between Welsh Avenue and Southwest Park.
3. Connectivity and Green Spaces:
• Shared-Use Paths - Expand shared-use paths to connect neighborhoods, parks, and commercial
centers (e.g., Veterans Park to Texas Independence Park).
• Green Infrastructure - Incorporate shade, landscaping, and green spaces into pedestrian routes to
improve comfort and usability.
4. General Accessibility:
• Key Destination Routes - Provide safe and efficient pedestrian routes to schools, parks, shopping
centers, and bus stops.
• Micromobility Options - Expand bike and scooter rideshare services including larger operational
boundary and parking options near residential areas.
• Improved Signage - Install clear and consistent signage for pedestrians to enhance wayfinding.
Transit Connectivity-Related Input
1. Enhanced Facilities:
• Bus Shelters – Construct additional bus shelters to provide increased comfort and protection from
weather
• Bike Racks on Buses – Provide bike racks on buses to create more multimodal travel options
• Bus Islands – Consider bus islands at key locations to safely separate transportation modes and
minimize transit delays
Page 59 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-4
PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND MICROMOBILITY CRASH ASSESSMENT
Safety was repeatedly cited as a concern by residents during the public engagement process. To
best understand safety conditions as they exist, crash data for incidents involving vehicles and active
transportation users over the prior five years was analyzed.
The Texas Department of Transportation regularly publishes data related to traffic safety in an annual
report called the Texas Motor Vehicle Crash Statistics Annual Report. These reports cover a number of different topics, including data on automobile crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and micromobility users. Data is available publicly and can be queried using the Crash Records Information
System, also known as CRIS. Maps 3.1 through 3.3 and Tables 3.1 through 3.4 summarize crash data from
2021 to 2025 excluding Texas A&M properties. It is important to note that some variation can appear in the
data depending on how crash data is recorded. For instance, some crashes including multiple objects
or individuals might be submitted as a single entry for all entities involved, or as multiple entries for each
entity. Historically, these types of crashes are underreported if vehicles are not involved or significant
property damage or bodily harm did not occur. Additionally, micromobility is generally reported within
the “Motorized Conveyance” category, while data for electric bicycles is grouped with traditional bicycles
under the “Pedalcyclist” category. For simplicity, Pedalcyclist crash data is called Bicycle Crashes.
The data for pedestrian, bicycle, and micromobility crashes has been grouped into three categories based
on severity, these categories include:
• Fatalities – 1% of all crashes resulted in a fatality
• Serious Injury – 14% of all crashes resulted in serious injuries. These crashes resulted in an
incapacitating injury.
• Minor Crashes– 85% of all crashes resulted in either no injuries or minor injuries and were non-
incapacitating.
Source: TxDOT Crash Record Information System (CRIS)
TABLE 3.1 ANNUAL SEVERITY OF ALL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CRASHES (2021-2025)
CRASH SEVERITY 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL
Fatality 1 0 0 1 2 4
Serious Injury 11 9 11 17 14 62
Minor Crashes 49 72 66 102 104 393
Total Crashes 61 81 77 120 120 459
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Page 60 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-5
0
10
20
30
40
50
6020212022202320242025
Source: TxDOT Crash Record Information System (CRIS)
Bicycle Crash data in Map 3.1 shows a vast majority of incidents occurring along city thoroughfares where traffic volumes and speeds are significantly higher. These crashes also seem to be clustered around the Texas A&M campus or on roadways leading up to campus. During the five-year period, there was one bicycle crash that resulted in a fatality and 15 that resulted in serious injury. The remaining 198 crashes that took place during this time resulted in either no injury or minor injury. Over this time period, crashes have increased from 35 in 2021 to 52 in 2025.
TABLE 3.2 BICYCLE CRASH COUNTS (2021-2025)
CRASH SEVERITY 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL
Fatality 0 0 0 1 0 1
Serious Injury 1 2 5 2 5 15
Minor Crashes 34 38 37 42v 47 198
Total Crashes 35 40 42 45 52 214
Map 3.1Bicycle Crashes
Page 61 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-6
Source: TxDOT Crash Record Information System (CRIS)
Similar to what was observed on Map 3.1 for bicycle crashes, Map 3.2 for pedestrian crashes indicates that the majority of pedestrian crashes occur on higher classification of thoroughfares. While the density of crashes does increase closer to campus, this trend is less pronounced when compared to bicycle crash data. The total number of pedestrian crashes was lower than that of bicycle crashes, but the proportion of those crashes that resulted in either fatalities or serious injuries was greater. In total, there were three fatal pedestrian crashes between 2021 and 2025. According to CRIS data, one of these fatalities was the result of an inattentive driver failing to control the speed of their vehicle while the remaining two were the result of pedestrians entering the right of way of vehicles. Over this time period, crashes have increased from 23 in 2021 to 34 in 2025, with a peak of 56 in 2024.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
TABLE 3.3 PEDESTRIAN CRASH COUNTS (2021-2025)
CRASH SEVERITY 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL
Fatality 1 0 0 0 2 3
Serious Injury 9 4 5 12 4 34
Minor Crashes 13 28 24 44 28 137
Total Crashes 23 32 29 56 34 174
Map 3.2 Pedestrian Crashes
Page 62 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-7
Source: TxDOT Crash Record Information System (CRIS)
Motorized conveyance data from TxDOT CRIS, which includes micromobility devices, follows the same trend seen in crash data for bicycles and pedestrians. Most micromobility crashes occur along major roadway thoroughfares like University Drive, George Bush Drive, and Texas Avenue. The density of micromobility crashes near the periphery of campus is much greater than what is seen in the crash data for bicycles and pedestrians, with far fewer recorded crashes in other areas of College Station. Over this time period, crashes have increased from 3 in 2021 to 34 in 2025. Another important note to make is the increase in crashes over the observed time period; almost half of all recorded micromobility crashes occurred in 2025. Greater device use and growing popularity of micromobility as a transportation mode as shown in the table below likely contributed to the sharp increase in recorded crashes.
0
10
20
30
40
50
6020212022202320242025
TABLE 3.4 MOTORIZED CONVEYANCE CRASH COUNTS (2021-2025)
CRASH SEVERITY 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL
Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0
Serious Injury 1 3 1 3 5 13
Minor Crashes 2 6 5 16 29 58
Total Crashes 3 9 6 19 34 71
Map 3.3 Motorized Conveyance Crashes
Page 63 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-8
Figure 3.3 Active Transportation Crash Locations
Source: TxDOT CRIS
Source: TAMU 2024 Capacity Study Report
TABLE 3.5 2021-2023 TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY CAPACITY REPORT
MOBILITY TYPE CHANGE IN USAGE
Personal electric bicycles 688% increase
Personal electric scooter 546% increase
Personal owned bicycles 26% increase
Personal owned vehicles 0.09% reduction
Veo shared electric bicycles 233% increase
Walking 36% increase
20%
80%
BICYCLE 49%51%PEDESTRIAN
21%
79%
MICROMOBILITY
At Intersection Not At Intersection
Summary of Crash Data
The crash data analysis indicates that the majority of pedestrian, bicycle, and micromobility crashes
in College Station occur along higher-speed, higher-volume corridors within the urban core. Many of
these corridors serve as major connections to key destinations, including areas surrounding Texas A&M
University, where activity levels and travel demand are particularly high. In addition to corridor conditions,
intersections represent a significant location for conflicts between active transportation users and motor
vehicles. Crash data shows that around 80 percent of wheeled crashes occurred at intersections with streets and with driveways whereas 51 percent of pedestrian crashes occurred at these locations.
This emphasizes the importance of safety improvements at intersections and driveways.
These findings reinforce the importance of designing transportation facilities that better manage vehicle
speeds, improve separation between modes, and enhance intersection safety. The patterns observed in the crash data also closely relate to the concept of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), which evaluates how roadway characteristics, such as vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, and intersection complexity, affect user comfort and safety. The following section applies an LTS analysis to the existing network to better
understand where conditions may discourage active transportation use and where improvements could
reduce user stress and potential conflicts.
Page 64 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-9
Source: City of Boulder, Colorado
LTS 1 - High Comfort LTS 2 - High Comfort LTS 3 - Low Comfort LTS 4 - Low Comfort
FIGURE 3.4 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS (LTS) ASSESSMENT
Segments and crossings are highly comfortable, pedestrian-friendly, and easily navigable for pedestrians of all ages and abilities, including seniors or school-aged children walking unaccompanied to school. LTS 1 indicates an ideal “pedestrian friendly environment.”
Generally comfortable for many pedestrians, but parents may not feel comfortable with children walking alone. Seniors may have concerns about the walking environment and take more caution. These streets may by part of an otherwise “pedestrian-friendly” environment, intersecting with a more auto-oriented roadway or other environmental constraints.
Walking is uncomfortable but possible. Minimal crossing facilities may be present, but barriers are present that make the crossing experience uninviting and uncomfortable. Similarly, sidewalk facilities may be present but inadequate for providing comfort
Walking is a barrier and is very uncomfortable or even impossible. Crossings and segments have limited or no accommodations for pedestrians
LTS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ASSESSMENT
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a widely adopted and nationally accepted tool for assessing active
transportation-friendliness of roads, guiding infrastructure improvements, and improving connectivity
for active transportation users. It is based on how comfortable and safe a person feels when walking
or cycling, specifically in terms of traffic conditions, speed, and road design. College Station has not
undertaken a LTS assessment previously, so its inclusion in this Plan is a first for the City and creates a
distinction from merely if bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure exists in an area to whether the existing
infrastructure is designed in a manner that is comfortable for use. An LTS analysis is a useful method
for assessing the active transportation-friendliness of roads, guiding infrastructure improvements, and
improving connectivity for less confident cyclists and pedestrians. LTS analysis typically sorts roadway
facilities into one of four levels of stress, with each level describing a different level of comfort for various
groups of users:
• LTS 1 (low stress) - Comfortable for all ages and abilities, including children and the elderly
• LTS 2 (low stress) - Suitable for most adults and youth but not young children
• LTS 3 (moderate stress) - Acceptable for experienced adults
• LTS 4 (high stress) - Only suitable for the most confident and brave users.
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
The following Bicycle LTS maps evaluate all bike facilities and thoroughfares within the city for bicycle use.
The bike facilities identified include bike lanes, bike routes, and shared-use paths. For this analysis, city thoroughfares without dedicated bike facilities were assessed as if they were bikes routes. The full
LTS criteria for segments and crossing for the bicycle network and pedestrian network can be found in Appendix B. Additionally, maps showing College Station’s low-stress networks for bicycles and pedestrians,
isolated from the City’s high-stress facilities, can be found in Appendix C.
Page 65 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-10
Map 3.4 Bicycle LTS Segments
Page 66 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-11
Page 67 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-12
Map 3.5 Bicycle LTS Uncontrolled Crossings North
Page 68 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-13
Page 69 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-14
Map 3.6 Bicycle LTS Uncontrolled Crossings Central
Page 70 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-15
Page 71 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-16
Map 3.7 Bicycle LTS Uncontrolled Crossings South
Page 72 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-17
Page 73 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-18
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Bicycle Segments
The largest factor impacting the LTS of the bike network is roadway speed. Streets with speed limits that
were 35 miles per hour or less tend to have LTS scores of 1 or 2. Conversely, most streets with speed limits
above 35 miles per hour had LTS scores of 3 and 4. In most cases these streets are identified as a major
arterial or minor arterial on the City’s thoroughfare network that are specifically designed to circulate
higher volumes of vehicles. Shared-use paths are separated from the vehicular traffic and were given a
LTS 1, making this type of facility desirable in higher speed and volume contexts.
Another factor impacting the LTS score of the bike network is width. Bike lanes narrower than 6 feet wide typically had higher LTS scores compared to bike lanes wider than 6 feet or those with a vertical barrier for protection. Many of the narrower bike lanes were installed longer ago and built to an older standard.
The City’s UDO standards currently require bike lanes to be 6 feet or 7 feet wide matching the Bicycle LTS
methodology for a better LTS score. As new facilities are constructed and older facilities are updated to
meet current standards, the bike network’s overall LTS score will improve.
Bicycle Crossings
The main factor impacting the LTS of bicycle crossings is the number of lanes. For crossings with 3 lanes or fewer, it is impossible to have a LTS of 4, while crossings with 4 or more lanes can rarely receive an LTS score of 1. It is important to note that the criteria used for bicycle crossing LTS is older than LTS analyses for other types of facilities.
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
Pedestrian LTS maps illustrate all dedicated pedestrian facilities and thoroughfares within city limits.
Pedestrian facilities include both sidewalks and shared-use paths. Similar to how the Bicycle LTS assessed
thoroughfares as if they were bike routes, thoroughfares without any dedicated pedestrian facilities were
assessed as if individuals were walking on the roadway shoulder or in the street. As was seen in the Bicycle
LTS, the Pedestrian LTS of thoroughfares without facilities tends to be much higher.
Page 74 of 167
Page 75 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-20
Map 3.8 Pedestrian LTS Segments
Page 76 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-21
Page 77 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-22
Map 3.9 Pedestrian LTS Marked Crosswalks North
Page 78 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-23
Page 79 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-24
Map 3.10 Pedestrian LTS Marked Crosswalks South
Page 80 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-25
Page 81 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20263-26
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Pedestrian Segments
Similar to Bicycle LTS, the speed of the roadway is a major factor impacting the LTS score of pedestrian facilities. It was extremely difficult for a roadway with a speed of 35 miles per hour or more to receive a LTS
score of 1 or 2. This meant that many of the thoroughfare street have LTS scores of 3 or 4. The presence of
a buffer is a significant factor in scoring including a buffer as small as 1-foot could change the LTS rating of
a facility. The City’s current standards for sidewalk widths help ensure future developments will continue to
foster a low stress pedestrian network.
Pedestrian Crossings
Due to the large number of unsignalized pedestrian crossings, the LTS analysis for pedestrian crossings only assesses controlled crossings with marked crosswalks. These are crossings that feature some sort of traffic control such as stop signs and traffic signals. The LTS ratings for pedestrian crossings were most influenced by the number of lanes an individual needed to cross. According to the original criteria, crossings that required pedestrians to walk across 5 or more lanes of traffic could not receive a LTS score lower than 3. Given the rigidness of this, the criteria were modified to adapt to local context by having locations with leading pedestrian intervals or pedestrian only phases were added to the LTS criteria as another traffic signal type that resulted in a lower LTS. Both facilities provide pedestrians with a dedicated period of time to cross streets while all cars are stopped. Separating these types of intersection crossings from ones that lack a dedicated pedestrian phase acknowledges the reduced levels of stress an individual might experience while crossing when all vehicles are stopped. Additional options for improving LTS at crossings is discussed in Chapter 4 System Development.
GOING FORWARD
Use Cases and Applications
Similar to other forms of network analyses, an LTS analysis can be used to identify gaps within an existing network, especially when this data is considered alongside other datasets. Pairing LTS analysis with other factors such as local land use, congestion rates, and traffic safety data can create a complete understanding of local conditions. Taking this holistic approach to network analysis ensures that any proposed improvements can be properly prioritized to have the greatest impact on the overall quality of the active transportation network.
This analysis should not be viewed as a one-time assessment, but rather as a new performance measure useful for monitoring ongoing network conditions. Future iterations of this analysis might want to consider future refinements to LTS methodology that take into consideration other measurable factors.
Source: City of College Station
TABLE 3.6 LTS MILEAGE AND PERCENTAGE OF NETWORK
LTS LEVELS PEDESTRIAN PLAN BICYCLE PLAN
TOTAL MILEAGE NETWORK %TOTAL MILEAGE NETWORK %
LTS 1 125.7 28.4%51.4 23.9%
LTS 2 161.5 36.5%73.5 34.4%
LTS 3 74.1 16.7%23.6 11%
LTS 4 81.7 18.4%66 30.1%
Page 82 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-27
Limitations
A drawback to LTS analysis as a method for assessing the existing transportation network is the subjective
nature of environmental stress that it seeks to categorize. Each individual has their own personal thresholds for stress, which can be influenced by factors like personal experience, able-bodied status, and familiarity with the local area. Since this analysis generalizes the experience of the average user, it
might not accurately reflect the perception of overly cautious or highly experienced network users.
Another limitation arising from this analysis is the age of the methodology. The methodology used for
Bicycle LTS was developed in 2012 and only considers the speed and number of lanes when determining
the stress level of a given roadway. More recent iterations of Pedestrian LTS take into account factors like
traffic volume to create a more accurate understanding of the stress experienced.
GAPS, CONNECTIVITY, AND SAFETY
In many instances, College Station’s existing active transportation network is the result of redevelopment
and retrofitting that has occurred over time. Roadway design standards at the time of initial development
did not include the same requirements for bike and pedestrian facilities that exist today. As a result, the
roadways developed under prior standards were not designed to have designated areas (i.e. bike lanes
and sidewalks) for the various modes of transportation and typically have narrower rights-of-way or were
constructed to lesser standards than exist today.
A context-sensitive approach can help effectively facilitate the movement of all transportation modes within the constrained spaces that exist. This process involves the creation of different types of travel
corridors meant to prioritize different modes of transportation. Roadways with higher speeds and volumes
of traffic, such as freeways and major arterials, are typically designed to prioritize the movement of
vehicles. These major roadways typically have more travel lanes, greater lane widths, longer block lengths,
and higher speed limits, which create more stressful travel conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Roadways with lower speeds and traffic volumes, such as neighborhood streets and collectors, are typically less stressful environments for bicyclists and pedestrians. These roadways can be prioritized mode corridors for active transportation. The design concept of prioritized mode corridors is further
described in Chapter 4 System Development.
NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide outlines the components of a well-connected network as
consisting of both neighborhood routes and principal routes. Through the process of creating this new
master plan, a strong need was identified for the City of College Station to develop a system of such
connectivity. Residents desired direct, principal routes to help get them from point A to point B, but also a
greater density of neighborhood routes that are safe and comfortable for the diversity of ages and abilities
that live within those neighborhoods.
In reviewing the crash data provided earlier in this chapter, it was observed that the majority of crashes
occur within close proximity to the Texas A&M University campus. The concentration of crashes in this
area is in part due to the high number of active transportation users in the city core, thus creating more
risk for incidents to occur. The older, more constrained infrastructure in this area also accounts for some
of the incidents and should be improved to meet increased active transportation demand. In Chapter 6, prioritization of projects is weighed with proximity to campus being a key factor in helping create a low-
stress active transportation network in the city core.
Page 83 of 167
Table 3.7 Bicycle Friendly Community Application Category Scores
THE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS’ BIKE FRIENDLY
COMMUNITY REPORT CARD
College Station is recognized as a Bronze-level Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) by The League of
American Bicyclists. The designation is valid for four years. and the Bronze-level was renewed in 2024 with
a report card that outlined the city’s scoring for each application category, survey data received, and
recommendations on how to maintain and improve the designation in the future. The individual category
scores received by College Station can be seen in Table 3.7 along with a comparison of the average
scores of other Texas cities and the maximum score that was awarded nation-wide amongst jurisdictions
of all sizes in the 2024 application cycle.
Source: The League of American Bicyclists
BFC CATEGORY SCORES IN 2024 REPORT CARDS
THE 5 E’S COLLEGE STATION AVERAGE SCORES OF TEXAS CITIES MAX SCORE FROM ALL APPLICANTS
Engineering 27.7%35.7%79.3%
Education 43.4%37.7%83.3%
Encouragement 27.9%43.4%90.9%
Evaluation & Planning 29.7%36.7%75.7%
Equity & Accessibility 10.5%22.2%75.5%
According to the BFC Report Card, College Station scored best in the Education category with 43.4% of
all possible points. The lowest score the city received was in the Equity & Accessibility category, which
received 10.5% of all possible points.
The survey questions asked by The League of American Bicyclists focused mainly on safety and what
College Station can do to improve conditions for bicyclists. The results of the Bicycle Friendly Community Public Survey for College Station can be seen in Figure 3.5.
Page 84 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |3-29
Figure 3.5 BFC Survey Results
Source: The League of American Bicyclists
How satisfied are you with how this community is designed for making bike riding safe? (n=25)
Is it safe or dangerous to ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, or
does it depend? (n=24)
What are the top 1-3 changes you would most like to see the local
government make in this community for bicyclists? (n=25)
1.Improve existing bike lanes to protected bike lanes (76%)2.More bike lanes (60%)3.More bike paths (52%)
1
2
3
Safe (12.5%)Dangerous (16.67%)It Depends (70.83%)
Very Satisfied (0.00%)Somewhat Satisfied (32%)Somewhat Dissatisfied (48%)Very Dissatisfied (8%)Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied (12%)
Feedback received from The League of American Bicyclists helps identify potential deficiencies and opportunities to further establish a bicycle friendly community. These recommendations can be considered as additions or refinements to the existing and proposed City policies, design practices, network development, and programs to be implemented and are potential paths to achieve a higher level of recognition above the Bronze-level status. A summary of the report card feedback is as follows:
• Continue to expand and improve the College Station’s low-stress on-road bike network and ensure the city follows bicycle facility selection criteria that include separation and protection of userbase on levels of motor vehicle speed and volume
• Update design manuals to meet current FHWA, AASHTO, and/or NACTO standards
• Increase the amount of high-quality bicycle parking throughout the community
• Improve bicycle safety education for students of all ages as well as work with local stakeholders to expand and improve local Safe Routes to School programs
• Increase the number of local League Cycling Instructors (LCIs) within the community, either by hosting another LCI seminar or sponsoring a City staffer or local bike advocate to attend an existing seminar elsewhere
• Develop education and encouragement outreach methods and programs that specifically target families, women, seniors, low-income, and non-English speaking communities
• Encourage more local businesses, agencies, and organizations to promote cycling to their employees and customers and to seek recognition through the Bicycle Friendly Business program
• Conduct a connectivity analysis and network quality evaluation of the existing bicycle network
• Create a bicycle count program that utilizes several methods of data collection to create an understanding of current bicyclists and the effects of new facilities on bicycling in College Station
• Consider what other local community groups exist in College Station who may be good potential partners for reaching new audiences
• Work with local elected officials to pass an Active People, HealthyNationsm initiative
Page 85 of 167
Page 86 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-1
Figure 4.1 Local, State, and National Design Standards and Guidelines
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 4
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.
▷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)
▷Nation Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Street Design Guide
▷Nation Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Bike Design Guide
▷American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
▷American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 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
Page 87 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-2
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.
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.
Page 88 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-3
Map 4.1 Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors
Source: City of College Station
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 optimize
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 89 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-4
Figure 4.2 Micromobility Device in Use
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).
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 90 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-5
Figure 4.3 Conventional and Electric Bike Speed Distribution
Source: NACTO: Urban Bikeway Design Guide
CONVENTIONAL BIKES
ELECTRIC BIKES
2k
6 mph 12 mph 18 mph 24 mph
4k
30k
60k
SAMPLESAVERAGE SPEED: 8.5 mphAVERAGE SPEED: 8.5 mph
AVERAGE SPEED: 14 mphAVERAGE SPEED: 14 mph
SPEED DISTRIBUTION
▷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
ACTION ITEMS
Page 91 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-6
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:
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 92 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-7
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 93 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-8
Bicycle Signals
Provide dedicated,
predictable movements and
phasing for bicyclists and
micromobility devices.
Pedestrian-Only Signal Phasing and Restricted Right Turns
Eliminate conflicts with
turning vehicles.
Page 94 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-9
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 95 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-10
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
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.
Page 96 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-11
▷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
ACTION ITEMS
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.
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:
• Shade canopies and shelters to shield users from adverse 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 4.14 South of Bachmann Park Facility Transition to Arnold Road
Figure 4.15 Eleanor Street Bus Stop and Sidewalk Connection at Lincoln Recreation Center
Page 97 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-12
Figure 4.16 City Hall Structured Shading
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.
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 98 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-13
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 99 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-14
TABLE 4.2 HIGH STRESS BICYCLE CORRIDORS
WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
Bird Pond Rd. (from Rock Prairie Rd. to Gulf States Trail) 4 -
Bike
Lane
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 X
University Oaks Blvd. (from Munson Ave. to George Bush Dr. E.) 3 -
Wellborn Rd. (from Church Ave. to northern city limits) 4 -
Page 100 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-15
Source: City of College Station
TABLE 4.2 HIGH STRESS BICYCLE CORRIDORS
WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
College Ave. (from Inlow Blvd. to University Dr.)4 X
Shared Use Path
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 X
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 -
Barron Rd. (from William D. Fitch Pkwy. to State Highway 6)4 -
Speed Limit Reduction
Dartmouth St. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Harvey Rd.)3 X
Deacon Dr. (from Wellborn Rd. to Welsh Ave.)3 -
Graham Rd. (from Wellborn Rd. to State Highway 6)3 -
Page 101 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-16
Source: City of College Station
TABLE 4.3 HIGH STRESS BICYCLE CORRIDORS
WITHOUT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
Arrington Rd. (from State Highway 6 to Decatur Dr.) 3 -
Bike Route
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 -
Arrington Rd. (from Greens Prairie Rd. to southern city limits) 3 -
Bike Lane
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 X
University Dr. E. (from State Highway 6 to Boonville Rd.) 4 -
William D. Fitch Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Rock Prairie Rd.) 3 -
Page 102 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-17
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
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
Birmingham Rd. (from Arnold Rd. to Graham Rd.) 3 -
Sidewalk
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 X
Feather Run (from Briscoe Manor Ct. to Kerr Valley Ln.) 4 -
Page 103 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-18
TABLE 4.4 HIGH STRESS PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS
WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
Foster Ave. (from Walton Dr. to Lincoln Ave.) 3 -
Sidewalk
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 X
Manuel Dr. (from Dartmouth St. to Cornell Dr.) 3 -
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 X
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 X
Barron Cut-Off Rd. (from W.S. Phillips Pkwy. to Wellborn Rd.) 3/4 -Shared Use
Path
Page 104 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-19
Source: City of College Station
TABLE 4.4 HIGH STRESS PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS
WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
Barron Rd. (from William D. Fitch Pkwy. to Wellborn Rd.) 4 -
Shared Use
Path
College Ave. (from Inlow Blvd. to University Dr.) 4 X
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 X
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 -
Barron Rd. (William D. Fitch Pkwy. to State Highway 6) 4 -
Speed Limit
Reduction Dartmouth St. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Harvey Rd. 3 -
Graham Rd. (from Wellborn Rd. to State Highway 6) 3 -
Page 105 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-20
TABLE 4.5 HIGH STRESS PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS
WITHOUT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
Anderson St. (from George Bush Dr. to Park Pl.) 3 X
Sidewalk
Anderson St. (from Holleman Dr. to Bee Creek Park) 3 X
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 -
Page 106 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-21
TABLE 4.5 HIGH STRESS PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS
WITHOUT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
Gunner Trl. (from Three Bears Dr. to Deacon Dr. W.) 3 -
Sidewalk
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 X
Longmire Dr. (from Sara Dr. to Cul-de-sac) 3 X
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 -
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.) 3 X
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 -
Page 107 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-22
Source: City of College Station
Map 4.4 Locations of Corridors 1-4
WELLBORN RDOLD WELLBORN RDSOUTHWEST PKWY E
GEORGEBUSHDR
SOUTHWES
T
P
K
W
Y
HARVEY RD
UNIV
E
R
S
I
T
Y DR
E
UNIVERSITY DR
GEORGE BUSH DR
WELLBORN RDTEXAS AVEHARVEY MITCHEL
L PKWY S
SPRING
LOOP
CAIN RD OLSENBLVDWALNUTRDHENSEL DR
AUTUMNCIR
FOSTERAVEASHBURNAVEPURYEARDRAPPOMATTOXDRCARTER
C
R
E
EK
PKWY
NFORESTPKWYMARION PUGH DRAGRONOMY RDCOLLEGE AVENAGLE STKIMBROUGH BLVD
MARINERDR
PARK PL
CENTRALPARKLNTHEWOODLA
NDSDEXTERDRSDARTMOUTHSTNEARLRUDDERFWYSROSEMARYDR
LANGFORDSTNROSEMARYDR
SOUTHWOODDRPENBERTHYBLVDJONES-BUTLERRDRAYMONDSTOTZERPKWY
RAYMONDSTOTZERPKWY
RAINTR
E
EDRTURKRD
MUNSON AVEWALTONDRKRENEK TAP RD
NAVARRODR
LUTHERSTW
GLADE STLINCOLN AVE
NUCLEARSC IENCERD
UNIVERSITY OAKS BLVD
QUAIL RUN RESEARCHPKWYFRANCIS DR
DOMINIK DRJOHNKIMBROUGH
N DOWLING RD
WELSHAVEEARLRUDDERFWYS0 ½¼MilesELEANOR STWELLBORN RDOLD WELLBORN RDSOUTHWEST PKWY E
GEORGEBUSHDR
SOUTHWEST
P
K
W
Y
HARVEY RD
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y DR E
UNIVERSITY DR
GEORGE BUSH DR
WELLBORN RDTEXAS AVEHARVEY MITCHEL
L PKWY S
SPRINGLOOP
CAIN RD OLSENBLVDWALNUTRDHENSEL DR
AUTUMNCIR
FOSTERAVEASHBURNAVEPURYEARDRAPPOMATTOXDRCARTER
C
REEK
PKWY
NFORESTPKWYMARION PUGH DRAGRONOMY RDCOLLEGE AVENAGLE STKIMBROUGH BLVD
MARINERDRPARK PL
CENTRALPARKLNTHEWOODLA
NDSDEXTERDRSDARTMOUTHSTNEARLRUDDERFWYSROSEMARYDR
LANGFORDSTNROSEMARYDR
SOUTHWOODDRPENBERTHYBLVDJONES-BUTLERRDRAYMONDSTOTZERPKWY
RAYMONDSTOTZERPKWY
RAINTR
E
EDRTURKRD
MUNSON AVEWALTONDRKRENEK TAP RD
NAVARRODR
LUTHERSTW
GLADE STLINCOLN AVE
NUCLEARSCIENCERDUNIVERSITY OAKS BLVD
QUAIL RUN RESEARCHPKWYFRANCIS DR
DOMINIK DRJOHNKIMBROUGH
N DOWLING RD
WELSHAVEEARLRUDDERFWYS0 ½¼MilesELEANOR STActive Transportation
Master Plan | Corridor
Feasibility Study
Montclair Ave
Fairview Ave
Anderson St
Bee Creek Park
W.A. Tarrow Park
Texas A&M University
Timber St
Tarrow St
6
6
30
60TEXAS
2154TEXAS
2154TEXAS
2818TEXAS
Lemontree Park
Anderson Park
Study Corridor
Signalized Intersection
School
Greenspace
City Limits
Lincoln Center
TABLE 4.5 HIGH STRESS PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS
WITHOUT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CORRIDOR CURRENT LTS SCORE
PRIORITY MODE NETWORK
PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE
Victoria Ave. (from Etonbury Ave. to Woodlake Dr.) 3 -
Sidewalk
Wellborn (from University Dr. to northern city limits) 4 -
Welsh Ave. (from Holleman Dr. to Rock Prairie Rd.) 3 X
William D. Fitch Pkwy. (from State Highway 6 to Rock Prairie Rd.) 4 -
Anna St. (from Holik St. to Timber St.) 3 -
Shared use
Path Holleman Dr. W. (from Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. to Rock Prairie Rd.) 4 -
Park Pl. (from Anderson St. to Glade St.) 3 -
Page 108 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-23
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.
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.
Page 109 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-24
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.
Source: City of College Station
Table 4.6 Proposed Plan Mileage by Facility Type
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
STATUS SIDEWALKS SHARED USE PATHS BIKE LANES BIKE ROUTES
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
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 110 of 167
Page 111 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-26
Map 4.5 Proposed Bicycle Plan
Page 112 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-27
Page 113 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-28
Map 4.5 Proposed Pedestrian Plan
Page 114 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-29
Page 115 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20264-30
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 both 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
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 Street/Ireland Street, 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 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 116 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |4-31
Figure 4.17 Conceptual Design of University Drive Grade Separation
Figure 4.18 Example Active Transportation Grade-Separated Highway Crossing
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.
Page 117 of 167
Page 118 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |5-1
5
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.
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Page 119 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20265-2
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),
National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO), 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 facilities for all active transportation users with particular emphasis near schools. Active transportation 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 active transportation 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.
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.
Page 120 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |5-3
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.
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.
Page 121 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20265-4
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 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.
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.
Page 122 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |5-5
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 usable 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 6.4 of Chapter 6, alongside information regarding each item’s funding and timeline for their implementation.
Page 123 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20265-6
Source: City of College Station
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 both
the state and federal level as well as non-governmental community groups. Table 5.1 lists some of the
partners and in what aspect the City can collaborate on items related to system management.
TABLE 5.1 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS
PARTNERS PLANNING ADVISORY FUNDING DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REGULATION MAINTEN -ANCE EDUCATION ENCOURAG -EMENT 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 Dev. 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
CSISD x x x x x x x
Texas A&M 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
Page 124 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |6-1
6
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 (ATAB)
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.
IMPLEMENTATION
ACTION ITEMS
▷6.1 Review board member requirements for the Active Transportation Advisory Board and revise the purpose, powers, and duties of the Board.
Page 125 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20266-2
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. Proximity
to schools is especially significant since children within 2 miles of a school are typically not eligible for
bus pick up, making those active transportation connections that much more important for ensuring
safe travel. 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 already have funding or are 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.
Page 126 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |6-3
Source: City of College Station
Source: City of College Station
TABLE 6.1 SIDEWALK & SHARED USE PATHS (ALONG STREET ROW) PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
FACTORS SCORING WEIGHT
Safety (Fatality and Serious Injury Crashes) 10
Schools 10
Population Density (Existing) 10
Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors 8
Parks 8
Fills gap in existing network (<=0.1 miles) 8
On Thoroughfare without Existing Sidewalk 8
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) High Stress Segment or Crossing 7
Texas A&M University 6
On Non-Thoroughfare without Existing Sidewalk 6
Safety (Minor Crashes) 5
Major Commercial Areas and/or Employers 5
Population Density (Future) 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
Schools 12
Population Density (Existing) 12
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) High Stress Segment 10
Parks 10
Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors 8
Texas A&M University 8
Safety (Minor Crashes) 6
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) High Stress Crossing 6
Major Commercial Areas and/or Employers 6
Population Density (Future) 6
Transit Connectivity (Bus Stops and Routes) 4
Total 100
Page 127 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20266-4
Source: City of College Station
TABLE 6.3 OFF-STREET SHARED USE PATHS PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
FACTORS SCORING WEIGHT
Safety (Fatality and Serious Injury Crashes) 12
Schools 12
Population Density (Existing) 12
Parks 10
Prioritized Active Transportation Corridors 8
Fills gap between existing facilities 8
On City property or existing easement 8
Texas A&M University 8
Safety (Minor Crashes) 6
Major Commercial Areas and/or Employers 6
Population Density (Future) 6
Transit Connectivity (Bus Stops and Routes) 4
Total 100
▷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
ACTION ITEMS
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 128 of 167
Page 129 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20266-6
TABLE 6.4 IMPLEMENTATION TASKS TABLE
CHAPTER SECTION TASK TYPE
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION AND COORDINATION ROLES FUNDING SOURCES
SHORT TERMMEDIUM TERMLONG TERMINTERNAL PARTNERS
EXTERNAL PARTNERSCONSULTANT WORK?CITY - GENERAL FUNDCITY - CAPITAL BUDGETOTHER GOVERNMENTGRANTSPRIVATE/OTHER4. System DevelopmentSystem Design: Micromobility
4.1 Analyze where wider bike lanes are needed to better accommodate passing for both
bicycles and micromobility devices Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x x
4.2 Consider advisory speed limits on select shared use paths to ensure safety of all users Planning & Development Services, Parks & Recreation Dept. x x x x
4.3 Update the Active Transportation webpage to include information on micromobility use, safety, classes, and events Planning & Development Services, Public Communications x x x
System Design: Intersections & Driveways
4.4 Analyze where street intersection improvements are needed to increase safety and connectivity Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x x
4.5 Assess where improvements are needed for bicycle and pedestrian facilities crossing private driveways, consider changes to design standards Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x
System Design: Facility Transitions
4.6 Analyze locations needing more seamless transitions between different active transportation facilities, consider changes to design standards Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks & Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
4.7 Determine locations for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to transit stops, develop design standards for facilities at these locations Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x x x
4.8 Evaluate the location of existing bike route signage Planning & Development Services x x
System Design:
Shade & Comfort
4.9 Consider design standard amendments to provide shading along the active
transportation network. Develop a methodology for determining shading element locations Planning & Development Services, Parks & Recreation Dept., Capital Improvement
Projects, Public Works x
5. System ManagementPrograms: Education
5.1 Promote Safe Routes to School Planning & Development Services, Public Works x x x x
5.2 Create a Share the Road Campaign Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Police Dept.x
5.3 Expand the Bike Share Program Planning & Development Services x 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 Dept.x x
Programs: Encouragement
5.5 Update and maintain inventory of bike racks within the City Planning & Development Services 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 Dept.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
5.9 Recognize May as National Bike Month and promote related events Planning & Development Services, Police Dept. and 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
Page 130 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |6-7
Source: City of College Station
TABLE 6.4 IMPLEMENTATION TASKS TABLE
CHAPTERSECTIONTASK TYPE
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION AND COORDINATION ROLES FUNDING SOURCES
SHORT TERMMEDIUM TERMLONG TERMINTERNAL PARTNERS
EXTERNAL PARTNERSCONSULTANT WORK?CITY - GENERAL FUNDCITY - CAPITAL BUDGETOTHER GOVERNMENTGRANTSPRIVATE/OTHER4. System DevelopmentSystem Design: Micromobility
4.1 Analyze where wider bike lanes are needed to better accommodate passing for both
bicycles and micromobility devicesPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x x
4.2 Consider advisory speed limits on select shared use paths to ensure safety of all usersPlanning & Development Services, Parks & Recreation Dept. x x x x
4.3 Update the Active Transportation webpage to include information on micromobility use, safety, classes, and eventsPlanning & Development Services, Public Communications x x x
System Design: Intersections & Driveways
4.4 Analyze where street intersection improvements are needed to increase safety and connectivityPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x x
4.5 Assess where improvements are needed for bicycle and pedestrian facilities crossing private driveways, consider changes to design standardsPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x
System Design: Facility Transitions
4.6 Analyze locations needing more seamless transitions between different active transportation facilities, consider changes to design standardsPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks & Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
4.7 Determine locations for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to transit stops, develop design standards for facilities at these locationsPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x x x
4.8 Evaluate the location of existing bike route signagePlanning & Development Services x x
System Design:
Shade & Comfort
4.9 Consider design standard amendments to provide shading along the active
transportation network. Develop a methodology for determining shading element locationsPlanning & Development Services, Parks & Recreation Dept., Capital Improvement
Projects, Public Works x
5. System ManagementPrograms: Education
5.1 Promote Safe Routes to SchoolPlanning & Development Services, Public Works x x x x
5.2 Create a Share the Road CampaignPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Police Dept.x
5.3 Expand the Bike Share ProgramPlanning & Development Services x 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 usersPlanning & Development Services, Police Dept.x x
Programs: Encouragement
5.5 Update and maintain inventory of bike racks within the CityPlanning & Development Services x
5.6 Develop a wayfinding system for the active transportation network that leads users to
key destinationsPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Parks & Recreation Dept.x x
5.7 Encourage and participate in community active transportation eventsPlanning & Development Services x x x
5.8 Collaborate with community organizations to gain additional support for implementing plan programsPlanning & Development Services, Neighborhood Services x x
5.9 Recognize May as National Bike Month and promote related eventsPlanning & Development Services, Police Dept. and 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 travelPlanning & Development Services, Neighborhood Services x x x
5.13 Promote active transportation through social media, newsletters, and City Council
proclamationsPlanning & Development Services, Public Communications x x
Page 131 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20266-8
TABLE 6.4 IMPLEMENTATION TASKS TABLE
CHAPTER SECTION TASK TYPE
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION AND COORDINATION ROLES FUNDING SOURCES
SHORT TERMMEDIUM TERMLONG TERMINTERNAL PARTNERS
EXTERNAL PARTNERSCONSULTANT WORK?CITY - GENERAL FUNDCITY - CAPITAL BUDGETOTHER GOVERNMENTGRANTSPRIVATE/OTHER5. System ManagementPrograms:
Evaluation & Planning
5.14 Assess availability of bike parking facilities and provide adequate bike amenities at all city parks, facilities, and along transit routes Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks & Recreation Dept.x 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
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
5.19 Evaluate best practices and collaborate with peer cities, agencies, and institutions
regarding active transportation programs Planning & Development Services x x
Programs: Health &
Safety
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, Parks & Recreation Dept.x x
5.22 Analyze crash data to evaluate if improvements are beneficial Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Police Dept.x x x x
5.23 Create a walk and bike audit program to assess safety and comfortability Planning & Development Services, Public Works x
6. ImplementationAdvisory Board 6.1 Review board member requirements of the Active Transportation Advisory Board and
revise the purpose, powers, and duties of the Board.Planning & Development Services x
Evaluations &
Monitoring 6.2 Review and update Master Plan in five years and through changes in other plans Planning & Development Services x x x x x x x
Project Prioritization
6.3 Create an unfunded prioritization map Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
6.4 Develop high priority facilities Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
6.5 Develop medium priority facilities Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
6.6 Develop low priority facilities Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation Dept.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 standard set of procedures for data collection to properly track data trends Planning & Development Services, Public Works x x x
Funding
6.9 Develop a maintenance plan for the system Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Parks & Recreation Dept.x
6.10 Establish and ensure annual capital and operating funding sources Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Fiscal Services, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks & Recreation Dept.x x
6.11 Seek out alternative funding sources through grants, programs, and partnerships Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Fiscal Services, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x
Page 132 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |6-9
Source: City of College Station
TABLE 6.4 IMPLEMENTATION TASKS TABLE
CHAPTERSECTIONTASK TYPE
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION AND COORDINATION ROLES FUNDING SOURCES
SHORT TERMMEDIUM TERMLONG TERMINTERNAL PARTNERS
EXTERNAL PARTNERSCONSULTANT WORK?CITY - GENERAL FUNDCITY - CAPITAL BUDGETOTHER GOVERNMENTGRANTSPRIVATE/OTHER5. System ManagementPrograms:
Evaluation & Planning
5.14 Assess availability of bike parking facilities and provide adequate bike amenities at all city parks, facilities, and along transit routesPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks & Recreation Dept.x 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
5.17 Provide a walking report card measurement similar to Bicycle Friendly Community designationPlanning & Development Services x
5.18 Seek out grant funding for city led ADA projectsPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x
5.19 Evaluate best practices and collaborate with peer cities, agencies, and institutions
regarding active transportation programsPlanning & Development Services x x
Programs: Health &
Safety
5.20 Create partnerships with health organizations at local and state levelsPlanning & Development Services x x x
5.21 Speed management program/speed reduction programPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Parks & Recreation Dept.x x
5.22 Analyze crash data to evaluate if improvements are beneficialPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Police Dept.x x x x
5.23 Create a walk and bike audit program to assess safety and comfortabilityPlanning & Development Services, Public Works x
6. ImplementationAdvisory Board6.1 Review board member requirements of the Active Transportation Advisory Board and
revise the purpose, powers, and duties of the Board.Planning & Development Services x
Evaluations &
Monitoring6.2 Review and update Master Plan in five years and through changes in other plansPlanning & Development Services x x x x x x x
Project Prioritization
6.3 Create an unfunded prioritization mapPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
6.4 Develop high priority facilitiesPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
6.5 Develop medium priority facilitiesPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
6.6 Develop low priority facilitiesPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks &
Recreation Dept.x x x x x x
Performance Measures
6.7 Establish performance measures with specified, trackable goalsPlanning & Development Services, Public Works x x
6.8 Develop a standard set of procedures for data collection to properly track data trendsPlanning & Development Services, Public Works x x x
Funding
6.9 Develop a maintenance plan for the systemPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Parks & Recreation Dept.x
6.10 Establish and ensure annual capital and operating funding sourcesPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Fiscal Services, Capital Improvement Projects, Parks & Recreation Dept.x x
6.11 Seek out alternative funding sources through grants, programs, and partnershipsPlanning & Development Services, Public Works, Fiscal Services, Capital Improvement Projects x x x x
Page 133 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20266-10
Figure 6.1 Jingle Bell Community Bike Ride Event
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.
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 projects
to the locations where they are most needed and track the impact of those projects once they have been
completed.
Page 134 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |6-11
Figure 6.2 Micromobility Devices
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
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.
▷6.7 Establish performance measures with specified, trackable goals
ACTION ITEMS
Page 135 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20266-12
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 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.
Page 136 of 167
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.
ғ 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.
ғ Safe Routes to School (SR4S) – FHWA distributes funding for state-level SR4S programs through
TxDOT.
ғ 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.
ғ 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.
ғ 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.
ғ 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 137 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 20266-14
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.
ғ 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.
ғ 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.
ғ 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.
ғ 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.
ғ 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.
▷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
ACTION ITEMS
Page 138 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |6-15
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
BPG 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
PROJECT TEAM
Jason Schubert, Transportation Planning Administrator
Jesse DiMeolo, Senior Planner (Project Manager)
Carl Ahrens, Staff Planner
Joe Allen, Staff Planner
Julie Svetlik, GIS Analyst
Chris Griffin, GIS Analyst
Eric Siaba, GIS Technician
STAFF RESOURCE TEAM
Susan Monnat, Capital Improvement Projects
Carol Cotter, City Engineer
Randell Smith, City Traffic Engineer
Raney Whitwell, Community Development
Michael Ostrowski, Economic Development
Richard Mann, Fire Department
Barbara Moore, Neighborhood Services
Kelsey Heiden, Parks Department
Anthony Armstrong, Planning & Development
Molly Hitchcock, Planning & Development
Kenneth Preterit, Police Department
DeAnna Ordonez, Public Works
Emily Fisher, Public Works
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
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS
Page 139 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026A-1
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHICS
The population of College Station has continued to increase. The table below shows how the population
has grown since 2010. As of December 2025, the population of the City of College Station is estimated to be
132,477 residents.
Source: City of College Station
Table A.1 Population Growth Rate Since 2010
Population Density and Distribution
Unsurprisingly a population distribution analysis for College Station shows the greatest population density in the areas surrounding the Texas A&M University campus. Lower population densities are along the City’s peripheries and in areas that are undeveloped, developed at lower densities, or are
partially developed. The areas of the city zoned for more intense residential uses like multi-family tend to
have a higher population density relative to areas zoned for less intense uses like rural or single-family
development. Knowing which areas currently have the greatest population density and which are planned
for such can help determine where active transportation improvements would be more beneficial to
improve connectivity and help encourage active transportation as a viable transportation mode and help
mitigate growing traffic congestion in those areas.
Source: City of College Station
POPULATION GROWTH RATE SINCE 2010
5-YEAR PERIOD POPULATION (END OF PERIOD)PEDESTRIAN PLAN %
2010 94,929 N/A
2011 - 2015 106,581 12.3%
2016 - 2020 122,085 14.5%
2021 - 2025 132,477 8.5%
Page 140 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |A-2
Age Distribution
The demographic composition of a city affects the transportation needs of that community. Communities
with an age composition that skews younger will have a different set of transportation needs and
opportunities relative to a community with a population that skews much older.
Population pyramids for College Station clearly show the impact that a large number of college students
have on the city’s age distribution. The figure below illustrates that 25.6% of all city residents fall within
the 20-24 year old age cohort. The second largest age group within College Station is the 15–19-year-old
cohort. The size of these two age cohorts compared to the rest of the city’s population pyramid indicate
that College Station has a relatively young population. Knowing that these population cohorts will likely
remain similar in their size and distribution near the periphery of campus allows the city to tailor future
improvements in this area specifically to college-aged users.
Figure A.1 Population Pyramid for City of College Station
85 years and over
80 to 84 years
75 to 79 years
70 to 74 years
65 to 69 years
60 to 64 years
55 to 59 years
50 to 54 years
45 to 49 years
40 to 44 years
35 to 39 years
30 to 34 years
25 to 29 years
20 to 24 years
15 to 19 years
10 to 14 years
5 to 9 years
Under 5 years
05000 500010000 1000015000 1500020000 20000
POPULATION PYRAMID FOR CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Female Male
Source: City of College Station
Page 141 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026B-1
APPENDIX B: LTS METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA
Research and Best Practices
Level of Traffic Stress as a form of network analysis was first published by researchers at the Mekuria Transportation Institute in 2012. Since then, many different municipalities have utilized this approach for
assessing the stressfulness of their active transportation networks. Many of these municipalities have also
modified the criteria for the analysis to better fit their local planning context. The types of modifications
made by these municipalities also differs, with some making relatively minor changes and others making
substantial revisions to the original criteria.
Looking first at the City of Fort Worth’s Active Transportation Plan, we see an example of a minor
change to the overall LTS criteria. The City decided that the original LTS criteria developed by the Mekuria
Transportation Institute was too lenient regarding the impact of traffic volume on a user’s experience. For
this reason, Fort Worth’s LTS analysis is more critical of roadways with high volumes and high speeds.
In some instances, municipalities decided that more significant changes were needed for the analysis
to work within their local context. For Montgomery County this meant the addition of 3 more stress level
ratings to help describe a greater range of roadway experiences. LTS 0 was added to describe off-road
portions of the network, which are not impacted by roadway stresses. LTS 2.5 was added to bridge the
comfortability divide between LTS 2 and 3. Lastly, the county added LTS 5 to distinguish between the
roadways that only experienced riders would be willing travel and roadways deemed too dangerous for
even those riders.
Other municipalities took into consideration additional roadway factors that might impact a user’s
experience. This was the approach taken by the City of Chico, CA, which accounted for the presence of
additional obstacles along biking facilities. If a bike lane or route was subject to frequent blockages by
vehicles, trash cans, or driveways, the LTS would be increased.
LTS Methodology for College Station
The criteria used for the LTS analysis of College Station’s existing network has also been modified. In the original methodology developed by the Mekuria Transportation Institute, sidewalk widths were divided into 4 categories.
This included sidewalks:
• Greater than 10 ft. Wide
• 10 ft. to 8 ft. wide
• 7 ft. to 5 ft. wide
• Less than 5 ft. wide
In the City’s older neighborhoods, sidewalks were built to be 4 feet wide with a 1-3-foot grass buffer. Using baseline criteria from the Mekuria Institute, many of these neighborhood streets would be given LTS scores of 3, despite having low speeds, low traffic volumes, and large roadway buffers. More recent updates to College Station’s Unified Development Ordinance have changed sidewalk width standards, which require these facilities to be at least 6 feet wide. Any future redevelopment taking place in these older neighborhoods would require sidewalks to be reconstructed to meet the updated UDO standard. With this context in mind, it was decided to combine the 7-5 feet and <5-foot categories to more accurately reflect an individual’s experience on these low-intensity roadways in local neighborhoods. This methodology was adapted to the local context of College Station and might be subject to future modifications if needed to accurately depict existing conditions.
Page 142 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |B-2
Page 143 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026B-3
Table B.1 Bixes in Mixed Traffic
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis (BLTS)
Segments:
The BLTS criteria for segments are split into two different tables, one of these tables looks specifically at
bike routes (bikes in mixed traffic) while the other looks at bike lanes.
BIKES IN MIXED TRAFFIC
NUMBER OF LANES TRAFFIC VOLUME
PREVAILING SPEED (MPH)
<24 25 30 35 40 45 46+
2-way street (no centerline)
0-750 1 1 2 2 3 3 3
751-1,500 1 1 2 3 3 3 3
1,501-3,000 2 2 2 3 3 4 4
2-way street (1 thru lane per
direction and centerline)
3,000+2 2 3 3 4 4 4
0-1,000 1 1 2 2 3 3 3
1,001-1,500 2 2 2 3 3 4 4
2 thru lanes per direction
1,501+2 3 3 3 4 4 4
0-8,000 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
8,001+3 3 4 4 4 4 4
3+ thru lanes per direction Any volume 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
Source: City of College Station
Page 144 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |B-4
Table B.2 Bikes in Conventional Lanes and Others
CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANES, ADVISORY BIKE LANES, AND SHOULDERS
NO ADJACENT TO A PARKING LANE
NUMBER OF LANES BIKE LANE WIDTH PREVAILING SPEED (MPH)
<29 30 35 40 45 46+
1 thru lane per direction or contraflow lane
6+ ft 1 1 2 3 3 3
Less than 6 ft 2 2 2 3 3 4
2 thru lanes per direction 6+ ft 2 2 2 3 3 3
Less than 6 ft 2 2 2 3 4 4
3+ lanes per direction Any width 3 3 3 4 4 4
Use mixed traffic criteria if it would result in lower LTS
Crossings:
The BLTS criteria is contained within a single table and only applies to road crossings without any traffic
controls (no stop signs, or traffic signals).
Source: City of College Station
Source: City of College Station
Table B.3 Bike Crossing LTS
BIKE CROSSING LTS
CROSSING FACILITY SPEED LIMIT UP TO 3 LANES 4 - 5 LANES 6+ LANES
None
Up to 25 mph 1 2 4
30 mph 1 2 4
35 mph 2 3 4
40+ mph 3 4 4
Crossing Island
Up to 25 mph 1 1 2
30 mph 1 2 3
35 mph 2 3 4
40+ mph 3 4 4
Page 145 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026B-5
Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Analysis (PLTS)
Segments
The PLTS criteria for segments in split into three separate tables to better evaluate stress levels based on
a roadway’s traffic volume. As a result, facilities with similar dimensions might scoring differently based on
the average amount of adjacent vehicle traffic.
Source: City of College Station
PEDESTRIAN LTS FOR LOW TRAFFIC VOLUME (< 2,500 AADT)
SPEED SIDEWALK WIDTH BUFFER WIDTH
> 10 FT 5 TO 9FT < 5 FT NONE
< 26 mph
> 10 ft 1 1 1 1
8 ft to 10 ft 1 1 1 1
< 7 ft 1 1 2 2
26 - 30 mph
> 10 ft 1 1 2 2
8 ft to 10 ft 1 2 2 3
< 7 ft 1 2 2 3
31 - 35 mph
> 10 ft 1 1 2 2
8 ft to 10 ft 1 2 2 3
< 7 ft 2 3 3 4
> 35 mph
> 10 ft 1 2 3 3
8 ft to 10 ft 2 2 3 3
< 7 ft 3 3 4 4
Automatically LTS 2 if a vertical buffer greater than six inches is present
Table B.4 Pedestrian LTS for Low Traffic Volume
Page 146 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |B-6
Source: City of College Station
Source: City of College Station
PEDESTRIAN LTS FOR MEDIUM TRAFFIC VOLUME (2,500-7,500 AADT)
SPEED SIDEWALK WIDTH BUFFER WIDTH
> 10 FT 5 TO 9FT < 5 FT NONE
< 26 mph
> 10 ft 1 1 1 2
8 ft to 10 ft 1 1 2 2
< 7 ft 1 2 2 2
26 - 30 mph
> 10 ft 1 1 2 3
8 ft to 10 ft 1 2 2 3
< 7 ft 2 2 3 4
31 - 35 mph
> 10 ft 1 2 3 3
8 ft to 10 ft 2 2 3 4
< 7 ft 3 3 4 4
> 35 mph
> 10 ft 1 2 3 3
8 ft to 10 ft 2 2 3 4
< 7 ft 3 3 4 4
Automatically LTS 2 if a vertical buffer greater than six inches is present
PEDESTRIAN LTS FOR HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME (> 7,500 AADT)
SPEED SIDEWALK WIDTH BUFFER WIDTH
> 10 FT 5 TO 9FT < 5 FT NONE
< 26 mph
> 10 ft 1 1 2 2
8 ft to 10 ft 1 2 2 3
< 7 ft 2 2 3 4
26 - 30 mph
> 10 ft 1 1 2 3
8 ft to 10 ft 1 2 2 3
< 7 ft 2 3 3 4
31 - 35 mph
> 10 ft 1 2 3 3
8 ft to 10 ft 2 3 3 4
< 7 ft 3 3 4 4
> 35 mph
> 10 ft 2 2 3 3
8 ft to 10 ft 2 3 3 4
< 7 ft 3 4 4 4
Automatically LTS 2 if a vertical buffer greater than six inches is present
Table B.5 Pedestrian LTS for Medium Traffic Volume
Table B.6 Pedestrian LTS for High Traffic Volume
Page 147 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026B-7
Crossings
The PLTS criteria for crossings has been split across six different tables. Half of the methodology tables are
specifically for crossings with traffic controls while the other half are for crossings without traffic controls.
These tables follow the same traffic volume-based formatting as the tables for PLTS segments.
Source: City of College Station
CONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LTS FOR LOW TRAFFIC VOLUME (< 2,500 AADT)
TRAFFIC CONTROL CROSSING WIDTH
CROSSING TREATMENTS
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND AND CURB EXTENSION(S)
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND ONLY
CURB EXTENSION ONLY NONE
LPI or
Pedestrian
only phase
2-3 lanes 1 1 1 1
4 lanes 1 1 2 2
5 lanes 2 2 2 2
6+ lanes 2 2 3 3
Traffic Signal
2-3 lanes 1 1 1 1
4 lanes 1 1 2 2
5 lanes 2 2 2 2
6+ lanes 2 3 3 3
Stop Sign
1-2 lanes 1 1 1 1
3 lanes 1 1 2 2
4+ lanes 2 2 3 3
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
1-2 lanes 1 1 1 1
3 lanes 1 1 1 2
4+ lanes 2 2 2 3
Table B.7 Controlled Pedestrian Crossings for Low Traffic Volume
Page 148 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |B-8
Source: City of College Station
CONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LTS FOR MEDIUM TRAFFIC VOLUME (2,500-7,500 AADT)
TRAFFIC CONTROL CROSSING WIDTH
CROSSING TREATMENTS
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND AND CURB EXTENSION(S)
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND ONLY
CURB EXTENSION ONLY NONE
LPI or Pedestrian only phase
2-3 lanes 1 1 1 2
4 lanes 1 1 2 2
5 lanes 2 2 2 3
6+ lanes 2 2 3 3
Traffic Signal
2-3 lanes 1 1 1 2
4 lanes 1 1 2 2
5 lanes 2 2 3 3
6+ lanes 3 3 3 4
Stop Sign
1-2 lanes 1 1 1 2
3 lanes 1 2 2 2
4+ lanes 2 2 3 3
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
1-2 lanes 1 1 1 2
3 lanes 1 1 2 2
4+ lanes 2 2 3 3
Table B.8 Controlled Pedestrian Crossings for Medium Traffic Volume
Page 149 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026B-9
Source: City of College Station
CONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LTS FOR HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME (> 7,500 AADT)
TRAFFIC CONTROL CROSSING WIDTH
CROSSING TREATMENTS
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND AND CURB EXTENSION(S)
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND ONLY
CURB EXTENSION ONLY NONE
LPI or Pedestrian only phase
2-3 lanes 1 1 1 2
4 lanes 1 2 2 2
5 lanes 2 2 2 3
6+ lanes 3 3 3 3
Traffic Signal
2-3 lanes 1 1 2 2
4 lanes 1 2 2 2
5 lanes 2 3 3 3
6+ lanes 3 3 4 4
Stop Sign
1-2 lanes 1 1 2 2
3 lanes 2 2 3 3
4+ lanes 2 3 4 4
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
1-2 lanes 1 2 2 2
3 lanes 2 3 3 3
4+ lanes 3 3 4 4
Table B.9 Controlled Pedestrian Crossings for High Traffic Volume
Page 150 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |B-10
Source: City of College Station
UNCONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LTS FOR LOW TRAFFIC VOLUME (< 2,500 AADT)
TRAFFIC CONTROL TRAFFIC SPEED CROSSING WIDTH
CROSSING TREATMENTS
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND AND CURB EXTENSION(S)
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND ONLY
CURB EXTENSION ONLY NONE
Rapid Flashing Beacons
< 21 mph
1-2 lanes 1 1 1 1
3 lanes 1 1 1 2
4+ lanes 2 2 2 2
21-25 mph
1-2 lanes 1 1 1 2
3 lanes 1 1 2 2
4+ lanes 2 2 3 3
26 - 30 mph
1-2 lanes 1 2 2 2
3 lanes 2 2 2 3
4+ lanes 2 3 3 4
> 30 mph
1-2 lanes 1 2 2 3
3 lanes 2 2 3 3
4+ lanes 3 3 3 4
No Traffic Control
< 21 mph
1-2 lanes 1 1 1 2
3 lanes 1 2 2 2
4+ lanes 2 2 3 3
21-25 mph
1-2 lanes 1 1 2 2
3 lanes 1 2 3 3
4+ lanes 2 2 3 3
26 - 30 mph
1-2 lanes 1 2 3 3
3 lanes 2 3 3 3
4+ lanes 2 3 4 4
> 30 mph
1-2 lanes 2 2 2 3
3 lanes 2 3 3 4
3 3 4 4
Table B.10 Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings for Low Traffic Volume
Page 151 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026B-11
Source: City of College Station
UNCONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LTS FOR MEDIUM TRAFFIC VOLUME (2,500-7,500 AADT)
TRAFFIC CONTROL TRAFFIC SPEED CROSSING WIDTH
CROSSING TREATMENTS
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND AND CURB EXTENSION(S)
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND ONLY
CURB EXTENSION ONLY NONE
Rapid Flashing Beacons
< 25 mph
1-2 lanes 1 1 1 2
3 lanes 1 2 2 2
4+ lanes 2 2 3 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes 1 2 2 3
3 lanes 2 2 3 3
4+ lanes 2 3 3 4
> 30 mph
1-2 lanes 2 2 2 3
3 lanes 2 3 3 4
4+ lanes 3 3 4 4
No Traffic
Control
< 25 mph
1-2 lanes 1 1 2 2
3 lanes 1 2 3 3
4+ lanes 2 2 3 3
26 - 30 mph
1-2 lanes 1 2 3 3
3 lanes 2 3 3 3
4+ lanes 2 3 4 4
> 30 mph
1-2 lanes 2 2 3 3
3 lanes 3 3 3 4
4+ lanes 3 4 4 4
Table B.11 Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings for Medium Traffic Volume
Page 152 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |B-12
Source: City of College Station
UNCONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LTS FOR HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME (7,500 AADT)
TRAFFIC CONTROL TRAFFIC SPEED CROSSING WIDTH
CROSSING TREATMENTS
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND AND CURB EXTENSION(S)
RAISED REFUGE ISLAND ONLY
CURB EXTENSION ONLY NONE
Rapid Flashing Beacons
< 25 mph
1-2 lanes 1 2 2 2
3 lanes 2 2 3 3
4+ lanes 2 3 3 4
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes 2 2 2 3
3 lanes 2 3 3 3
4+ lanes 3 3 4 4
> 30 mph
1-2 lanes 2 2 3 3
3 lanes 3 3 3 4
4+ lanes 3 4 4 4
No Traffic
Control
< 25 mph
1-2 lanes 2 2 2 3
3 lanes 2 2 3 3
4+ lanes 3 3 3 4
26 - 30 mph
1-2 lanes 2 2 2 3
3 lanes 2 3 3 3
4+ lanes 3 4 4 4
> 30 mph
1-2 lanes 2 3 3 3
3 lanes 3 3 4 4
4+ lanes 4 4 4 4
Table B.12 Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings for High Traffic Volume
Page 153 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026C-1
Page 154 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |C-2
Page 155 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026C-3
Page 156 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |C-4
Page 157 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026D-1
Source: City of College Station
Table D.1 Street Cross-Section Element Illustrative Examples
APPENDIX D: THOROUGHFARE CROSS SECTIONSCrossing 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.
STREET CROSS-SECTIONS ZONE EXAMPLES
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 158 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |D-2
Source: City of College Station
Table D.2 Visual Barrier Buffer Examples
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 159 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026D-3
Page 160 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |D-4
ALTERNATIVE SECTIONS
Note: All dimensions measure from back-of-curb and center of stripe. Not to scale
Page 161 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026D-5
Page 162 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |D-6
Page 163 of 167
| CITY OF COLLEGE STATION - 2026D-7
Page 164 of 167
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN |D-8
Page 165 of 167
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
CSTX.GOV • 979.764.3500
Page 166 of 167
May 11, 2026
Item No. 3.4.
Safety Consideration of Railroad Crossings and Shared Use Paths
Sponsor: Joe Allen, Staff Planner - Transportation & Mobility
Reviewed By CBC: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Greenways Advisory Board
Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding safety considerations of
active transportation users at railroad crossings and shared use paths.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
Recommendation(s):
Summary: At the February 9th meeting, the Board requested a future agenda regarding safety
concerns of active transportation users at railroad crossings and on shared use paths. This request
was made in response to concerns from the public regarding the state of existing railroad crossings,
particularly missing flange gap fillers as users cross the rails. There were also concerns expressed
regarding vehicles driving on shared use paths, which have been specifically observed between
Jones Butler Road to Harvey Mitchell Parkway. Staff will present information regarding the status of
these items for the Board's information and feedback.
Budget & Financial Summary:
Attachments:
None
Page 167 of 167