Council hears plan for Comal Avenue bike improvements; staff proposes summer pilot and evaluation

City engineers presented options May 12 for improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety on Comal Avenue and Faust Street, a designated all‑ages route from downtown toward the Faust Street bridge. Staff recommended a pilot program of “option 3,” a striping and low‑profile delineator approach that aims to preserve much on‑street parking while creating protected lanes for bikes; council did not take formal action but directed staff to collect feedback and data.

Why it matters: Comal Avenue links downtown destinations, the riverfront and the planned Waterway Lane trail. The corridor already carries pedestrian and bike traffic, but staff said parking has been allowed in the bike lanes and utility poles and dense driveways limit conventional improvements. The city’s goal is an approachable, “all‑abilities” bike network that protects people walking and biking while balancing residential and business parking needs.

Carly Farmer, assistant city engineer, summarized three alternatives: keep parking on both sides and use shared lanes; remove parking on one side and provide dedicated bike lanes; or a hybrid (option 3) that repurposes part of the wider pavement cross‑section to create separated bike lanes buffered from parked cars by low‑profile devices. Farmer explained the hybrid as a way to gain separated space without full curb reconstruction and said the Transportation and Traffic Advisory Board had unanimously recommended staff’s approach for the Butcher Street request but that Comal/Faust needed broader community input.

Farmer described the recommended pilot: restripe the roadway to a 30‑foot vehicular cross section with two travel lanes and reserve roughly five feet on each side for a protected bike lane separated by low‑profile delineators (sometimes called “tough curb”). She said staff would also add intersection bulb‑outs and an all‑way stop at Comal and Faust where appropriate and monitor traffic speeds, parking utilization and safety metrics.

Public comment was heavily engaged. Jody Baker, a downtown commercial property owner and owner of a bike shop, said he supports one‑side parking with bike lanes on both sides, arguing that the city’s existing condition forces cyclists into traffic when cars park in bike lanes and contributes to collisions: “I like parking on 1 side and then bike lanes on both and then easy auto traffic in both directions.”

Multiple residents who live on Comal or adjacent blocks said the street already experiences high vehicle speeds, summer overflow from river parking and instances of drivers running the stop signs. Longtime residents urged caution: several said seasonal river visitors regularly fill the riverside spaces and that removing residential parking would hurt homeowners who rely on curb parking for guests and family. Lynn Norville, whose family has owned homes on Comal for generations, said the river‑side no‑parking arrangement was obtained after repeated crowding and called for preserving protections granted to riverside homeowners: “The people that live on that street, we have rights too.”

Staff proposed a summer 2025 pilot on the East South Street segment as a proof of concept, with data collection through fall 2025 and a council presentation of findings in October. Farmer said the pilot would be implemented with pavement markings and low‑profile separators, accompanied by public education. If the pilot proves successful, staff might extend the approach along additional blocks; if not, staff said they would revisit option 2 (remove parking on one side) or other measures.

Ending: The council did not adopt any ordinance at the May 12 meeting; staff will continue outreach and return with pilot data and recommendations later in 2025.