A variety of electrically powered micromobility and power-driven mobility devices have entered the market that may be operated on a street, sidewalk, or bikeway unless restricted by a jurisdiction. These devices are typically limited to top speeds of 30 mph or less. Research completed to-date shows that micromobility can replace many types of trips, including transit and/or rail, but it can also complement transit by providing first/last mile transportation.

The first modern bike share system in Texas was launched in 2011 by B-Cycle in San Antonio. The micromobility market continues to grow and diversify with the arrival of dockless bikeshare and e-scooters in 2017. E-scooter popularity has steadily increased since their introduction in 2017.

Like bicyclists, many of these users are uncomfortable operating on roadways in shared lanes with motor vehicle traffic, especially in areas with higher motor vehicle volumes and operating speeds. For purposes of this guidance, these users are assumed to be present and operating on bikeways. The restricts E-Scooters operation on streets with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or higher.

When micromobility users do not responsibly operate their devices or properly park their devices, the micromobility devices can cause difficulties for other users of the transportation network – in particular pedestrians with disabilities. Individuals who are wheelchair bound, have low-vision, or have other mobility issues can be significantly impacted by poorly parked shared micromobility devices. The provision of bikeways and adequate parking of these devices outside of pedestrian walkways can help ensure pedestrian facilities operate as intended. Some municipalities restrict micromobility device operation, parking, and/or operating speeds with geofence technology.

See . for further information on pedestrian accessibility requirements.

The following definitions are provided for the purpose of this Guide; therefore, definitions may vary when reviewing other sources.

The bicycle accommodation design guidance in this chapter is based on the review of national guidelines for the best practices for the design of bicycle facilities and is the governing bicycle guidance document for TxDOT. The continues to be the governing document for specific design criteria that is not contained within this chapter. The may also be considered as resource, and in instance of contradictions, the shall take precedence over the . For further information on FHWA’s position on design flexibility, refer to the August 2013 memo “ ”

On March 11, 2010, U.S. DOT signed a federal policy statement on . This policy statement emphasized that, “every transportation agency, including a state DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling.” The statement encourages transportation agencies “to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes” on all transportation projects.

Under it states, “Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted.”

The TAC and the TTC provide directives for the design of bicycle facilities in the State of Texas

defines micromobility devices and how they may be operated in Texas. On the road, bicyclists and micromobility riders must obey the same traffic laws, traffic signals, and street signs as motorists; however, e-scooters have specific restrictions on which roadways they can operate. E-scooters and bicycles are not considered motor vehicles. Laws and provisions related to bicycle operation apply to moped and e-bike operation.

requires TxDOT to adopt rules relating bicycle use on the roads in the state highway system. specifies that TxDOT must take bicycle accommodation into consideration during the planning and implementation of all construction and rehabilitation projects. specifies that TxDOT will adopt the latest version of the and will continue to review guidelines for design, construction, and maintenance of bicycle facilities with the intent to adopt new guidelines as appropriate.

Accordingly, this bicycle accommodation guidance is based on the review of national guidelines for best practices regarding the design of bicycle facilities and supersedes aspects of the . If a specific design criterion or guidance is not provided herein, see for document precedence.

Bicycle accommodations will be considered “provided” when bicyclists can navigate to logical termini throughout the project limits and have access to desired destinations. For example, a two-way shared use path (SUP) provided on one side of the travel way provides bicycle access along a roadway if there are no logical origins or destinations on the other side of the roadway (or none are anticipated during the lifetime of the project). For situations where a freeway or highway limits street connectivity, it may be necessary to provide bikeways on both sides of the freeway or highway to provide appropriate bicycle connectivity to the community.

Bikeways should be routinely included when planning and designing transportation facilities, addressing the needs of the target design user (see ); consequently, all projects must be consistent with the identified needs for bikeways as identified in the environmental process.

Exemptions to providing bikeways are permitted if the project meets one or more of the following criteria. Although an area may fall under one of the exemptions below, it is important to plan for anticipated growth where bicycling activity might become more prevalent in the future during the life of the project. MPO and local planning documents should be reviewed and coordinated with to identify anticipated future growth when selecting bikeways outside the urbanized boundaries. The documentation for having an exemption based on the following criteria will be maintained with the project file with specific documentation as to the nature of the exemption, but this is not considered a formal Design Exception or Design Waiver. The circumstances requiring a formal Design Exception or Design Waiver are documented in of this manual. The provides additional information on MPO boundaries and area types.

Projects located on the

Texas Bicycle Tourism Example Network

(found on the on TxDOT.gov) are not exempt from providing bikeways specifically due to geographic location. Other exemptions (not specific to geographic location) may be used as appropriate.

On-System bridges, regardless of location, involving bridge replacement, bridge deck replacement, or bridge rehabilitation will need to meet the bicycle clear space requirements specified in , and are not exempt.

Off-system Bridges, with current ADT greater than 400 ADT, may be exempt from the bicycle clear space requirement when this addition may represent an unreasonable increase in cost. For specific Off-system bridge requirements for a current ADT of 400 or less, see .

Because bicyclists are often operating with motor vehicles, designers should consider the bicyclists’ perception of safety and the type of bikeway relative to the context in which the bikeway is located. In many instances the use of minimum values for design criteria do not account for the user’s perception of safety using the facility. The perception of how safe a person feels on the transportation system can have significant impacts on how they choose to use or avoid the facilities provided. Assessments of perceived safety for the same site will vary between observers but is increasingly measurable by comfort rating tools found in the . Perceived safety is analogous to “subjective” safety as defined by the .

While performance characteristics for micromobility devices are limited and not incorporated into this guidance, providing bikeway designs which accommodate adult bicyclists and the

Interested but Concerned Design User

(see ) will generally lead to the establishment of geometric and operational design criteria that will result in bikeways that accommodate all users of bikeways including people using micromobility devices and personal assistive mobility devices.

The following terms are used throughout the guide to define the desirable, minimum, and constrained conditions for which bikeway widths will be determined:

Desirable values are stated explicitly throughout the chapter by using the words “desirable” or “desired.” In many instances, these will be presented as a range of values (e.g., bike lane width). The design value should be chosen to meet the purpose and need objectives of the bicycle facility where practicable. In general, desirable values (typically larger values) should be used to maximize the safety and comfort benefits for bicyclists and other users. Alternative values should only be used in locations where it is not possible to use desirable values due to social, economic, and environmental impacts.

Minimum values are either implied by the lowest value in a range, or explicitly stated throughout the chapter by using the word “minimum.” The use of minimum values should not automatically be considered a default for bikeways due to the inherent vulnerability of bicyclists in the event of a crash. In some instances, the use of minimum design values may result in trade-offs with respect to the comfort and safety of bicyclists.

Where the use of a minimum design value may degrade bicyclist safety or comfort, the words “in constrained conditions” are used. In general, the use of constrained values should only be considered:

As previously discussed, the process for deciding if projects can be exempt from providing bicycle facilities does not require a design exception or design waiver. However, if a project includes bicycle facilities and the preferred bicycle facility type cannot meet the respective criteria or thresholds, designers can select the next best facility type following the guidance in . A design exception or design waiver is needed if the minimum criteria for the selected facility is not met.

18.1.7.1.1 Design Exceptions Bike Lane:

If the minimum width specified in is not met

Shared Lane (Wide Outside Lane):

: If the traffic volume, speed, or width criteria (14-ft maximum, 13-ft minimum) specified in is not met

18.1.7.1.2 Design Waivers Shared Use Path (Independent alignment or sidepath):

If the minimum width criteria (minimum 10-ft, 8-ft constrained), buffer width, and other geometric criteria specified in , and the associated criteria are not met.

Separated Bike Lane/Buffered Bike Lane:

If the minimum criteria specified in are not met.

18.1.7.2.1 Design Exceptions Shared Lane (Wide Outside Lane):

If the traffic volume, speed, or width criteria (14-ft maximum, 13-ft minimum) specified in are not met.

18.1.7.2.2 Design Waivers Shared Use Path (Independent alignment or sidepath):

If the minimum width criteria (minimum 10-ft, 8-ft constrained), buffer width, and other geometric criteria specified in , and the associated criteria are not met. For an unconstrained condition, a design waiver is required if width is between 8 to 10-ft. Any width below 8-ft will not be considered a bicycle accommodation or two-way shared use path operation. Widths between 6 ft and 8 ft would require one-way operation for bicyclists and may result in increased conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians.

Bike Accessible Shoulder:

For new construction, reconstruction, or widening projects in a rural setting where ROW is being acquired, a Design Waiver is required if a minimum width defined in for each bikeway type is not provided unless a SUP is being provided for bike accommodations (see )