HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/2025 - 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: 258 702 381 255 9 | Passcode: ZP7uJ9QV
Phone: +1 979-431-4880 | Phone Conference ID: 347 290 912#
The City Council may or may not attend this meeting.
July 21, 2025 3:30 PM 1938 Executive Conference 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 video
conference 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 the meeting minutes.
Attachments: 1. June 9, 2025 Minutes
3.2. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a recap of the public meetings and
surveys for the Active Transportation Master Plan Corridor Feasibility Study.
Sponsors: Jesse Dimeolo
Attachments: 1. Memorandum
2. Online Survey Responses
3.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding considerations of micromobility devices
within an active transportation network.
Sponsors: Joe Allen
Attachments: 1. Micromobility BPG Board Brief
3.4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
assessment of roadway segments and crossings as part of the Active Transportation Master
Plan.
Sponsors: Jesse Dimeolo
Attachments: 1. BLTS Segments Map
2. BLTS Crossings_A1
3. BLTS Crossings_B1
4. BLTS Crossings_B2
Page 1 of 39
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Advisory Board
Page 2 July 21, 2025
3.5. Presentation and discussion regarding the following items related to biking, walking, and
greenways.
a. Public Meetings of Interest
b. Capital and Private Project Updates
3.6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings.
• August 11, 2025 ~ Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board at 3:30pm in the
1938 Executive Conference 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 July 16, 2025 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.
Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly
Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia.
“Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire
libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411,
Page 2 of 39
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Advisory Board
Page 3 July 21, 2025
Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad
portando arma de mano al aire libre.”
Page 3 of 39
MINUTES
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
June 9, 2025
MEMBERS PRESENT:Chairperson Scott Shafer, Board Members Kathy Langlotz, Neo
Jang, Joy Chmelar, Matthew Jackson and Carla Robinson.
MEMBERS ABSENT:Thomas Woodfin
STAFF PRESENT:Transportation Planning Administrator Jason Schubert, Senior
Planner Jesse DiMeolo, Staff Planner Carl Ahrens, Staff Planner
Joe Allen, Graduate Traffic Engineer II DeAnna Ordonez, 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 3:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors.
David Neshyba, employee at JMT Engineering, stated he had been imbedded in the TxDOT
Bryan District office and had the opportunity to develop transportation alternative applications,
one of which was selected for funding for FM 2818. He also mentioned he had worked for
TxDOT as a planning engineer for 31 years and was wanting to observe and learn more about
this Board to see how he could assist.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Agenda Items.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.1: Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting
minutes.
Board Member Robinson stated that the May minutes needed to be revised to reflect that she was
present at the meeting but had to leave part way through.
Board Member Langlotz motioned to approve the meeting minutes from May as revised,
Board Member Jang seconded the motion, minutes were approved 6-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.2: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the status
of existing programs identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Mater Plan.
Planner Ahrens presented this item.
Page 4 of 39
Chairperson Shafer said that he liked the idea of the campus bicycle tours. He asked if staff was
aware of any campus where that had been done and what steps were needed to make that happen.
Planner Ahrens responded that he was not aware of another campus currently implementing this,
though he believed it had likely happened elsewhere. He suggested that a possible solution
would involve collaboration between staff and the campus Transportation Services department.
Board Member Jang said that he had a friend reach out to the campus tour, but he did not get a
positive connection back.
Chairperson Shafer said it seemed that we would have to find a way to integrate this idea into
new student orientation and if people were willing to sign up for it in the first month of classes.
That way staff would have a contact list and could reach back out if they were able to come do it.
Board Member Jang said he felt there could be different kinds of tours like for new student
orientation, parents’ weekend and ring day.
Chairperson Shafer said he would be a in favor of keeping it in a form that included all those
ideas as the Board moves forward.
Board Member Jang brought up a point concerning the Share the Road campaign. He said that
the implied message for the bike route sign that read, “bike lane ends,” would be to share the
lane with the cars, but the language communicates to drivers that the cyclists no longer belong in
that space. He asked staff if that could possibly be revised.
Graduate Engineer Ordonez stated that the sign and the language used specifically come from the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and it was the regulated sign.
Chairperson Shafer asked if there was any way to supplement it with another sign.
Board Member Langlotz suggested adding a sign on the same post that said “share the road.”
Senior Planner DiMeolo said he had spoken to the Senior City Traffic Engineer, Randell Smith,
about wayfinding signage and making a more comprehensive system. He suggested that this
should be a part of the new master plan on how to improve signage. He added that Senior
Engineer Smith told him that another plaque could be added right below the first one on the sign.
Board Member Jackson mentioned that some cities treat bike routes like the bus routes. They
assign numbers that way people know the safest routes to bike.
Board Member Robinson asked if there was any interest from the school district to promote a
walking school bus.
Board Member Jang said he currently volunteers in the school’s Health Advisory Council and he
had already reached out to the superintendent who said there needed to be a combined
Page 5 of 39
partnership from the ISD as well as the City to make this into a holistic program that was offered
to the families and students.
Chairperson Shafer said that it was going to take an individual to figure out how to make the
connection with the schools and make it all happen.
Board Member Jang mentioned that there was already a family at Oakwood Elementary doing
the bike bus of twelve kids that was slowly growing.
Chairperson Shafer said it seemed that something that would be helpful that the schools might
have access to, was identifying the neighborhoods where there is a concentration of kids
attending that school and speak to their parents about the possibility of participation.
Board Member Jang said on the enforcement side that a friend got a ticket on a bike for running
a stop sign and that it was an expensive ticket.
Chairperson Shafer and Board Member Langlotz mentioned traffic laws differ in other states.
Senior Planner DiMeolo stated a bike education class like defensive driving could be created.
Chairperson Shafer asked what the duties of the City’s park rangers were.
Planner Ahrens stated staff would follow up with Municipal Judge Ed Spillane on the topic.
Planner Ahrens answered that from his understanding they would respond to people needing help
and making sure everyone was following all the parks’ rules.
Board Member Robinson asked if the park rangers could enforce the local ordinances and cite
people.
Planner Ahrens said he was not sure what the legality of their enforcement was exactly.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.3: Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the
Corridor Feasibility Study being performed as part of the Active Transportation Master
Plan.
Senior Planner DiMeolo presented this item.
Chairperson Shafer said he wanted to hold on his comments and wait until after they had
feedback ideas to see how some of the ideas would work.
Senior Planner DiMeolo said they would also have it posted on the city website in case people
were not able to make it to the in-person meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.4: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an update
of grant applications planned to be submitted related to walking and biking.
Page 6 of 39
Engineer Ordonez informed the Board that staff had applied for the Transportation Alternatives
grant through TxDOT. She said that the purpose of this grant would be to study safety issues
concerning bicycle and pedestrians in the Northgate area. The grant would cover 80% of the cost
and the City would have a minimum local match of 20%.
Administrator Schubert informed the Board that staff were in the process of submitting two grant
applications to the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Call for Projects
for Category 9 funding, which is for bicycle and pedestrian-related projects. One is for bike and
pedestrian safety improvements at the intersection of George Bush Dr at Timber St. The other is
a new sidewalk on the south side of University Oaks Blvd between Stalling Dr and Munson Ave.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.5: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding
considerations of bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit stops and an initial evaluation
of existing conditions.
Planner Allen presented this item.
Board Member Robinson asked if the ridership data would be able to break down information
between pedestrians and bicyclists.
Planner Allen said they had not clarified if that information would be separated, but staff will
definitely ask and find out.
Board Member Robinson said that pedestrians always using public transportation, but the concept
of bicycles using it is new.
Planner Allen said that it might be a situation where a number of these transit stops have bicycle
parking. He said it would be a three-mode journey where they are biking to the stop, riding the bus
and then walking to their destination.
Chairperson Shafer asked if there was a plan to do this specifically, was this going to be integrated
into the Active Transportation Master Plan.
Planner Allen stated that the idea was for it to be integrated into the new Active Transportation
Master Plan.
Board Member Jang said he had met Wendy Weedon at Bryan Transit District (BTD) and she said
funding had always been a struggle. He asked if there was a way that the City budget could be
allocated to support BTD in their operation.
Administrator Schubert stated he had mentioned before about the local MPO now being designated
as a Transportation Management Area which resulted in reduced federal transit funding for BTD.
Local jurisdictions are being asked to contribute to BTD to make up the shortfall. The City and
other local jurisdiction have not had to contribute in the past because BTD was able to use Texas
A&M’s transit service as a type of local match.
Page 7 of 39
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.6: Presentation and discussion regarding the following items related
to biking, walking, and greenways.
a) Public Meetings of Interest –
Administrator Schubert stated the Council Transportation and Mobility Committee is
scheduled to meet on June 17th at 3:30 p.m. in City Hall. He also stated a public meeting
for the Corridor Feasibility Study for the Active Transportation Master Plan would be
held on June 25th from 6:00 -7:00 p.m. at the Lincoln Recreation Center.
b) Capital and Private Project Updates –
Administrator Schubert stated the Foster Avenue sidewalk project is halfway complete.
This project was identified and funded through CDBG funds.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.7: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings.
a) July 21, 2025 ~ Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Advisory Board Meeting
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
A Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Member may inquire about a subject
for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the
recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to
place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
Board Member Jackson reminded staff he had inquired about an update on the State Highway 6
construction.
Administrator Schubert stated that TxDOT was planning to provide an update to the City Council
or Council Transportation & Mobility Committee and an update would be after that.
Board Member Langlotz inquired about a reasonable expectation of a conversation on local safe
passing ordinance.
Administrator Schubert stated that an item would be scheduled at the end of summer or beginning
of fall of this year.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
Scott Shafer, Chairperson Grecia Fuentes, Board Secretary
Page 8 of 39
Planning & Development Services • 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 • College Station, TX 77840
Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
July 21, 2025 TO: Members of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, Greenways Advisory Board FROM: Jesse DiMeolo Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: Active Transportation Master Plan Corridor Feasibility Study Recap
Item:
Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a recap of the public meetings and
surveys for the Active Transportation Master Plan Corridor Feasibility Study.
Summary:
On June 25th, City Staff and our consultant, Kimley Horn, held the second and final public
meeting to receive feedback from citizens on four important active transportation corridors
leading to the city center and campus. Attendees provided comments on conceptual designs
that were shown on roll plots of the four corridors. These designs were also posted online for
survey responses from June 25th to July 14th. There were nine individuals that attended the
public meeting held at the Lincoln Recreation Center. There were 75 individuals that responded
to the online survey. The responses to the survey are available in the attached Online Survey
Responses document.
The corridor roll plots are broken up into four sections below with the most common themes and
responses shown for the surveys and comments we received from the public. The most efficient
way to view these roll plots, due to their size and difficulty printing off, would be to use the
following link: www.cstx.gov/activetransportation. [Towards the top of this webpage there will be
four links for the four different roll plots.]
Summary of Feedback by Corridor:
Fairview Avenue and Montclair Avenue / Eleanor Street
1. Supportive Feedback:
a. Recognized as a heavily trafficked corridor near campus that would benefit from improvements. b. Overall support of the one-way pair
c. Good use of data collection of traffic volumes
Page 9 of 39
2. Concerns: a. Some opposition to making streets one-way, which respondents felt could cause
confusion and reduce connectivity. b. Concern about door zone hazards (bikes next to parked cars). c. Trash pickup days already create congestion—new design must accommodate this. 3. Suggestions: a. Swap locations of parking and bike lanes, placing parked cars as a buffer. b. Requests to not design straight streets but provide more curves to help slow traffic c. All way stops needed at some intersections. Maybe even some raised crosswalks and reflective elements. d. Add mid-block crossings and improve visibility at intersections.
Timber Street
1. Supportive Feedback:
a. Generally seen as a needed improvement, especially with nearby schools and Texas A&M campus.
b. Support for traffic calming (e.g., narrower lanes) and safer infrastructure for children. 2. Concerns: a. Dangerous intersection at George Bush and Timber/Bizzell. Right turning vehicles onto Bizzell conflict with through movement of cyclists b. Concerns about driver visibility and fast-turning vehicles. 3. Suggestions: a. Add curb bump-outs, clear directional signage, and traffic calming measures. b. Extend improvements along the full corridor, not just in isolated segments. c. Requests for more pedestrian comfort, especially at intersections. This includes shading
Anderson Street
1. Supportive Feedback:
a. Broad support for two-way protected bike lanes, especially from families whose children bike to school and/or the parks.
b. Many residents appreciated raised bus stops for safer interactions with cyclists. c. Overall support of the proposed roundabout 2. Concerns:
a. Concerns about how signals will recognize the presence of cyclists at intersections b. Worry about driver visibility, especially at turns (e.g., George Bush & Anderson). c. Potential congestion during school pick-up/drop-off times. d. Questioning the roundabout and its safety for pedestrians and cyclists. 3. Suggestions: a. Incorporate mid-block crossings, shade trees, and better left turn access for cyclists crossing the street. b. Sidewalk needed from Holleman to Village Drive across from the park c. Lower speed limits slightly increase comfort for active transportation users.
Page 10 of 39
Planning & Development Services • 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 • College Station, TX 77840
Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
Tarrow Street
1. Supportive Feedback:
a. Many cyclists and pedestrians emphasized Tarrow Street and East 29th as a
critical connection between College Station and Bryan.
b. Strong demand for continuous shared-use paths and better safe crossing
treatments.
c. Frequent mention of unsafe current conditions: high-speed traffic, lack of
sidewalks, and difficult crossings.
2. Concerns:
a. Worry over removing a vehicle lane, which some felt would worsen congestion
near University Drive intersections.
b. Skepticism about RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacons); some preferred
HAWK (high intensity activated crosswalk beacons) signals.
3. Suggestions:
a. Limit amount of pavement at street corners
b. Move planting strips between road and sidewalk for safety and shade.
Attachment:
1. Online Survey Responses
Page 11 of 39
Online Survey Responses
Question 1
How do you feel about the proposed roadway concepts for each study corridor?
Please select a choice below.
Answered: 75
Green: I like the proposed concept Blue: I’m neutral/unsure about the proposed concept
Gold: I dislike the proposed concept
Page 12 of 39
Page 13 of 39
Question 2
Please order the proposed roadway concepts from most favorite to least favorite
(place your favorite at the top).
Answered: 68 Skipped: 7
Page 14 of 39
Question 3
Please leave any additional feedback about the study corridors here. Refer to the roll
plot links on the City Active Transportation Webpage. By clicking on the roll plot
links, you can view a .pdf file of each corridor design.
Answered: 48 Skipped: 27
Concerned about the impact to our driveway from Timber Street (near the corner of George Bush Drive.) It is
already a somewhat steep entrance and the proposal would likely make it worse. The land on the southwest side of
Timber St. (near GBD) has a significant slope.
7/11/2025 03:06 PM
There should be barriers for bike lanes like on George Bush since otherwise cars don’t always respect the bikes in
bike lanes
7/11/2025 01:39 PM
Suggest adding shade structures and drinking fountains where appropriate.
7/10/2025 07:20 PM
Listed in order that directly affects CSISD student & school bus safety. 1 - Timber St continues safety
improvements around 3 separate schools, updating an already congested blacktop street with clearly marked areas
for pedestrians, cyclists, private vehicles, and school buses. 1b - Caveat: Maintaining access to/from school bus
lanes, including left-turns onto Timber St from Oakwood Intermediate and College View High. ~17 school buses
use the CVHS bus lane. 2 - Tarrow St extends clear, safe access to neighborhoods that have already increased
safety with sidewalk improvements over the past few years. Adds safe space for students to board/disembark
school buses. 3 - Montclair Ave / Fairview Ave creates safe access through neighborhoods historically congested
with university traffic. Also adds safe space for students to board/disembark school buses, but we typically avoid
the area altogether. 4 - Anderson St feasibility will be an issue with parent pick-up at A&M Consolidated Middle
School. Parents currently pull over and wait on the proposed bike path of Anderson St in the afternoons. Recent
bike lane changes on George Bush Dr displaced school parent traffic, already leading to greater congestion, safety
concerns, and potential property damage in the surrounding neighborhood as well. Providing safeways for cyclists
is important, but doing so should not outweigh access to public schools. 4a - Currently all regular school bus stops
on Anderson St are on the north side (NWB) to limit the number of students crossing as the majority of regular bus
riders live in the apartment complexes between Anderson St and Texas Ave. What would be the process for a
special needs bus unloading a wheelchair at 1608 Anderson St? 4b - What is the safe approach for SWB George
Bush cyclists turning left onto Anderson St? NW Anderson cyclists turning right onto George Bush Dr? SEB
Anderson cyclists turning left onto any other street? 4c - Fully support the traffic circle. Would support the traffic
circle and maintaining opposite-side cycle lanes.
7/10/2025 03:16 PM
I love the improvements for Tarrow Street as this will fill in a gap in the city sidewalk and bike network. I am
concerned about the sight lines from the Crunch/REI parking lot and Arguello Dr entrances and how cyclists and
peds will be visible as there is no proposed crosswalk on the plots. This is a great concept and will enable more
people to choose other modes when traveling in this area. On the Timber St entrance I do have an issue with the
end of the cycle lane being a left turn from the bike lane onto Park Place. This seems like a prime location for
sideswipes as drivers will not see cyclists until its too late. Consider changing this to be a 90 degree turn from
Page 15 of 39
Timber to Park with a small curb bump out. This way cycles can make eye contact with drivers. Anderson 2 way
bike lanes are a GREAT IDEA!!! Bonus points for the raised bus stop cycle lane.
7/7/2025 07:41 PM
You should look into the idea of making timber more of a street with narrower lanes and wider sidewalk it would
make more since given the context of the homes and schools located on it. On Montclair and Fairview I would
prefer to see a counter flow bike lane instead given the fact that the street would be narrowed enough to be
comfortable riding in the street.
7/5/2025 12:50 PM
bike riders are not using the corridors that are designated. They will not go out of their way to use these.
7/4/2025 06:44 PM
The current parking situation is horrendous. Cars driving through these areas have to wait to pass because of the
poor parking, the overly large vehicles, the bad parking maneuvering, the pedestrians, during football visitors park
up and down the streets.. more importantly than any of these suggestions, there needs to be a sidewalk install on
Wellborn, south of George Bush to Park Place!! There needs to be consideration for park and ride lots for football
games, crosswalks need to be lighted on the major roads, a bike lane on both sides of the minor roads seems to be
unnecessary. There's currently not enough foot and pedestrian traffic due the week. What are the incentives for
students who live in this area to utilize bikes, scooters, walking? Are there additional bike racks at the bus stops?
So many students drive now because the buses are overcrowded and unreliable.
7/4/2025 05:21 AM
Glad were adding in bike routes connecting to George Bush, as well as one near the tutoring center
7/3/2025 01:11 PM
I would check on the delay at Luther and Wellborn. I think this got pretty backed up when I used to live in the area.
7/3/2025 09:52 AM
Please stop spending huge amounts of money building giant bike lanes that no one will use (applied to all). Please
do not make Montclair and Fairview one-way streets. One-way streets in towns where they are not common are a
complete nightmare. The one-way streets already in this town cause major confusion and safety issues regularly.
PLEASE do not put a traffic circle on Anderson. The City keeps forcing these where they do not belong/need to be.
It will cause large traffic delays on Anderson and there is nowhere near enough traffic on Park Place to justify that. I
lived on Anderson for three years, I know.
7/3/2025 09:41 AM
For the Timber St proposal, there would need to be clear signage and markings on the road for which car lane goes
left, straight, or right from Bizzell to George Bush or Timber. Current lanes are designated differently from the
proposal and are not clear/obvious to drivers and cyclists/scooter users.
7/3/2025 08:39 AM
It looks like Montclair and Fairview will become one way streets. Having lived in a city with an abundance of these,
in a very high foot and vehicle traffic area, they do nothing but cause headaches and wrecks from people turning
down the wrong way constantly. Please do not install one way streets. Also I am hesitant about Tarrow and Timber
as these streets are already a little narrow and you will be narrowing them further. With the addition of bike lanes on
either side of Timber it makes me nervous thinking cars are going to be driving half in those bike lanes just to give
themselves more space. At least with Tarrow there will be curbs where the space is now narrowed and therefore it
will be less likely for cars to enter the space meant for pedestrians and bikes. Anderson seems the best so far as
you will simply be shifting the lanes around, not narrowing, and there will be buffers between the pedestrian/bike
areas and the road so there is no potential crossover from cars.
Page 16 of 39
7/3/2025 08:37 AM
1.) Tarrow Street NEEDS to cross the creek and extend to Carter Creek Parkway. I know that is half Bryan's
responsibility but it MUST for safe transportation between the two cities. Tarrow St/29th St is the most glaring gap
in active transportation in the area. I rode my bicycle with my dog to the park a few months ago and WILL NOT DO
IT AGAIN UNTIL IT IS FIXED. It was harrowing. Dangerous. All the adjectives. 2.) On the Fairview/Montclair
corridor, the bike lane and the parking lane should switch places and be separated by a curb. It eliminates any
conflict between cyclists/scooter riders and parking cars/opening doors. Bike lanes between traffic lanes and
parking lanes are chaotic areas. It is more than nothing but it creates a lot of chaos. There also needs to be an
adequately safe crossing of George Bush. A double yellow/red light is a cheap and effective option. I forgot the
name of this type of crossing but there are several in my hometown of Boise, ID. Pedestrian hits button, double
lights blink yellow allowing drivers to slow down, yellows turn red, allowing pedestrian to cross, and then the lights
blink red, indicating to the drivers that they may proceed once the crosswalk is empty. There is a sign indicating this
to the drivers as well. VERY EFFECTIVE. But if a bridge or tunnel is possible that would be amazing. 3.) All the on
Street bike lanes in Bryan and College Station while buffered, would benefit greatly by adding bright and reflective
painted parking curbs to the buffer zones, spaced out roughly similar to lane markings, allowing gaps for cyclists to
enter and exit the bike lane as they need, while providing an extra barrier between them and traffic without config
them to the bike lane for its entire length. Any sort of upright bright and reflective plastic markers on the parking
curbs would also be good. Fairly cheap, accessible items that once implemented would be revolutionary for active
transportation in the city. Buffer space is good between cycle lanes and vehicle lanes but effectiveness is almost
zero without being paired with some sort of physical barrier. That being said, a continuous barrier that runs the
entire length of the bicycle lane doesn't leave much room for flexibility for the travel path of cyclists such as of their
destination is on the other side of the road but they would either have to hop the curb or ride to the next intersection
and turn around. I believe these are simple and relatively cheap solutions that would be exponentially effective in
getting people out of cars and into the fresh air for the relatively small amount of investment. This is coming from a
Blue Collar truck driver who owns a vehicle but still chooses to bike to work across town 90% of days. While I have
a relatively exceptional amount of comfort on a bicycle among the current infrastructure challenges, I would like to
see changes that would ease the discomfort of people with tolerance for hazard mitigation well below my level, as
it's a win-win for everybody. While I enjoy biking around the city, I would one day like to safely enjoy biking around
the city with my children, wife, mother, grandmother, etc. Thank you for reading my submission and I hope to see
some or all of these ideas implemented for the long term benefit of our citizens of all ages, fitness levels, and levels
of experience with alternative forms of commuting. I will never miss an opportunity to help the process along in any
way I can. Thank you
7/2/2025 10:14 PM
Please don't put both bike lanes on the same side of the street. Kids are already confused and use lanes to go any
direction they want all over town. Having one street, Anderson, with lanes on one side to go both directions just
muddies the issue further. People need to understand that they follow street directions when in the street.
7/2/2025 09:22 PM
Protected bike lanes (compared to lanes that are only marked with paint) are always a benefit to protect and make
those on bikes/micromobility feel safer. These projects are a good start, but there are many more corridors that
need improvement.
7/2/2025 08:03 PM
Good start for bike lanes, need on major corridors like University and Texas too
7/2/2025 06:17 PM
The lanes should be actively protected with a concrete barrier for both the safety of pedestrians and vehicles
7/2/2025 05:03 PM
Page 17 of 39
More sidewalks the better!! Please add one on Texas past 21 I'd love to get home from downtown safely instead of
in the ditch
7/2/2025 03:29 PM
While I like the separation between bikes and cars, it would be better if bikes had a stop each time they cross a
road. Indeed on George Bush dr., when coming from the university, it is hard to see bikes and I'm always afraid
when crossing the bike lane to miss somebody.
7/2/2025 03:18 PM
I'm a Bryanite so my rankings are biased. The Tarrow improvements really hinge on continuing the shared use path
into Bryan. I'd like to know whether their planners were consulted so that there's a consistent plan for the future. I'm
skeptical about the RRFBs because cars already ignore others around town, HAWKs would be way better.
7/2/2025 03:04 PM
My family owned 407 Timber since 1966 and now it belongs to my sister and me along with 409 Timber. We believe
Timber should be a dead end abutting Timm. Aggies fly down our street even with cars galore parked on the street.
We have requested this for 40+ years to deaf ears. Now is the time with all the sidewalks you would like to add.
Make a smart change.
7/2/2025 01:58 PM
Need to add shading enhancements to projects. All projects are North/South and no East/West projects.
7/2/2025 01:41 PM
i wish you could bring this down the entire length of timber street. the on street parking makes the lower part of
timber particularly dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. and what about park place? heavily traveled by
pedestrians. what you propose are just unconnected sections. nobody would design for cars that way. i own
property on timber so have focused on that design concept over the others fyi
7/2/2025 01:35 PM
5 corridors, only 4 listed to choose most to least favorite.....
7/2/2025 01:23 PM
The Anderson concept would be very beneficial not only to my kids (who will be biking to school from Southwest
Parkway up to Oakwood and AMCMS) but to many other families like me I am aware of who drop their kids off and
pick them up every day because there is not a safe bike option.
7/2/2025 01:22 PM
Also consider the two schools with all the buses that go through them. Updating this should account for them and
would also make all of the kids safer.
7/2/2025 01:11 PM
The tarrow street one is a must!!!! My bike is my main transportation method and it is very hard for me to go to
bryan due to lack of bike paths linking Cstat and Bryan. Going to walmart and lowes is very stressful because I
have to be on the same road as massive trucks that are probably going over the speed limit on tarrow street. I
usually try to go as fast as I can on that stretch on tarrow street where there is no bike path or sidewalk so I can
avoid cars as much as possible. Then I usually go on the sidewalk with my bike. I am a phd student working on
infrastructure design with community-based engagement and input so I understand how valuable community input
is to infrastructure projects. I would be glad to answer any further questions you all might have. I live on lincoln ave
and use my bike for everything.
7/2/2025 12:35 PM
Page 18 of 39
I LOVE the Anderson plan. My children ride bikes to South Knoll Elementary each day. The route is safe enough
that we let them bike together. However, my older son goes to Oakwood and I do not feel that there are safe
options to ride alone so I ride with him. This Anderson plan would make me feel much better about him riding
without me. Please implement this plan!
7/2/2025 10:52 AM
I’m excited the city is creating more safe bike avenues. I would love to see more in the Southwood and Rock Prairie
areas, too.
7/2/2025 10:37 AM
There needs to be more sidewalks all over town and doggy waste bins. This whole town is terrible for pedestrians.
7/2/2025 10:09 AM
I'm not sure the pedestrian demand exists along Tarrow for the scope of work. Furthermore, the proposed design
has a 6 ft. sidewalk. I'm also not sure about the amount of left turning movement, but an 11 ft. turn lanes seems
narrow. Furthermore, the intersection with University is already strange. The right turn lane is directly lined up with
the through direction to cross university. As it is, you must combine left turn traffic with through traffic. How is the
signal timed, does this cause problems, would the signal be more efficient if the through lane was not combined
with the left turn lane? Obviously you want to avoid right turn traffic being stopped by through traffic, but this can be
done with a right turn lane or extended free right. I worry these pedestrian improvements will not impact very many
users and will adversely impact the University Dr. intersection.
7/2/2025 09:42 AM
Love protected bike lanes! People don't ride bikes here because it's unsafe, not because they don't want to.
7/2/2025 08:42 AM
Bike lanes would be great for College Station- this would make it much easier for the university to recruit students
and faculty
7/2/2025 08:25 AM
Your concepts create more traffic and constitute safety hazards. Please stop endangering people.
7/2/2025 05:51 AM
If any sort of shared use path is built in the south side historic district (Montclair & Fairview) then street parking
must be controlled or limited somehow. The streets are too narrow, especially on trash pick up days.
7/1/2025 12:28 PM
For Anderson St. it will be important that cyclists are able to safetly turn onto Southwest pky. and Holleman st. from
the bike lane!
7/1/2025 08:42 AM
Glade St. could be another good choice.
6/30/2025 09:23 PM
Anderson St. - love the design and addition of the bus stop detail. My suggestion would be to add a bike traffic light
at the intersection of George Bush and Anderson to make the intersection safer. Tarrow St. - Suggestion would be
to move the planting strip between the road and the sidewalk as an additional barrier. Timber St. - Suggestion
would be to add a protected intersection at the intersection of George Bush. Would a protected cross walk be
needed near the entrance of the school? Montclair/Fairview: Suggestion would be to switch the parking spots with
the bike lanes, so that the parked cars serve as a barrier between cyclists and cars. This would also prevent
Page 19 of 39
cyclists from being caught in the door zone. To accommodate for trash pick up, the space used for the parking
spots can have designated trash can zones?
6/30/2025 04:57 PM
For Anderson Street, with the proposed developments, I would like to see accessible mid-block crossings, tree
canopies, protected bike lanes, and measures to prevent cars from cutting into median access to bypass buses.
Given the length of the street, it should be comfortable for pedestrians. However, without proper shade and water
facilities, it could be hazardous for those walking or cycling, especially if using Anderson as a connection point. Mid-
block crossings would also be an improvement since the sanctioned crossings are located at half-mile intersections
at Holleman and Southwest Parkway. Lower speed limits are also beneficial, even if it is five mph less than the
current limit, since the improvements discussed include reducing lane width. Additionally, for the Aggie Spirit and
BTD buses that will be stopping in the lane to pick up riders from the sidewalk, an intervention method is needed to
prevent cars from trying to pass in the median, as no vehicle can see around the buses to avoid a potential
collision. For Tarrow St., I would like to see the addition of tree canopies and the reduction of a left lane, as there
are two present for northbound drivers to travel south on Tarrow. The addition of trees would provide more value for
those walking, including shade, safety, drainage, and aesthetics of the sidewalk. Additionally, there are two left-
turn-only lanes. Replace one of them with additional green space on the island to develop a little park/green space
area for the surrounding businesses to increase value. For Timber St., same comments to see more trees and
shade. For the crossings located on the TAMU side, I would want to see the repurposed slip lanes to provide
additional comfort for those waiting to cross the intersection with more natural landscaping, seating, and shade.
Furthermore, I have concerns about drivers turning right onto Timber Street when a cyclist in the bike lane
continues to go straight down George Bush. It is a potential blind spot since drivers will feel pressured to drive fast,
and making a fast turn can threaten someone in the bike lane. For Montclair and Fairview, I would like to see more
awareness to reduce the chances of a cyclist or pedestrian getting doored by exiting drivers if the path is parallel to
parked cars. I would prefer, on a safety stand point, for the parked cars to serve as the buffer with reduced chances
for dooring to occur. Otherwise, I love all the improvements.
6/30/2025 04:48 PM
Tarrow: The biggest issue with this intersection is that there is no protection for folks using the bike lane on Bush.
People going straight in the bike lane have no protection from people turning right creating conflict. Anderson: The
bike traffic needs to be kept separate from pedestrian traffic in the round about. Please see below link for more
information. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
6/30/2025 09:50 AM
Thank you for improving our community! I do like most concepts. I'm not a fan that there are no bike lanes
proposed on Tarrow and am mildly concerned that the Fairview proposal might put cyclists into the dooring zone of
parked cars.
6/29/2025 04:55 PM
I’m excited to see more plans to put in Bollards on more bike lanes. As a regular cyclist, the bollards add a layer of
security! The bike lanes with just a painted line make me nervous because there’s nothing to deter a distracted
driver from drifting into me or my lane (which happens frequently on Welsh Ave!!) I also love to see more/wider
multi-use paths! I LOVE walking/cycling on them!
6/29/2025 04:40 PM
I would still really prefer to see separated bike and ped infrastructure on Tarrow, but I will take what I can get! Great
job, I look forward to these!
6/29/2025 12:23 PM
Page 20 of 39
It is absurd to take away a vehicle lane on Tarrow to put in bike lanes. The traffic backup at the light from University
Drive is already stacked too deep and this will make it so much worse. You should be more concerned about
moving vehicular traffic than the occasional bicycle. About a 1000 vehicles/1 bicycle ratio estimate. Do not take
away lanes on Tarrow. Find another way.
6/28/2025 09:21 AM
I ride most of the listed corridors regularly both to and from work, day and night, and for work. As a commuter,
shared use paths are NOT preferred for active transportation. They mix low speed pedestrian traffic with cyclists
and now, e-bikes and electric scooters. They create additional intersections (driveways) where cyclists are often
struck because vehicles cannot perceive their speed or see them. Active transportation users, especially for those
who cycle, ride at-speed, they are not riding for recreation and prefer the least obstructed, most direct route to their
destination. I teach Police and EMS cyclist instructors and have seldom observed ‘new’ designs which are safer or
faster than the simple bike lane. I have ridden in cities all over the US, and the ‘regular’ bike lane is the least
complex for cyclists to understand and drivers to negotiate. University Drive East has a shared use path between
Highway 6 and Texas. It is far slower and far less safe for cyclists than the section east of Highway 6. Every
driveway is a hazard because drivers are looking at the road, not the sidewalk. We teach all of our new cyclists
John Forrester’s axiom: Cyclists fair best when they behave and are treated as drivers of vehicles. The two way
bike lanes in the Anderson design violate this rule and places cyclists either out of the scanning pattern of drivers
and forces any cyclist who need to make a left turn to negotiate a bike lane in addition to the normal traffic. The left
turn lanes on Anderson should be eliminated and the roadway designed more similarly to the Fairview design with
parking along the curb and the bike lanes nearer to the center of the roadway. The new design eliminates all of the
on-street parking currently available and rally does not improve throughput or safety.
6/27/2025 07:14 PM
These proposals look great and will really help with mobility in CS! I’m especially excited about Tarrow the
possibility that Bryan will match this infrastructure on 26th. I’m also in favor of one way streets with large bike lanes.
6/27/2025 03:50 PM
Tarrow Street improvements are most needed. No sidewalks in the area on a higher traffic road means pedestrians
have less alternatives than pedestrians traversing the other proposed changes. That said, they all look great!
6/27/2025 03:45 PM
Page 21 of 39
July 21, 2025
Item No. 3.3.
Micromobility Devices within an Active Transportation Network
Sponsor: Joe Allen, Staff Planner - Transportation & Mobility
Reviewed By CBC: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Greenways Advisory Board
Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding considerations of
micromobility devices within an active transportation network.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
Recommendation(s):
Summary: This item provides an overview of existing micromobility regulations at the state and local
level alongside best practice recommendations for integrating micromobility devices into the active
transportation network. The attached overview covers national trends in micromobility regulation,
systems of micromobility classification, comparisons of performance between traditional forms of
active transportation and electric micromobility devices, and case studies examining typical conflicts
experienced by micromobility users. The document also includes an appendix containing the exact
regulatory language found in the Texas Transportation Code and the College Station Code of
Ordinances for micromobility devices.
Budget & Financial Summary:
Attachments:
1. Micromobility BPG Board Brief
Page 22 of 39
MEMORANDUM
July 21, 2025
TO: Members of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Greenways Advisory Board
FROM: Joseph Allen
Staff Planner, Planning & Development Services
SUBJECT: Micromobility Board Brief
Existing trends and concerns surrounding micromobility regulations (nation-wide)
Research into nation-wide trends in micromobility categorization and regulation shows a number of
inconsistencies at different levels of government, these trends include:
• Micromobility devices are frequently subject to the same regulations as other modes of
transportation in contradictory ways.
• The regulations for specific device types can vary widely from place to place
• Individual jurisdictions regulate functionally similar devices differently
• Many entities prohibit the use of specific micromobility devices entirely, either through outright
bans or through a combination of regulations that preclude micromobility use in certain
situations
The research showcases regulation inconsistency and contradictory policies that create a confusing
environment for individual micromobility users and local policy enforcers.
Federal, State, and Local Definitions, Classifications, and Regulations for Micromobility
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (Federal)
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration classifies micromobility devices into 3 separate categories and 3
separate subcategories:
• Electric Standing or Sitting Scooters
• Electric Bicycles
o Class 1
o Class 2
o Class 3
• Other
Page 23 of 39
These categories utilize a device’s weight, number of occupants, power supply, size, and speed to
separate devices into different classifications. This approach to classification seems to be the most
effective at capturing all different variations of micromobility devices.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center has developed a table showcasing each of these
categories and the associated device specifications
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center’s Micromobility Typology Table
Page 24 of 39
Texas Transportation Code (State)
The state document that defines and regulates different transportation modes throughout Texas is the
Texas Transportation Code. This document contains definitions and regulations for the following forms
of micromobility:
• Bicycles
• Electric Bicycles
o Class 1
o Class 2
o Class 3
• Motor-Assisted Scooters
• Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices
• Roller Skates
The Texas Transportation Code does not contain definitions or regulations for:
• Skateboards
• Electric Skateboards
• Single-wheeled Mobility Devices
• Hoverboards
The Texas Transportation Code also regulates the ability of local municipalities to impose their own
regulations on micromobility use. These regulations largely limit a local municipality’s ability to prevent
micromobility devices from using the same travel lanes as traditional bicycles.
College Station Code of Ordinances (Local)
The College Station Code of Ordinances does not categorize different types of micromobility devices,
rather the document contains a single overarching definition for micromobility that groups together the
categories of bicycle, electric bicycle, and motor-assisted scooter as defined in the Texas Transportation
Code. Local regulations surrounding micromobility use revolve around its use within a broader shared
network of devices for commercial purposes. As a result, the definition and accompanying regulations
do not capture non-commercial forms of micromobility, such as electric skateboards, hoverboards, or
single-wheeled mobility devices. The activities regulated in the College Station Code of Ordinances
revolve around user’s parking activities, such where they can and cannot park their device.
NACTO Best Practices for Micromobility Facility Urban Design Guide
NACTO’s Micromobility Device Classifications
Existing state laws push for micromobility devices to exist in the same travel lanes as traditional bicycles,
best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) seek to do the
same. NACTO categorizes bikeway devices into 4 different categories based on size and speed:
• Mini devices – Electric and non-electric scooters, skateboards, rollerblades, and other devices
under 20 in wide that are typically used while a person is standing upright
• Typical bikes – Electric and conventional upright bikes and tricycles, as well as recumbent bikes,
hand cycles, and any wheeled device up to 2.5 ft wide
• Cargo bikes – Electric and conventional bikes and tricycles between 2.5 - 3 ft wide that have an
extended wheelbase or that are pulling a trailer
• Extra-large bikes – Large freight tricycles, pedicabs, and other devices between 3 ft and typically
up to 4.5 ft wide
Page 25 of 39
NACTO Lane Width Recommendations for Micromobility Devices
These categories are used in the design guide’s table demonstrating the minimum and preferred
rideable widths for devices on bikeways.
Minium and Preferred Rideable Widths
Device Type One-Way Bike Lane Two-way Bike Lane
Minimum
Recommended Preferred Minimum
Recommended Preferred
Mini-Device 6 ft 7-8 ft 8-10 ft 11-13 ft
Typical Bike 6 ft 7-8 ft 8-10 ft 11-13 ft
Cargo Bike 6.5 ft 8-9 ft 9-11 ft 12-14 ft
Extra-Large Bike 7 ft 11.5-12.5 ft 12-14 ft 15-17 ft
NACTO’s design guidelines for micromobility devices and bicycles state that both modes of
transportation are capable of using a standard 6 ft wide travel lane, but the preferred travel lane width
for each device would be between 7 and 8 ft. This aligns with both the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Information Center and the Texas Transportation Code’s assessment of micromobility devices.
Speed Considerations for Micromobility Devices
While conventional and electric bikes have similar dimensions for the purposes of lane design, this does
not account for differences in operating speeds. Both devices have a similar range of speeds, but the
distribution of speed and average speeds differ significantly.
Device Type Typical Range of Speed
Conventional Bike 4-18 mph
Electric Bike 12-18 mph
Mini-Device 8-15 mph
• Conventional and electric bikes have the same upper limit for range of speed
• Conventional and electric bikes differ greatly when it comes to their lower limit for range of
speeds.
• The typical range of speeds for mini-devices falls within the average speed range of conventional
bikes
• Most dedicated facilities for bicycles (bike boulevards, advisory lanes, constrained bike lanes,
protected bikes lanes, and shared-use paths) are designed with the assumption that users are
traveling between 10-15 mph
o It is expected that this assumed speed with be further reduced by system factors such as
signal progression, operating width, and platooning
• Issues can arise given that the range of speed for both conventional and electric bikes is higher
than what dedicated facilities are designed to handle, these issues are more pronounce for
electric bikes since their average speed is not evenly distributed across their range of speeds.
Page 26 of 39
• Conventional bikes have a relatively even distribution of speed
• Electric Bikes have a noticeably uneven distribution with most users riding
Research Paper: Naturalistic Data to Assess E-Cyclist Behavior
NACTO’s Urban Design Guide cites researchers Dozza and Werneke who have studied the behavior of
both traditional and electric bicycles using naturalistic data. Naturalistic data utilizes on-device sensors
and cameras to record and compare data gathered by study participants. Analysis of the data from
traditional and electric bicycles shows differences in the types of risks each device experiences. As a
result, researchers recommend different counter measures to address safety for electric bicycles.
The study discusses risk in terms of “critical events” in which traditional and electric bicycles conflict
with either vulnerable road users (pedestrians and other bicyclists) or motorized vehicles (light and
heavy).
Page 27 of 39
• Combined, critical events involving either pedestrians or other bicycles represent 49% of all
conflicts experienced by study participants. Conversely, critical events with motorized vehicle
represent 29% of all conflicts.
o The discrepancy in the number of conflicts with vehicles as opposed to vulnerable road
users (pedestrians and bicycles) could be a consequence of local infrastructure (most
facilities in the study area consist of share-use paths for both bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Electric bicycles conflicted with motor vehicles (specifically heavy vehicles) more often than
traditional bicycles
o Analysis of video data from participants suggest that this is the result of driver’s
expectations about the behavior of electric bike users (drivers assume users have
traditional bicycles and underestimate the device’s speed and acceleration)
Assessments of distances traveled, total number of critical events, and severity of events has led
researchers to the following conclusions:
• Electric bicycles are most at risk of a conflict while at an intersection
• Infrastructure issues and adverse weather impact electric bicycles less than they impact
traditional bicycles
• Motorized vehicles are the most common threat to electric bicycles when both conflict
frequency and severity are considered
o The higher speeds of electric bicycles are more likely to create situations where they
collide with vehicles
o Could also be the result of users choosing alternative routes that put them in
closer/more frequent contact with vehicles
• The higher speeds, heavier weight, and lower mobility of electric bicycles might require
improved street lighting
o Participants voiced concerns about proper lighting
o Higher speed and lower mobility require electric bicycles to identify and respond to
hazards more quickly than traditional bicycles
• Electric bicycles might require stronger lights to more easily identify threats
o Lighting on traditional bicycles is already regulated by Section 551.104. of the Texas
Transportation Code.
• Making electric bicycles more distinguishable from traditional bicycles could help drivers and
pedestrians identify them and act appropriately (more able to predict the speed and
maneuverability of the device)
• Electric bicycles might require wider bicycle infrastructure to facilitate safer interactions with
other vulnerable users
o A similar conclusion is made in NACTO’s Design Guidelines for Urban Bikeways
(minimum required width vs. Preferred width)
Considerations for Possible Future Regulations
The same researchers assessing nation-wide trends in micromobility regulations have proposed a set of
guiding objectives for municipalities seeking to implement micromobility regulations, these objectives
are as follows:
• Protect public safety – Regulations should protect other travelers from collisions, especially
pedestrians, the most vulnerable road users. At the same time, micromobility users are
Page 28 of 39
themselves "vulnerable" road users relative to cars, so regulations need to protect their safety
as well.
• Permit micromobility use as a convenient travel option – The "complete streets" paradigm in
transportation planning holds that the transportation system should accommodate the needs of
all users, regardless of mode. This principle implies that regulators should avoid regulations that
make micromobility use illegal.
• Make regulations easier to understand and remember – regulations will be much more
effective if the general public can easily understand the rules of the road, but other travelers
and traffic enforcement officers also need to know what behaviors to expect from micromobility
users. For this reason, simple rules will likely be more effective than complex ones.
• Allow for new devices without new regulations – As recent experiences bear out; new devices
can appear at any time and often in large numbers. Given the very high costs of enacting new
regulations and educating the public, micromobility regulations should be flexible enough to
encompass new devices as they appear (regulate the class rather than the device).
Page 29 of 39
Appendix
The Texas Transportation Code Definitions and Regulations
Subchapter B. Bicycles
Section 551.102.
• General Operation
A person operating a bicycle shall ride only on or astride a permanent and regular
seat attach to the bicycle
A person may not use a bicycle to carry more persons than the bicycle is designed or
equipped to carry
A person operating a bicycle may not use the bicycle to carry an object that prevents
the person from operating the bicycle with at least one hand on the handlebars of the
bicycle
A person operating a bicycle, coaster, sled, or toy vehicle or using roller skates may
not attach either the person or the bicycle, coaster, sled, toy vehicle, or roller skates
to a streetcar or vehicle on a roadway
Section 551.103.
• Operation of Roadway
A person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other
traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the
roadway, unless:
▪ The person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction
▪ The person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road
or driveway
▪ A condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked
or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person
from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway
▪ The person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
• Less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle
lane adjacent to that lane
• Too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by
side
A person operating a bicycle on a roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may
ride as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of the roadway.
Persons operating bicycles on a one-way roadway may ride two abreast. Persons
riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the
roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part
of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.
Section 551.104.
• Safety Equipment
A person may not operate a bicycle unless the bicycle is equipped with a brake
capable of making a braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement
A person may not operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle is equipped with:
Page 30 of 39
▪ A lamp on the front of the bicycle that emits a white light visible from a
distance of at least 500 feet in front of the bicycle, and
▪ On the rear of the bicycle a red reflector that is visible when directly in front
of lawful upper beams of a motor vehicle headlamp from all distances from
50 to 300 feet to the rear of the bicycle, or
• A lamp that emits a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the
rear of the bicycle
Chapter 664. Standards for (Electric) Bicycles
Section 664.001.
Definitions:
• "Class 1 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle:
Equipped with a motor that assists the rider only when the rider is pedaling
Has a top assisted speed of 20 mph or less
• "Class 2 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle:
Equipped with a motor that may be used to propel the bicycle without the pedaling of
the rider
Has a top assisted speed of 20 mph or less
• "Class 3 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle:
Equipped with a motor that assists the rider only when the rider is pedaling
Has a top assisted speed of more than 20 mph but less than 28 mph
Subchapter B. (Electric) Bicycles
Section 551.107.
Operation of Electric Bicycle:
• A person may not operate an electric bicycle unless the electric motor disengages or ceases to
function either:
o When the operator stops pedaling; or
o When the brakes are applied
• A person may not operate a Class 3 electric bicycle unless the person is at least 15 years of
age. This subsection does not prohibit a person who is under 15 years of age from riding on a
Class 3 bicycle as a passenger.
Subchapter B. Motor-Assisted Scooters
Section 551.351.
Definitions:
• At least two wheels in contact with the ground during operation;
• A breaking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions;
• A gas or electric motor not exceeding 40 cubic centimeters;
• The ability to be propelled by human power alone
Section 551.352.
Operation of Motor-Assisted Scooters on Roadways or Sidewalks:
Page 31 of 39
• A motor-assisted scooter may be operated only on a street or highway for which the posted
speed limit is 35 mph or less. The motor-assisted scooter may cross a road or street as an
intersection where the road or street has a posted speed limit of more than 35 mph
• A county or municipality may prohibit the operation of a motor-assisted scooter on a street,
highway, or sidewalk if the governing body of the county or municipality determines that the
prohibition is necessary in the interest of safety
• The department may prohibit the operation of a motor-assisted scooter on a highway if it
determines that the prohibition is necessary in the interest of safety
• A person may operate a motor-assisted scooter on a path set aside for the exclusive
operation of bicycles or on a sidewalk. Except as otherwise provided by this section, a
provision of this title applicable to the operation of a bicycle applies to the operation of a
motor-assisted scooter
• A provision of this title applicable to a motor vehicle does not apply to a motor-assisted
scooter
Subchapter C. Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices
Section 551.201.
Definitions:
A two non-tandem wheeled device designed for transporting one person that is
• Self-balancing; and
• Propelled by an electronic propulsion system with an average power of 750 watts or one
horsepower
Section 551.202.
Operation on roadway:
• A person may operate an electronic personal assistive mobility device on a residential street,
roadway, or public highway with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or less only:
o While making a direct crossing of a highway in a marked or unmarked crosswalk;
o Where no sidewalk is available; or
o When so directed by a traffic control device or by a law enforcement officer
• A person may operate an electric personal assistive mobility device on a path set aside for the
exclusive operation of bicycles
• Any person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device on a residential street,
roadway, or public highway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge
• Except as otherwise provided by this section, provisions of this title applicable to the
operation of bicycles apply to the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices
Subchapter B. (Local Regulatory Authority) Bicycles
Section 551.106.
Regulation of bicycles by department of local authority
• The department or a local authority may not prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle:
o On a highway that is used primarily by motor vehicles, or
o In an area in which the operation of a nonelectric bicycle is permitted, unless the area
is a path that:
Page 32 of 39
▪ Is not open to motor vehicles, and
▪ Has a natural surface tread made by clearing and grading the native soil
without adding surfacing materials
o The department or a local authority may:
▪ Prohibit the operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk, and
▪ Establish speed limits for bicycles on paths set aside for the exclusive
operation of bicycles and other paths on which bicycles may be operated
College Station Code of Ordinances
Article XIII – Shared Micromobility
Section 8-811.
Definition:
Micromobility device means a bicycle, an electric bicycle, or a motor-assisted scooter as defined or
may be amended in the Texas Transportation Code and designed for personal micromobility that is
part of a shared micromobility system equipped with GPS or comparable technology capable of
providing real-time location data
Section 8-819
Parking Operations:
• Lock-to parking. Provide micromobility devices that have a built-in or attached locking system
for customers to secure the device. Customers must park and lock all micromobility devices
to:
o A bicycle rack; or
o An operator designated parking area; and
o Only within the operator’s geo-fence zone
• Improper parking. Micromobility devices shall not be parked adjacent to or within:
o Loading zones;
o ADA handicap parking zones;
o Street furniture;
o Curb ramps;
o Entryways and driveways;
o Within the visibility triangle at intersections;
o Railroad tracks and crossings;
o Streets, light poles. Utility poles traffic signs, traffic signals, benches, tables, trash
receptables or any other publicly owned property, structure or facility, unless parking
at an approve rack from parking
o A place where the City determines poses an unreasonable risk to the health, safety,
and welfare of the general public
Page 33 of 39
July 21, 2025
Item No. 3.4.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Sponsor: Jesse Dimeolo
Reviewed By CBC: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Greenways Advisory Board
Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Bicycle Level of Traffic
Stress assessment of roadway segments and crossings as part of the Active Transportation Master
Plan.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
Recommendation(s):
Summary: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a framework used to evaluate how stressful a roadway
environment is for pedestrians and cyclists. It’s based on how comfortable and safe a person feels
when walking or cycling, especially in terms of traffic conditions, speed, and road design.
LTS is a widely adopted and useful method for assessing active transportation-friendliness of roads,
guiding infrastructure improvements, and improving connectivity for less confident cyclists. The
attachments provided with this agenda item are only for Bicycle LTS. Pedestrian LTS will be covered
at our next meeting.
When looking at the attached maps for roadway segments and crossings, there are four different
levels of LTS. Please see the descriptions below.
Standard LTS Classification (LTS 1–4):
• LTS 1 (Low Stress): Comfortable for all users, including children and inexperienced cyclists.
• LTS 2 (Low Stress): Suitable for most adults but not young children.
• LTS 3 (Moderate Stress): Acceptable for experienced adult riders.
• LTS 4 (High Stress): Only suitable for the most confident and brave cyclists.
Key Takeaways from Initial Map Assessments:
• On the segments map, most of the major thoroughfares are LTS 4 due to the lack of
designated bike facilities for safe, comfortable travel. Cyclists often have to ride on the
sidewalks and be wary of driveway conflicts and passing pedestrians sharing the same
space.
• New Capital Improvement Projects, like Lincoln Avenue and Rock Prairie Road will be
upgrading higher LTS facilities to LTS 1.
• Low LTS networks will continue to build out in south College Station as new developments
come in.
• On crossing map A1, the highest LTS uncontrolled crossings take place on Copperfield
Parkway and Southwest Parkway.
• On map B1, the LTS 4 crossing on Barron Road will be fixed soon with a project to signalize
that intersection.
Page 34 of 39
• On map B2, the LTS 4 crossing on William D Fitch and Pebble Creek Parkway will also be
fixed in the near term with a new signal there.
Budget & Financial Summary:
Attachments:
1. BLTS Segments Map
2. BLTS Crossings_A1
3. BLTS Crossings_B1
4. BLTS Crossings_B2
Page 35 of 39
Page 36 of 39
Page 37 of 39
Page 38 of 39
Page 39 of 39