HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1979 The Bikeway Plan. I
' '
COUNTY OF HAWAII
April, 1979
, ;
'
I
I
(
,
. .
• . l , 'l r ' . ' f .. '
BIKEWAY PLAN
County of .Hawaii
Planning Department
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii
April, 1979
1 l I
1 l ,,
COUNTY OF
HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
215 AUPUNI STREET • HILO, HAWAII 98720
November 30, 1979
To: The Citizens of Hawaii County
HERBERT T. MATA YOSHI
Mayor
SIDNEY M. FUKE
Director
DUANEKANUHA
Dap.., Dlreetor
As alternate means of transportation are sought, the
establishment of bikeways deserves serious consideration. While
the Bikeway Plan was developed in reseonse to growing concerns for
the safety of the bicyclist, it included consideration of other
plans and programs. By planning for the best use of bicycles, in
conjunction with other modes of transportation, the bikeway system
can complete the transportation network. The primary goal of the
Bikeway Plan is to guide the development of a safe and useable
bikeway system. A system which is both safe and functional will
in turn encourage bicycling for recreational and utility/commuter
purposes.
The Planning Department, Planning Commission, other govern-
mental agencies, and the general public have generated considerable
time and effort in the development of the plan. Public hearings
on The Bikeway Plan were held by the Planning Commission on June 23
and 30, 1977, in Hila and Kana, respectively. The public comments
were very valuable and confirmed the irreplaceable principle of
citizen participation in the planning process.
As a result of the public's inputs, the Planning Department
re-analyzed the initial draft of the plan and presented its final
recommendation to the Planning Commission. At its meeting on
December 14, 1978, the Commission voted to send a favorable
recommendation to the County Council on The Bikeway Plan.
Subsequently, on April 18, 1979, the County Council voted to
approve Ordinance No. 435 adopting The Bikeway Plan for the County
of Hawaii, State of Hawaii.
We are therefore pleased to transmit for your information The
Bikeway Plan for the County of Hawaii.
Sincerely, ~EY~~
Planning Director
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Herbert T. Matayoshi, Mayor
COUNTY COUNCIL
Stephen Yamashiro, Chairman
James Dahlberg
Takashi Domingo
Tomio Fujii
Joseph Garcia
William Kawahara
Merle Lai
Muneo Sameshima
Harvey Tajiri
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sidney Fuke, Director
Duane Kanuha, Deputy Director
PLANNING COMMlSSION
William Mielcke, Chairman
Shigeru Fujimoto
Lorraine Jitchaku
Haruo Murakami
Walsh Hanley
Bert Nakano
Alfredo Orita
William Paris
Charles Sakamoto
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
County of Hawaii
Department of Parks and Recreation
Department of Police
Department of Public Works
Department of Research and Development
Corporation Counsel
Office of the County Clerk
Office of the Legislative Auditor
State of Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Department of Transportation
.. ,.
BILL NO. 468
COUNTY OF HAWAII -STATE OF HAWAII
ORDINANCE NO. 435
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIKEWAY PLAN FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII,
STATE OF HAWAII.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Legislative Intent
As alternate means of transportation are sought, the establish-
ment of bikeways deserves serious consideration. The need for
the establishment of a bikeway system is quite apparent.
At the present time, the County of Hawaii utilizes Chapter 291-C
of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (Statewide Traffic Code) for govern-
ing the operation of bicycles. This traffic code requires tha~,
"Whenever a usable bicycle lane has been provided on a highway,
any person operating a bicycle· ••• shall ride within such bicycle
lane ••• " There is only one highway in· the County which incorporates
a designated lane for bicycles. Located in Kailua, this lane is
the beginning of a system of bikeways in the County. In the interim,
cyclists must share the roadways and/or sidewalks. However, this
sharing of roadways and sidewalks, together with the increase of
motorists and cyclists, present the probability of increased con-
flicts bet·1ecn motor vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle needs. In
anticipation of this problem, the need of a bikeway plan was real-
ized and subsequently developed. The creation of the Bikeway Plan
is also link~d to the Federal Highway Administration, a major
source of bikeway funding, which stresses the need for a master plan
in order to receive federal-aid participation on eligible bikeway
projects.
While the Bikeway Plan was developed in response to growinq concerns
for the bicyclist, 1t included consideration of other plans and
programs, including the Bikcolan Hawr.ii A Stnte of Hawaii H:tstC"r
Plan. The County General Plan, which directs the overall develop-
ment of the County, was consulted for policy guidance statements.
It is with these following policy statements in mind that the Dike-
way Plan was formulated.
The relationship of any bikeway system to other transportation system
cannot be overlooked, both in terms of conceptunl development and
implementation. By planning for the best use of bicycles 1n con-
junction with other modes of transportation, the bikeway system can
provide an atmosphere of social, economic, environmental and health-
ful well-being. The bicycle will not replace other modes of
transportation but, if planned for properly, can complete the trans-
portation network. The Bikeway Plan will be used to guide the incor-
poration of bicycles within the total transportation network.
-ii-
SECTION 2. Adoption of The Bikeway Plan
The draft of The Bikeway Plan, as prepared by the County of Hawaii
Planning Department, and as recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission on December 14, 1978, is hereby officially adopted as
The Bikeway Plan, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii.
SECTION 3. Severability
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall
not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application,
and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to
be severable.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
Hilo, Hawaii
Date of Introduction: April 4, 1979
Date of Adoption: April 18, 1979
Effective Date: April 24, 1979
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCILNAN,
Voting unanimously for: J. Dahlberg, T. Domingo,
HAWAII
T. Fujii, J. Garcia, M. Lai, M. Sameshima, H. Tajiri,
and S. Yamashiro
Excused absence: W. Kawahara
-iii-
' I
• t r 1 . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
ORDINANCE 435: BIKEWAY PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. BIKEWAY SYSTEM
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Geometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Warrants/Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Bikeway Alignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Bikeway Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Motorized Bicycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
III. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
IV. APPENDIX
Bikeways for Hila and Kailua . . . . . . . . . 47
Maps: Hila Bikeways; Kailua Bikeways 52
v. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. BICYCLE ROUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. BICYCLE LANES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. BIKE/WALK PATHS • • • • . • • • • • . • • . • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 9
4. BICYCLE PATHS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10
5. BICYCLE SPACE REQUIREMENTS •..••••••••••••••••• 13
6 • CURB ADJUSTMENTS • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15
7. BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ••••••••• 14
8. HILO TRAVEL CONDITIONS ••••.•..•••.•.••.••••••. 21
9. HAWAII TRAVEL CONDITIONS ••••..•••••••••••••••• 22
10. BICYCLE PATH PROTOTYPE ••••••.••••.•••••••••••• 23
11. RA,M,PS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26
12. BICYCLE CROSSING MID-BLOCK ••.•••••••••••••••.• 27
13. GREEN LIGHT LEFT-TURN PROCEDURE ••••••••••••••• 28
14. RED LIGHT LEFT-TURN PROCEDURE ••••••••••••••••• 29
15. BICYCLE LANE CROSSING ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30
16. LEFT TURNS • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • • . . • • • • • • • • • • . 32
STANDARD WIDTHS:
17. SECONDARY ARTERIALS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 34
17.1 COLLECTOR STREETS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 35
17.2 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAl STREETS •..•••••••••••• 36
17.3 MINOR STREETS AND CUL-DE-SACS .•.•••••••••••••• 37
17. 4 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • 3 8
17.5 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS •••••••••••••••••••••••• 39
18. TYPICAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS FOR
BICYCLE TRAILS • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. HAWAII COUNTY BICYCLE REGISTRATION 3
2. POPULATION AND REGISTERED BICYCLES BY
COUNTIES, 1960-1995 (PROJECTED) ••• 4
3 • CURVATURE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16
4. SUPERELEVATION •••••••••••••••••••••••• 17
5. MAXIMUM GRADES FOR HIGHWAYS ••••••••••• 18
6. DESIGN STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE FOR
BICYCLES •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19
7. MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR BIKEWAY TYPE ••••• 20
INTRODUCTION
As alternate means of transportation are sought, the establishment
of bikeways deserves serious consideration. Bicycling as a method
of transportation is relatively inexpensive in equipment1 quiet
and less congesting than motor vehicles: non-polluting1 not espe-
cially dangerous to pedestrians: and provides healthful exercise
and recreation. It provides a way for children and adults to
become mobile without dependence on the automobile.
The need for the establishment of a bikeway system is quite appar-
ent. The successful Bike-In on Sunday, May 7, 1972, and various
and growing requests, both verbal and written, from groups such
as the Hilo Women's Club, the central 4-H organization, various
Kumiais and the University students attest to this. At the pre-
sent time the County of Hawaii utilizes Chapter 291-C HRS, the
Statewide Traffic Code, for governing the operation of bicycles.
This traffic code requires that, "whenever a usable bicycle lane
has been provided on a highway, any person operating a bicycle •••
shall ride within such bicycle lane, ..... There is only one high-
way in the County of Hawaii which incorporates a designated lane
for bicycles. Located in Kailua, this lane is the beginning of
a system of bikeways in the County. In the interim, as it has
been in the past, cyclists must share the roadways and/or side-
walks. However, this sharing of roadways and sidewalks, together
with the increase of motorists and bicyclists, presents the pro-
bability of increased conflicts between motor vehicle, pedestrian
and bicycle needs. In anticipation of this problem, the need of
a bikeway ~lan was realized and subsequently developed. The
primary goal of the Bikeway Plan is to guide the development of a
safe and usable bikeway system.
The creation of the Bikeway Plan is also linked to the Federal
Highway Administration, a major source of bikeway funding, which
stresses the need for a master plan in order to receive federal-aid
participation on eligible bikeway projects.
It was necessary to assemble and analyze a variety of information
in developing the Bikeway Plan. Various bikeway designs and plans
were examined from communities throughout the United States and
Europe. Articles commenting on and evaluating the different sys-
tems were also examined. A survey was conducted ~n five different
Hilo schools to solicit further comments to several design concepts.
Furthermore, an ad hoc citizens advisory committee was established
to determine the specific needs of the bicyclists on the island.
While the Bikeway Plan was developed in response to growing con-
cerns for the bicyclist, it included consideration of other plans
and programs including BIKEPLAN HAWAII: A STATE OF HAWAII MASTER
~· The County General Plan, wh~ch directs the overall develop-
ment of the County was consulted for policy guidance statements.
It is with these following policy statements in mind that the Bike-
way Plan was formulated.
A policy from the Environmental Quality Element of the General Plan
states that:
-1-
• I
'·
' I
"The County of Hawaii shall take positive action to further
maintain the quality of the environment for residents both
in the present and in the future."
The establishment of safe and functional bikeways will encourage
the use of the bicycle as a less polluting alternative to the
private automobile.
Two goals from the Transportation Element will be implemented with
the creation of a bikeway system which encourages bicycling for
utility oriented transportation. These are:
"Provide a transportation system whereby people and goods
can move efficiently, safely, comfortably and economically."
"Make available a variety of modes of transportation which
best meets the needs of the County."
The Recreation Element of the General Plan directs through a goal
that the County:
"Provide a wide variety of recreational opportunities
for the residents of the County."
Further that,
"A system of trails to places of scenic, historic, natural
or recreational interest should be established ...
Additionally, the Hilo Community Development Plan (COP) and the
Recreation Master Plan designate routes suitable for bikeways.
While they do not provide conceptual guidelines or objectives in
the development of a route system for Hilo, the route recommenda-
tions from the Hilo CDP were incorporated into the plan. In the
future, as bikeway systems fo~ other areas of the island are de-
veloped, the recommendations from the community development plans
and the Recreation Master Plan should be considered.
In developing the Bikeway Plan the Federal, State, and County
jurisdictional responsibilities for schools, parks, and roadways
were also given consideration. So, while complimentary the County
Bikeway Plan is not totally duplicative.
The relationship of any bikeway system to other transportation
systems cannot be overlooked, both in terms of conceptual devel-
opment and implementation. By planning for the best use of bi-
cycles in conjunction with other modes of transportation--public
transportation, walking, auto, boating--the bikeway system can
provide an atmosphere of social, economic, environmental and health-
ful well being. The bicycle will not replace other modes of trans-
portation but, if planned for properly, can complete the transpor-
tation network. The Bikeway Plan will be used to guide the
-2-
incorporation of bicycles within the total transportation system.
To facilitate bicyclists the following concepts or ideas are to
be implemented. 1. Facilitate bicycles as an independent mode
of transportation. 2. Mode Sharing: Facilitate bicycles to go
to and from other transportation modes. 3. Facilitate transport-
ing bicycles to and from outlying recreational and/or commercial
areas to be used. 4. Education: Education is an integral part
of providing a complete bikeway system. While money is to be spent
on planning, design, and constructing bicycle facilities if the
bikeway system is to achieve a level of operational safety consi-
deration must also be given to the process of operating a bicycle.
Training generally consists of learning to ride a bike as a child
with minimum consideration given to safety instruction. Because
bad bicycling habits can be acquired by younger children, greater
attention must be given to educating the cyclist at an early age.
Boosting bicycle interest has been the emergence of an environmen-
tal and energy conservation attitude. In Hawaii County the atti-
tude and interest regarding bicycles peaked in 1974, during the
time that the State Legislature was adopting laws in relat~on to
bicycle operation. In that year, 6,118 bicycles were registered
(Table 1). The number of registered bicycles, while having de-
creased throughout the state in recent years (Table 2), is not
necessarily reflective of a negative public attitude toward
YEAR
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
TABLE 1
HAWAII COUNTY
BICYCLE REGISTRATION
BICYCLES
REGISTERED
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-3-
2,489
2,735
3,766
3,947
6,118
4,927
3,781
2,815
I
~
I
TABLE 2
POPULATION AND REGISTERED BICYCLES BY COUNTIES: 1960-1995 (PROJECTED)
--..---·-----·-STATE KAUAI C&C OF HONOLULU MAUl HAWAII
TOTAL• REG.• TOTAL' REG.• TOTAL' REG.' TOTAL' REG.' TOTAL' REG.' YEAR POP. BIKES RATIO POP. BIKES RATIO POP. BIKES RATIO POP. BIKES RATIO POP. BIKES
1960 641.500 25,880 .040 27,800 -. -505,200 20,821 .041 42,400 2,832 .067 60.300 2.227
1965 703.800 28,085 .040 28,900 -. 571,500 22,283 .039 44,500 2.945 .066 61.700 2.857 -
1970 774,200 34.530 .045 30,000 -. -633,200 28,749 .045 46,600 3,296 .070 64,400 2.489
1971 798.000 52.485 .066 30,900 2.141 .069 648,700 44,159 .068 48,200 3,450 .072 67.900 2.735
1972 820.900 79,188 .096 31,400 2,729 .087 665,600 68,620 .103 S0,600 4,073 .080 68,600 3.766
1973 843,700 91,052 .108 32,100 3,049 .095 685,700 79,177 .1~5 51,800 4,879 .094 71.600 3.947
1974 854.100 107.826 .126 32,000 4,0]4 .126 697,400 91.504 .B1 52.400 6.170 .117 72.200 6.118
1975 864,900 99,910 .115 31.800 3,693 .116 704,500 85.976 .122 53,900 5.314 .099 74.700 4.927
PROJECTED:
1980 930.000 107,900 .116 36,700 4,000 .108 749,500 90,700 .121 60,100 5,600 .093 83.800 .6.000
1985 1.027.600 132,600 .129 41.300 5.200 .126 818,700 110,500 .140 69.900 8.000 .114 97.700 7.300
1990 1.131.700 160.700 '142 46,100 6,400 .139 891,000 131.900 .148 81.200 10.300 .127 1 U.400 9.400
1995 1.238,000 192,000 .155 50,700 7 .f,fl() .150 965,000 156,300 1h2 9:3.000 12.900 .l:l9 t:m.ooo 11.700
Source
1C<Junty Trend~ 1n llawi'ln ~mel' IIJ(,I) '"ilali~llcal ReP'"' 116. Or t 12. 1'171, l.,tolc· I. ll··~•·au·h and Econnmi1· Analy-., llovow '" I l.-1'1 nl l'l.umno!J & I 1'11111111111 p,., ,.,,,.,,,.,,
"Reqo~terl'd B1ryrle hqure~ I<• I'J7r, ..,,ilh! ''" lawanll;lla B1•••k l1l7fo l.ohlc· ~·17
RATIO
.037
.046
.039
040
.055
.055
.085
066
.072
.075 !
i
OH3
.090
bicycling but, toward the time lag between legislative action,
such as the establishment of the bikeway fund, and implementa-
tion of a bikeway system. Reviving interest in picycling, and
thus increasing bicycle registration, can be encouraged through
the development of bicycle-related facilities as outlined in
the Bikeway Plan.
Responding to meet the needs of the people in the County of
Hawaii, the primary goal of the plan is to guide the develop-
ment of a safe and useable bikeway system. A system which is
both safe and functional will in turn encourage cycling for re-
creational and utility/commuter purposes.
As the basic demand for bikeways is in the larger urban areas
of the island, a pilot implementation program was developed
for the Hilo and Kailua areas first. This program is only part
of an on-going one which will extend the bikeway system to and
within other communities.
-s-
BIKEWAY SYSTEM
The following portions of the plan first define bikeway terminol-
ogy and secondly describe criteria, objectives and the design
standards which should serve as guidelines for bike~ays within
the County.
DEFINITIONS
A. Bicycle Trips
The needs of the cyclists differ accordir.g to the purpose
for which a trip is taken. For example, a cyclist may during
the week use a bicycle going to and from school~ or perhaps
on the weekends, ride a bicycle for sight-seeing purposes.
In the first instance a bikeway which is direct, provides
the least amount of stopping and will transport the bicyclist
to school in the shortest time, is needed.
In the second instance, a route with either scenic or
recreational spots may instead be the choice. Basically,
three categories of trips are evident. The categories are
as follows:
1. The utility trip --These are usually trips between two
definite or.selected destination points. The primary
intent for this trip is other than recreation or
exercise. These trips include commuting from work
to horne, frorn home to school or shopping trips. For
this type of trip, bikeways need to be selected in
the most directed lines between employment areas,
commercial areas and schools.
2. The recreational trip --These are trips which are
usually made outside the neighborhood for enjoyment
or exercise. The bicycle ~ay be transported to a
park area and ridden there or ridden full circuit.
Recreational routes are preferably those along sce-
nic, historic, or cultural points or interest, or
within parks. Bikeways established for this purpose
may also serve as trails for other recreational
interests, such as hiking or jogging.
3. Neighborhood trips --These are short trips for
pleasure, usually with no particular destination
point and are mostly taken by children. This type
of riding may be served by the existing street net-
work except in highly trafficked areas. For this
type trip laws should be developed relating to the
operation of bicycles upon roadways.
While the predominant purpose is now recreational,
trends indicate increases in all basic kinds of trips
once a bikeway system is established.
-6-
B. Bikeway
Bikeway "means a bicycle lane, bicycle path, or bicycle
route, or any traffic control device, shelter, parking
facility, or other support facility to serve bicycles and
persons using bicycles."
In an effort to facilitate the different types of bicycle
trips, communities throughout the United States and Europe
have developed a variety of bikeways. That which has evolved
is four generally recognized types of bikeways, each with its
inherent advantages and disadva-ntages. A complete bikeway
system will invariably consist of a combination of these
four types of bikeways.
1. Bicycle Route --"Means any highway that is designated
to be shared by bicycles and pedestrians or motor
vehicles, or both." (Figure 1) The major advantage is
that while of the least cost, it encourages the use of
certain roads for biking and cautions motorists through
signs to expect bikers on those roads. Although the
actual safety advantage is questionable, bicycle routes
are usually the first step a community takes in response
to increased cycling interests. The usual costs include
designating streets with signs and paint and the recon-
struction of parallel slat storm drains. Important
points in assuring the success of bicycle routes are the
education of motor vehicle drivers to give ample
consideration to bicycle riders, and the selection of
routes which directly link major destination points and
have ample pavement width.
The Statewide Traffic Code requires that, "Every person
riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all
the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties
applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter,"
Procedurally, the bicyclist, "Shall ride as near to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable,
.•• ;" and on one-way roadways with, "two or more marked
traffic lanes a person operating a bicycle may ride as
near to the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as
practicable."
STREET OR ROADWAY
~ m (
CAR LANE AND CAR LANE AND
BICYCLE ROUTE BICYCLE ROUTE
FIG. BICYCLE ROUTE
-7-
I ·
.. .•
2. Bicycle Lane --"Means that portion of any highway
which has been set aside for the preferential or
exclusive use of bicycles" {Figure 2).
L
The Statewide Traffic Code requires that, 11 whenever a
usuable bicycle lane has been provided on a highway
any person operating a bicycle ••• shall ride within
such bicycle lane ..... except as provided by law. The
designation of a specific space for bicycles along
the highway allows motorists to expect bike movement
and enables motorists to pass the slower moving bicycles
safely. Crossflow through the bike lane is permitted
by motorists upon a permanent or authorized temporary
driveway; in the process of executing a legal turn, lane
change, or parking maneuver, an authorized emergency
vehicle performing the functions under Section 291C-26,
{H.R.S. ); an official Federal, State or County vehicle
in the performance of its actual duty; a stalled or
broken vehicle; necessary to assist a stalled or broken
vehicle; or necessary to yield to an authorized
emergency vehicle pursuant to Section 291C-65 (H.R.S. )~
otherwise provided by law.
PROTECTED BICYCLE LANE
STREET OR ROADWAY
' q ~-~ .» 0
j
(
4
BICYCLE CAR LANE CAR '-ANE BI~YCLE
LANE LANE
UNPROTECTED BICYCLE LANE
STREET OR ROADWAY
f@j t (6jJ .---a
CAR LANE CAR LANE BICYCLE PARKED
LANE CAR
FIG. 2 BlCYCLE LANES
-a-
Of the two types of bicycle lanes, the curbed {with
berm) lane provides greater protection to the bicyclists
as the physical barrier, however small, clearly separates
the bike space from the auto space, whereas, with a
striped lane, caution in speed and proximity.cf the car
must be exercised.
Creation of the bike lane sometimes entails a loss of
parking area or the paving of roadway shoulders because
existing roadways are not always wide enough to
accommodate a bike lane.
When on what is defined as the highway, the bike lane
is restricted to one-way operation, being located,
" ... as near to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway as practicable ••• " On one-way streets, bicycle
lanes and/or bicycles may be located as near to the
left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
3. Bicycle/Walk Path --This is an existing sidewalk that
is converted for use by both pedestrian and bicyclists
(Figure 3). Although considered safer than the bicycle
route alternative, it is not widely popular for utility
trips because of poor visability at driveways and
intersections. Additionally, there is the necessity
of having to stop at intersections, hence slowing the
trip time. To provide a useable bike/walk path, it
will be necessary to redesign the sidewalks by con-
structing ramps (see Figure 11, page 26) at intersections:
thus allowing for a smooth transition between the
sidewalk and roadway. These ramps are also beneficial
to handicapped persons in wheelchairs. Still, where
there are long stretches of uninterrupted sidewalks which
are lightly travelled by pedestrians, the bike/walk
path is a viable alternative.
STREET OR ROADWAY
dt j7i:!f fbi ~ (
PEDESTRIAN CAR LANE CAR LANE PEDESTRIAN
8 BIKE WAY e BIKE WAY
FIG. 3 BIKE I WALK PATHS
-9-
4. The Bicycle Path --"Means any facility set aside for
the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles and
physically separated from a highway" (see Figure 4).
Bike paths are the safest and most desirable type of
bikeway but are also the most costly. Con=licts with
cars and pedestrians are kept at a minimum. Bicycle
paths are sometimes used in parks for recreational
bikers or adjacent to high speed roadways for utility
trips. This type of bikeway may be constructed as
part of new road construction and where existing road
right-of-way conditions permit in urban areas.
STREET OR ROADWAY
BICYCLE BICYCLE
PATH PATH
OR NATURAL
STREET STREET
OR ROADWAY OR ROADWAY
FIG. 4 BICYCLE PATHS
-10-
c. Bicycle --"Means every device propelled solely by human
power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels,
sixteen inches in diameter or greater, and including any
device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped
with two front or two rear wheels."
D. Highway--Means the entire width betweenfue boundary lines
of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is
open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular
travel.
E. Intersection --Means ••• the lateral boundary lines of the
roadways of two highways which join one another •••
F. Roadway --Means that portion of a highway improved, designed,
or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the
berm or shoulder.
G. "Moped" --Means a device upon which a person may ride
which has two or three wheels in contact with the ground, a
motor having a maximum power output capability measured at
the motor output shaft, in accordance with the Society of
Automotive Engineers standards, of one and one-half horse-
power (one thousand, one hundred nineteen watts) or less
and, if it is a combustion engine, a maximum piston or
rotor displacement of 3.05 cubic inches (fifty cubic
centimeters) and which will propel the mr-1ped, unassisted,
on a level surface at a maximum speed no greater than
thirty-five miles per hour; and a direct or automatic power
drive system which requires no clutch or gear shift operation
by the moped driver after the drive system is engaged with
the power unit.
-11-
GEOMETRICS
The design guidelines in this section are for independent paths
and were developed from the recommendations of several sources
including, the American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO), Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration, 11Bikeways -State of the Art -
1974,11 and Bikeplan Hawaii. In the case of bike lanes and routes,
which are located on existing streets, roadway geometries should
be checked for compatibility with bikeway standards.
Bikeway Surface Widths
Using bicycle space requirements (Figure 5) minimum and
desirable bikeway surface widths have been developed:
Minimum Desirable
Number of Lanes Width Width
1 3.5 feet 5.0 feet
2 7.0 feet 10.0 feet
3 10.5 feet 15.0 feet
4 14.0 feet 20.0 feet
The bikeway surface width for a bike/walk path is provided
in Figure 7.
In order to provide sufficient bikeway width for safe and
comfortable maneuvering, the following adjustments to
bikeway widths are to be used (Figure 6, page 15' .
Additional Width (feet)
Condition Minimum Desirable
Raised curb on one side .5 1.0
Raised curb on two sides 1.0 2.0
Parked cars adjacent 2.0 3.0
-12-
TYPICAL BICYCLE
DIMENSIONS
L eo" L 1 1 r----, ----. ......
I I I I I I I I
1 1 I I
1 I I I
I I I 1 I I
10" I I
I
I
OPERATING SPACE
PLUS MINIMUM
CLEARANCES
lc 40" I.e 1 1 __ .,._
a" a"
BICYCLE
OPERATING SPACE
TYPICAL BICYCLE
PATH DIMENSIONS
FROM : BIKEWAYS -STATE OF THE ART -1974
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
FIG. 5 BICYCLE SPACE REQUIREMENTS
-13-
..
..
l -BICYCLE -PEDESTRIAN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FIG. 7
these guidelines shall be used to assure that adequate space is
provided for comfortable movement of both pedestrian and bicyclist
on bike /walk paths or bicycle path planned for dual usage.
PHYSICALLY
OCCUPIED
SPACE
r----....,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OCCUPIED SPACE
PLUS
"NO TOUCH" ZONE
33"
,...--------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OCCUPIED SPACE
PLUS II PERSONAL
COMFORT" ZONE
eo"
,t--:~--r-~
I
----r-~--~~-+·
r-----.J I _____ ..J
I
I
I
I
I
l 'l ,
62"
86"
I
I
I
I
I bike I
!operating 1
I space 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l
BIKE MODULE
l 1
0
0
l 'I
l ~
BIKE
8!5"
92"
I bike I I ope rat ingl
I space I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l
MODULE
PLUS PEDESTRIAN PLUS PEDESTRIAN
"NO TOUCH" SPACE "PERSONAL COMFORT" SPACE
FROM: BIKEWAYS -STATE OF THE ART -1974
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINfSTRATION
II II . . , no touch zone -mmtmum w1dth to allow movement
l 'l
II II personal comfort zone -comfortable width beyond dimensional requirement
-14-
ADJUSTMENT
FIG. 6
-e"
MINIMUM BIKEWAY
SURFACE WIDTH
CURB ADJUSTMENT
ADJUSTMENT
RAISED CURB
The carrying capacity of a bikeway is a function of lane
width. In areas of intense bicycle use, such as schools,
wide bikeway lanes will ensure that there is adequate
bicycle carrying capacity.
With bi-directional bikeways or bikeways shared with
pedestrians, uniform pavement width on curves could be a
cause of hazard. By leaning to negotiate a turn, bicyclists
significantly increa~e the amount of space they occupy. To
compensate for this increase in bicycle space requirements,
the bikeway surface should be widened on those curves where
a bicyclist could come in conflict with another bicyclist,
a pedestrian, motorist or other obstruction.
It is also necessary to provide for overhead clearance and
lateral clearance from obstructions such as fences, walls,
vegetation and lava outcroppings. Adequate clearances must
be provided to prevent conflicts.
Furthermore, it should be noted that three wheeled pedaled
vehicles and wheelchairs will also be operating on some or
all of the bikeways. As such, additional design elements
and adjustments to the various bikeways may be necessary.
Design Speed
The curvature, banking, gradient, and width of bikeways are
designed for a selected speed (design speed). The type of
bicycle, the gearing mechanism, grade, surface conditions,
wind, air resistance, and physical condition of the rider
all have an effect on the design speed. The average
, e
'• ,•
bicyclist travels in the range of 7 to 15 miles per hour
with the higher speeds occurring on downgrades. The average
speed is 10 to 11 miles per hour. Therefore the design
speed should be a minimum of 10 miles per hour but normally
15 miles per hour, and on long downgrades it should be 20
miles per hour or more.
Curvature
Table 3, Curvature, is for use in constructing independent
bike paths with token or no banking provided. In the case
of bicycle lanes and routes, the roadway curvature provided
motor vehicles will be more than adequate for bicycles but
should be checked for potentially hazardous conditions.
Design Speed (mph)
10
15
20
25
30
TABLE 3
CURVATURE
Superelevation or Banking
Design Radius (feet)
15
35
70
90
125
All vehicles in negotiating a curve encounter a force which
tends to push them to the outside of the turn. In the
instance of automobiles, to counteract this tendency, super-
elevation or banking becomes a design element of the roadway.
By banking the roadway an auto's weight then becomes centered
to the inside of the curve; thus, counteracting the force
to be pushed outside of the curve. Bicyclists are able to
lean their weight to the inside of a turn and in such a
manner, counteract the force to be pushed outside of the
curve.
In light of the foregoing, banking is not recommended on
all bikeway curves. However, on curves which occur on
downgrades, where the speed of bicyclists will be faster
than average, or on curves with short radii, it may be
-16-
necessary to incorporate banking.
An alternative to banking is to increase the design radius
of a curve, which has the effect of reducing the force to
be pushed outside the curve. These are special situations
and should be investigated according to local conditions.
Where banking is provided the general banking design value
should be O.OS foot per foot and a minimum of 0.02 foot
per foot. Since the bikeway will have the same super-
elevation rate as the roadway in the case of bicycle lanes,
this rate should be more than adequate but should be
checked for potentially hazardous conditions. The recommended
general banking design for bikeways can be compared with
Table 4, Superelevation for Roadway Pavement.
TABLE 4
MINIMUM LENGTH FOR SUPERELEVATION
RUNOFF FOR 2-LANE PAVEMENTS
Superelevation
Rate
L-Length of runoff in feet for
design speed, MPH, of:
Foot per Foot
.02
• 04
• 06
.08
.10
.12
20
so
so
so
so
so
so
30
100
100
110
14S
180
21S
40
12S
12S
12S
170
210
2SO
so
lSO
lSO
lSO
190
240
290
60
17S
17S
17S
21S
270
32S
Note: Superelevation runoff is the length of highway needed
to accomplish the change in cross slope from a normal
crown section to a fully superelevated section. Mini-
mum lengths of runoff are shown in Table 4.
Source: American Association of State Highways Officials
-17-
Grades
Absolute Maximum: 10%
Avoid: 5% for lengths greater than 300 feet
2% for lengths greater than 1500 feet
Desirable: 5% for l.engths not greater than 100 feet
2% for lengths not greater than 500 feet
Recommended grades for bikeways can be compared with Table 5,
Maximum Grades for Highways. A reduction in grade allows
an increase in the length of an inclined bikeway. Thus,
a 10% grade can be allowed only over very short sections.
However, the energy required to use a bikeway will affect
its usage and therefore grades should be kept at a minimum.
Methods to minimize grades are added curvature or increased
travel distance. Roadways which do not meet the grade
standards for bicycles should be avoided.
TABLE 5
MAXIMUM GRADES FOR HIGHWAYS
Type of Terrain Design Speed MPH
20 30 40 so
Flat 7 7 7 6
Rolling 10 9 8 7
Mountainous 12 10 10 9
Note: For highways with ADTs below 250 grades of
relatively short lengths may be increased to
150 per cent of the value shown.
Source: American Association of State Highway Officials
-18-
60
5
6
Sight Distance
The roadway alignment generally provides adequate stopping
sight distances for bicycle (Table 6) lanes, but should be
checked as there are exceptions. The design values may be
computed in the same manner as highways: eye height of
3.7S feet and object height of 6 inches. For crest conditions
the length of vertical curve is about the same.
TABLE 6
DESIGN STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCES FOR BICYCLES
Design Stopping Sight Distances for Downhill
Speed Gradients of:
0% 5% 10% 15%
mph feet feet feet feet
10 so so 60 70
15 as 90 100 130
20 130 140 160 200
2S 17S 200 230 300
30 230 260 310 400
-19-
WARRANTS/CRITERIA
The type and location of bikeways depend upon, in addition to the
purpose for the trip and the bicycle/pedestrian space requirements,
existing road and traffic conditions. Existing travel conditions
on Hawaii County roadways are shown in Figures 8 and 9. The
volumes of weekly bicycle travel and trip purpose, based on
responses to the Bikeplan Hawaii Survey, as well as vehicular
volumes and service levels of the roadways are depicted. Ideally,
the bicycle path is considered the most desirable type of bikeway
(Figure 10). However, it cannot always be provided because of
cost considerations and lack of sufficient road right-of-way
along existing streets. Nor is it always necessary where traffic
conditions are light. In those instances, other alternative
bikeways may be selected.
The choice of bikeway type for particular streets within the
County of Hawaii should follow criteria or warrants as they are
sometimes called. Warrants describe the existing road and
traffic conditions beyond which significant hazard is present
for the cyclist or where bicycle movements disrupt the normal
flow of traffic.
The warrants for the County (Table 7) have been derived from
bikeway designs and experiences of other communities throughout
the United States and Europe. Although no nationwide standard
has yet been accepted or found to be most effective, the warrants
nevertheless provide a rationale for the selection of bikeway
types. Because these warrants have yet to be field validated,
a continuing monitoring program should be established to evaluate
their effectiveness and safety value.
TABLE 7
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR BIKEWAY TYPE
Bicycle Path minimum criteria
more than 1000 Average Daily Traffic in outside lane
bicycle volume very high approximately 200 trips per day
availability of space for development (shoulder, easement)
85% of automobile traffic speed greater than 40 mph
Bicycle Lane minimum criteria
more than 1000 Average Daily Traffic in outside lane
bicycle volume high
85% of automobile traffic speed less than 40 mph
adequate outside lane dimension or shoulder space
minimum road pavement width 25 feet
(continued on page 24)
-20-
SYMBOl TYPE 8 NUMBER OF lRIPSIW[[M -..---N£CA(AI10"'1 Sf .. OOI I SHOf•P•NG I WOAI'I
"
"
TOTAL
TRIPS
zo ..
••
"' ,. ..
Ol
10 ,,
22 ,. -••
27
4l
n
I
00 .·
.·r
~)'
,• .) -,./.
.l d ·.
I
I ~
I ~-.._ .... '*'...:.,.. f" _,.._I
I
I
i',
I
PM
. ~ ,.
.. · .-{ .• , -. . ' '\) . ~+-""'
I
\ I·
l I
~_j) ADT • f4127
""" ""'
&DT • 9277 8
\ '
I
-• ·.·'--I
-• ~ I II ·:;·~.
I __________________ ...!,--------------------·CI'"'....,~ ... --iiooolt-ll"'l"'-";.;.:..;.;;:..-4~ ... ~~ ...
I 1 ,.or • 24~0 I ... I
caL-i• I I ,
~ :i !
~~ TYPE 8 NUMBER OF TRIPS/WEEK
SYMBOL l•EtRUToDN I StHOD\.1 SHDPPoHO I ..o•• j
10 z .,
:: Z> :: ~\-~-~~--
IJ )0 4J : \1
-----lj :: ,. . ~: \\· ..
IS IS I I' I ; I
tO 11 ·~ ll ! ,I
• I 2 I • :: ffi I 1\ \\ -·--·--·-·--·-__ .JL\l ---
2 ~· -_,
I '· I ,~
,.
··' '/
/ 1 I ___ -•. .::·:::·-":::_, __ .• --·--~-
\. ·, ...
c
D ,.; 1 ,w ....... ,, ,. ,
.., 8
.... -.1' .~ .::>
" ... » ... 0 z
_;.All.!..ull.
='~.
~
0 ... .. , .. ",,• ..
ADT • 1195
8
Gl,.[AAt I YU&t1 f llLO
~
• SHOPPING CENTER
• SCHOCll
• PARK
ADT Alif:RAGE OO.ILT IAAFFOC
A-E lEVEL Of SEAVOC.E .......
lthl'~ -1.1·1
IIDII~~~.m IXIWA"!£nn
figure 8
~ br: ltftl.low, tom, • harl,lne.
h mogl · planning & Nl-.:11, InC. •Joint Wfttlft
HILO
TRAV.L CONDITIONS
Q
0.'~ I !)U
IN MILES
• -CENTER
• 8CHOCL ·-ADT -OILY TRAFFIC
A-E L£V[L CF -.cE
MOO• .!!!!1.
z .. -·
.----
-22
----.:-
figure
I-_:T_:Y.:_P,:E_:&::...;;N;:U,:MB::,:E;.;It~O~F~T=It::IP::S-';ft-::E::K:1 ~T~
SYMIOL ttl CRt: AT10frf I SCHOCM. f SMOPPM I WOb
17
10
• 12 II ---r T
1 _ _:T_:Y.:_P_:E_:&=-fN;,;U;.;M;;;I;;:[It;;,.O~F:::Tit::::IP=S=-'jwt-=[:::f(::i TTit01:1~ SYMBOL r"RE-AT""' SCM-SMO-.... ro
14 Sl 31
.. 14 I. .. II
• •
10 10
II .. 18
Itt
HAWAII
TRAVBL CONDITIONS
0
...... ., .............. twa, InC.
hmogl-pllmng.~lne .
e~_
•lC> . ..,.._
SCAU "-
MOTOR
TRAFFIC s•-o ..
MINIMUM
a•-o ..
MODULATE BICYCLE
PATH ALIGNMENT
WHERE POSSIBLE
this type of bikeway should be constructed as
part of new development and wherever possible
in developed areas of the county. where this
prototype cannot be used, one of the alternate
bikeway designs presented in the bikeway master
plan may be substituted. abrupt or short radius
curves should be avoided.
FIG. 10 BICYCLE PATH PROTOTYPE
-23-
..
Bicycle/Walk Path minimum criteria
low pedestrian levels
bicycle volume moderate
adequate and available sidewalk space
minimum sidewalk width (one way bike traffic) 76 in.
Bicycle Route minimum criteria
less than lCOO Average Daily Traffic in outside lane
bicycle volume moderate
85% of automobile traffic speed 25 mph or less
standards for other 3 bikeway types cannot be met
In the evaluation and selection of future bikeways, the following
objectives should also be considered.
A. Utility Trip:
1. Provide bikeways linking major destination points such
as between residential areas, shopping centers, schools
and employment centers. Or, if safety standards can
be met, select routes which will serve the most intensely
used commuter destinations.
2. Provide bikeways that are integrated with other trans-
portation systems, such as the bus system. Consider
also, other supportive facilities such as bike racks
at bus stops and bike carriers on busses.
3. Select routes that are direct and that minimize stops
and cross-traffic.
4. In areas where safety standards cannot be met, avoid
construction of bi-directional bikeways.
5. In areas of high rainfall where no other shelters are
available, provide rain shelters along bike routes
at appropriate intervals.
B. Recreational Trip:
1. Provide bikeways along scenic roads or areas with
historical and cultural spots of interest.
2. Consider installation of bike trails in the planning
of park projects, especially where they may be shared
with hikers or joggers.
-24-
3. Provide waysides and rest stops along bike routes
to take advantage of scenic spots.
INTERSECTIONS
The greatescnumber of conflicts between motorists, bicyclists
and pedestrians will occur at the intersection of roadways
and/or bikeways. Existing traffic laws which regulate the
operation of bicycles upon a roadway are not adequate in
applicability to intersections for a safe system of bikeways
to be implemented. Presently, bicyclists are required to
follow the same turning and crossing procedures as motor vehicle
drivers. Chapter 291C-l42 (H.R.S. ), of the Statewide Traffic
Code, specifies that, "Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway
shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all
of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this
chapter, ••• except as to those provisions of this chapter which
by their nature can have no application." As such, the bicyclist
must compete equally with the motorist for the use of the
roadway and intersection.
In light of the foregoing, a number of bikeway intersection
designs aimed at minimizing conflicts between pedestrians,
bicyclists and motorists are being suggested. The safest and
most effective way of preventing these conflicts is a grade
separation for the bikeway. Where possible at heavily used
intersections, grade separation, should be provided. At inter-
sections not having bikeways and at less hazardous bikeway
intersections, these types of structures may not always be
warranted and laws regulating bicycle procedures and operation
would suffice.
For bike/walk paths, ramps (Figure 11) should be constructed at
intersections: thus, providing bicycles and wheelchairs with a
smooth transition between the sidewalk and street. The bicyclist
may ride across the street with the green light or cross as a
pedestrian in the crosswalk.
-25 -
..
..
At mid-block (Figure 12) intersections of bike path and roadway,
a bicycle crossing should be provided. This would be similar to
a pedest~ian crosswalk with signs warning motorists of a bicycle
crossing. The automobile normally has the right-of-way; thus
stop or yield signs for bicyclists should be provided. Ramps
(Figure 11) should also be provided when utilization or existing
ramps is not possible.
At bicycle lane intersections, bike lanes should be ended at the
pedestrian crosswalks (Figure 13). Upon yielding to pedestrians,
the bicyclist may either get off his bicycle and cross as a
pedestrian in the crosswalk or else ride across the intersection
with the green light.
Left turning cyclists at this type of signalized intersection
have two options depending on the color of the signal (Figures
13 and 14) •. By educating the cyclist of the two options, it
would not be necessay to wait through two traffic signals to
execute a left turn.
For a single bicycle lane with the right-of-way crossing a
roadway intersection, the bicycle lane may simply be continued
(Figure 15). Signs should be provided on the crossroads warning
pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists alike of the presence of
a bicycle crossing.
FIG. II RAMPS
CURB CUT* ASPHALT RAMP OFFSET CURB CUT
* RECOMMENDED
-26-
'
rTWO-WAY
I BIKEWAY
BICYCLE
STOP SIGN
FIG. 12
BICYCLE
CROSSING
-----+~-STREET OR
HIGHWAY
BICYCLE CROSSING
MID -BLOCK
-27·-
ONE-WAY
BICYCLE LANE---t-4
-t----ONE -WAY
BICYCLE LANE
PEDESTRIAN I [\ /BICYCLE
CROSSWALK-.......-----.4-/11---++-HOLDING
~/~!~====~~====~ LANE ===~==~~~~<~ ~/r~~----~----. <1---<Jf----.... f •
r
"~~~~~~~v~
\1 --+-+--+-+
1
--t //..._____.__ PEDESTRIAN
\ I CROSSWALK
'\
ONE -WAY
BICYCLE LANE---~
~---ONE -WAY
BICYCLE LANE
FIG. 13 GREEN LIGHT LEFT-TURN PROCEDURE
-28-
ONE-WAY
BICYCLE LANE----+--
.-.+----ONE-WAY
BICYCLE LANE
PEDESTRIAN I
CROSSWA~K--~-~~~~~-1\
• <l
' ' ~~~~==~~~~~v~ \.A~ AI L / PEDESTRIAN
.. \ <1+-t-----i r I I ~ 1/ CROSSWALK
ONE -WAY 1*----0NE -WAY
BICYCLE LANE---~ r r
BICYCLE LANE
FIG. 14 RED LIGHT LEFT-TURN PROCEDURE
-29-
ONE -WAY
BICYCLE LANE -----If-+
BICYCLE CROSSING
WARNING SIGN-
STOP BAR-
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSWALK
/
' /
BICYCL.E CROSSING
WARNING SIGN
FIG. 15
) 1\ /PEOESTRAIN
I \ 1'1_ CROSSWALK
W---STOP BAR
v v
~----ONE-WAY
BICYCLE LANE
BICYCLE LANE CROSSING
-30-
Left turning cyclists at this type intersection may continue
through the intersection in the bike lane, then either get off
the bike and cross as a pedestrian, or upon yielding to cross
traffic, ride across the roadway (Figure 16).
Left turns at most bikeway intersections will be the single most
conflicting situation for the bicyclists. At the more hazardous
signalized intersections another alternative to reduce or
eliminate bicycle/motor vehicle conflict would be to have red
signals for all other vehicles; thus, giving the bicyclist time
to traverse the intersection without having to compete with the
auto. This could be accomplished by providing a manually pressed
button on the traffic signal support, similar to those used for
pedestrian crosswalks. It would be necessary to locate the
button close to the bikeway so that it would be directly accessi-
ble to the bicyclist. This is a special situation and should be
examined in regard to local conditions.
With all bikeway types, traffic controls (i.e. signs, signals,
stencils), should be adapted for bicycle use at each intersection.
In light of the foregoing, it is suggested that the Statewide
Traffic Code, Chapter 291C (H.R.S.) and most specifically Part I,
General Provisions; Part VIII, Turning and Starting and Signals
on Stopping and Turning; and Part XIII, Operation of Bicycles
and Play Vehicles, be amended in applicability to bicycles.
In summary, minimizing conflicts between bicyclists, motorists,
and pedestrians will come about through the development of
bikeway design alternatives, educating the general public about
laws pertaining to bicycles, and by amending regulations which
govern the operation and position of bicycles upon the roadway
and upon other portions of the highway, whether they include
bikeways or not.
-31-
~
/CROSS AS A PEDESTRIAN OR
BICYCLIST
==----,., 1=--17 ------~ ~ N -----· --.=~~
_./' ~
1'-
-1---
llo.
f---
I ~ IV ~ CONTINUE ACROSS
INTERSECTION
...
ONE-WAY
BICYCLE LANE
llo.
~
:..
FIG . 16 LEFT TURNS
-32-
BIKEWAY ALIGNMENTS
Ideally, the bicycle path is considered the most desirable
type of bikeway (see Figure 10 on page 24). However, it
cannot always be provided because of cost considerations and lack
of sufficient road rights-of-way along existing streets. Nor is
it always necessary where traffic conditions are light. As such,
initially street rights-of-way will be the means of implementing
the bikeway system in Hawaii County. Providing a system of
bikeways will come from improvements to these existing rights-
of-way. More specifically, this will require the structuring
and re-design of the roadway and roadway shoulder and the upgrading
and re-designing of sidewalks for bicycle use.
Bikeway alignments within various street rights-of-way are
illustrated on the following pages (Figures 17 -17.3). To
establish the alternative alignments upon a roadway (Figures 17.4
and 17.5), will require amending sections of the Traffic Code
which states, in part, that, "No person shall operate or ride a
bicycle within a bicycle lane in any direction except that
permitted of vehicular traffic traveling on the same side of
the highway."
Bikeways must be well-designed and maintained if they are to
facilitate the bicyclist. Important features in assuring the
success of those bikeways located upon streets is to make sure
that the longitudinal joint separations are not hazardous. For
drainage reasons, bikeways should not be located within the curb
and gutter. Also, joints parallel to or less than forty-five
degrees to direction of bicycle flow should be avoided for
they may be cause of hazard by inducing unexpected directional
change.
-33-
FIG. 17
·STANDARD WIDTHS ·
SECONDARY ARTERIALS
WITH SIDEWALK
eo' RIGHT ·OF-WAY
e' ~· 3o' l 30' 2' e'
1
1 J9F========t=l ===:z=. ==rc 1 ~~~~E:_; ~ .S'' PAVEMENT_/ ~ CURB 8r ~ GUTTER
LBICYCLE BICYCLE
LANE LANE
WITH SIDEWALK AND PARKING
eo' RIGHT -OF-WAY
e' ~· 30' 30' 12' e'
CURJ 6~-~~~1~_;~~~. I
PAVEMENT GUTTER l a' g' g' a' L CURB 8r
1 L I L1 GUTTER
BICYCLE -PARKING PARKING-' BICYCLE
LANE LANE
WITHOUT SIDEWALK (NO PARKING)
eo' RIGHT ·OF-WAY
IS' 10'
r --------L_j_
BICYCL
1
E I 1
LANE--'
12' 12' 10' le'
l
I \ I 10' I. -----PAVEMENT-' -r-h
BICYCLE
LANE
-34-
FIG. 17.1
COLLECTOR STREETS
WITH SIDEWALK
so· RIGHT-OF-WAY
BIKE/WALK 10' 2' 1s' l 1s'
1
~ PATH--I ,;
CURS a /
I I
PAVEMENT__/
GUTTER__;
WITHOUT SIDEWALK (NO PARKING)
so' RIGHT-OF-WAY
12' s' 10' 10' s'
1-ANE------J
-35-
12'
..... Ji.
10'
! , CJBIKE/WALK I PATH
'--CURS a
GUTTER
12'
:
LANE
FIG. 17.2
BUSINESS AND INDUSTR.IAL
STREETS
WITH SIDEWALK
60 RIGHT -OF-WAY
BIKE/WALK 10' 1.2' 18' L 18' 1.2' 10'
:
---PATH -CURB L ~
GUTTER__/
WITHOUT SIDEWALK
10' 8'
: ........_
8' BICYCL~ LANEY I
eo'
l
I
PAVEMENT_/
" I
BIKE/WALK
PATH
CURB a
GUTTER
(NO PARKING)
RIGHT -OF-WAY
12' 12'
i
PAVEJENT~
-36-
8' 101
___., w
\_BICYCLE
LANE
FIG. 17.3
MINOR STREETS AND
CUL-DE-SACS
WITH SIDEWALK (NO PARKING)
so' RIGHT-OF-WAY
7' 2' 16' l 16' 2' 7'
: ~
j • I_) ~~~~E~ Qft
BICYCLE
LANE
:
.. '
PAvEJENT_j Ji \_La "
• GUTTER
BICYCLE
LANE
WITHOUT SIDEWALK
SO' RIGHT-OF-WAY
9' 6' ro' l ro' 6' 9'
: ~
:
I'--
6'
BICYC:Ew L.AN~~'
PAVEMENT~ ----I 6' ~BICYCL.E
LANE
-37-
FIG. 17.4
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
80 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY
WITH SIDEWALK
81-DIRECTIONAL LANE
CENTER OF THE ROAD
eo' RIGHT-OF-WAY
CUR
GUT
i
a1 a
TER
e' 2' 30'
..
l
l
J
I
10'
!_
30'
PAVEMENT_/
-2 WAY
BICYCLE
LANE
WITH SIDEWALK AND PARKING
81-DIRECTIONAL LANE
SIDE OF THE ROAD
eo' RIGHT-OF-WAY
e' 2' 30' 30'
;
I~ CURB a
GUTTER l ~~l
-r-z:ARKING
I
PAVEMENT_/
-38-
2
. ~,
L2
e'
:
CUR
GUT
e'
:
a a
TER
: i\_ja a
GUTTER
2-WAY
BICYCLE
LANE
FIG. 17.5
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
60 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY
WITH SIDEWALK
81-DIRECTIONAL LANE
CENTER OF THE ROAD
101 2'
:
60'
re'
RIGHT-OF-WAY
l 18' 2'
"!
101
:
,~.,.,_, I I
CURB&_) \ l 1~' , l
GUTTER -f~
PAVEMENT 2-WAY
BICYCLE
·~i.. I
\_CURB a
GUTTER
WITH SIDEWALK
81-DIRECTIONAL LANE
SIDE OF THE ROAD
10' 2'
~ I_) CURB a
GUTTER
LANE
eo' RIGHT-OF-WAY
re' l re' L2' ro'
1 I l
~ /PAVEML I •n' 1 \__~J~E: ~WAY
BICYCLE
LANE
BIKEWAY STRUCTURE
Two structural requirements for a bikeway are: first, that it
must be able to support the wheel loads of bicycles, riders,
and other vehicles which may cross or use the bikeway. Secondly,
it is equally essential that a riding surface which is as smooth
as possible be maintained as bicyc~es do not have adequate
absorbing systems and give a very stiff ride as they travel on
tires inflated to about 80 pounds per square inch. Specific
problem areas which should be minimized are expansion and
pavement joints, patching, chuck holes, and the use of existing
concrete sidewalks where upheave! has occurred. Additionally,
where bike lanes are established on existing roadways or streets,
grating and gutter joints should be situated in such a manner
that the cyclist does not skid.
Surfaces of loose gravel will also induce skidding and should
be avoided. This is often true with bicycle paths which are
especially created for recreational trips.
The specific design for structural sections will vary according
to soils, climate, materials, and construction practices of the
locality. However, a general guide is provided on the following
page (Figure 18) .
-40-
FIG. 18
TYPICAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL
SECTIONS FOR BICYCLE TRAILS
=~ ~ ~-~'-o_o·:~; ~--~--=~~~-~:;~~~ :~:-~~~~~~~-
. . ' o• ,_ •o o a• a ~ a • o • • a. o 0 o 0 a 0 0 0 • • , o o t .•• ~ o Qo• .. • o•ao oa•a oooo
• OQc:. ·a aoo ooa~ o Ooo~ooo~ oo•~o o• o
0 ' 0 • ' • 0 () • ~ • 0 00 Q 0 ~ 0 • 0 0
• ~ • o o o • o • • • • 0 • • o o o o Qa o • o o •o. a •• oo.o•t.oa.oo 0 o.•• .o-_ -•. ao _o .. ,..._,~ ....
-JI)
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
(FULL DEPTH)
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
AGGREGATE
STABILIZED
COMPACTED
OR
BASE
SUB GRADE
PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCRETE SURFACE
AGGREGATE OR
STABILIZED BASE
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
STABILIZED AGGREGATE
(SOIL AND AGGREGATE
MIXED AND COMPACTED)
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
-41-
·.
..
MOTORIZED BICYCLES
With the introduction of bikeways to Hawaii County comes the
necessity to address motorized bicycles or "mopeds" a relatively
new form of transportation in the United States. Bikeplan
Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan, recommends that consi-
derat1on be given to proh1biting mopeds on all bike lanes and
paths or excluding them from the definition of a bicycle or
both. However, several States have rewritten the definition
for mopeds and there are now thirty three States with legislation
that list mopeds separately from motorcycles and virtually in the
same class as bicycles. It would seem that to restrict the
development of this new form of transportation before its
potential is realized, is to overlook its possibilities as an
energy saver, recreational vehicle and alternate mode of trans-
portation. As such, this section will depict those rights-of-
way which are presently available for moped use given the
applicable County, State and Federal governmental regulations.
The operation of bicycles and motorized bicycles in Hawaii County
is regulated by Chapter 291C (H.R.S.}. The Hawaii State
Legislature recently redefined the term "bicycle" to include
motorized bicycles, "provided the power capability of the motor
shall not exceed one and one half horsepower" Act 187-75, (S.L.H.).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA} after reviewing Hawaii's
Act 187-75, advised the State Department of Transportation in
January 1976, that "Federal-aid participation must be limited to
those bikeway projects where all motorized vehicles (excepting
maintenance vehicles) will be banned .•• bikeways are being advanced
as a means to separate motorized and non-motorized means of travel
and whether we are looking at automobiles, motorcycles, or mopeds,
we are still looking at a motorized vehicle and they are not
compatible with bicycles and/or pedestrians." This regulation
motivated the Hawaii State Legislature to adopt several laws in
relation to bicycles.
Act 175-78 (S.L.H.} amended Section 291C by adding a definition
for mopeds, page 12, and by adding a separate part entitled,
Special Rules for Mopeds which includes the following sections:
"Section 291C Driving mopeds on roadways. (a} Every
person driving a moped upon a roadway shall ride as near to the
right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care
when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same
direction.
(b) Persons driving mopeds upon a roadway shall drive in
single file.
(c) No person shall drive a moped on any sidewalk or area
intended for use as a sidewalk, nor shall any person drive a
-42-
moped on any path or other area intended for the exclusive use
of pedestrian.'
"Section 291C Driving mopeds on bicycle lanes and paths.
(a) Wherever bicycle lanes are provided on the roadway, moped
drivers shall use such bicycle lanes.
(b) The director of transportation by rule and the counties
by ordinance may with respect to bicycle paths under their respective
jurisdictions restrict or prohibit the use of such bicycle paths
by mopeds. Signs clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person
indicating the restriction or prohibition shall be placed along
bicycle paths so designated and every moped driver shall obey the
directions thereof."
-43-
. '
COSTS
The length of the proposed Hawaii County bikeway system is
approximately 44 miles. The type and location of specific
bikeways is provided in appendix, Bikeways for Hilo and
Kailua. From Bikeplan Hawaii, the derived unit cost per mile
for most types of bikeways was calculated and is as follows:
Bike route (urban) $ 2,000
Bike route (rural) 1,000
Bike lane (shoulder paving) 57 I 000
Bike lane (on existing shoulder) 8,600
Bike path 35,000
Using these construction cost figures, roughly $280,000 is
needed for County bike\'lays within Phase I.
It should be noted that Bikeplan Hawaii does not provide
construction cost estimates for a bike/walk path. As such, to
compute the cost of Phase I, the cost per mile of (urban)
bike route, $2,000, was also used for the bike/walk path.
Construction cost estimates are based on 1977 cost factors
and do not include escalation factors or additional rights-of-
way acquisition costs, utility relocation costs inherent to
city street widening, or major structural costs for bridge
widening due to the prohibitive nature of these costs.
The comprehensiveness of the Hawaii County bikeway system prevents
its total construction at the present time. Lack of data,
funding and public acceptance regarding the safety and usage
of individual bikeways and the bikeway system on the whole
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate bikeways objectively.
Therefore, bikeways within Phase I should serve as a demonstra-
tion phase during which evaluation can take place. In such a
manner, the needed knowledge and experience for application to
future bikeway construction may be gained.
-44-
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Future
Previous sections of the plan have dealt with the conceptual and
design aspects of a bikeway system. In order to implement such
a system, a number of other activities must also be done.
1. Bicycle traffic regulations are governed by general
provisions of the Hawaii County Code, Chapter 6,
Article 13 and the Statewide Traffic Code (Chapter
291C, Hawaii Revised Statutes). However, detailed
codes must also be developed to clarify the relationship
of a bicyclist to the motor vehicle and the pedestrian
under varying conditions. These should include right-
of-way rules, procedures upon roadways, bikeways, and
at intersections, and the required equipment for
every bicycle.
A draft bill for an amendment to the Statewide Traffic
Code (H.R.S.) should be developed.
2. Educational programs both for bicyclists and the
public at large must be conducted. Through driver
education and licensing programs, motor vehicle
operators can pe made aware of the rights of cyclists.
Additionally, several other alternatives should be
encouraged. These include sponsorship of bicycle
safety programs by civic and community organizations
and utilization of various media to increase public
awareness of bicycle safety.
3. An important part of the success of the bikeway
system is the maintenance of a clean, smooth riding
surface. The Department of Public Works should
reflect within their operating budget bikeway
maintenance considerations.
4. A pilot project has been developed for Hilo and Kailua
and is attached as an Appendix. This plan may be
adopted by the County Council.
5. Should the Bikeway Plan be adopted, and as it is being
implemented, a continual monitoring program should be
established to evaluate the effectiveness and safety
of the routes and types of bikeways.
-45-
6. The Departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation
should conduct a study of program for additional sources
of funding both in terms of incorporating bikeway
considerations within Capital Improvement roadway and
park projects and separate sources. ·
7. A list of bicycle regulations should be assembled
and distributed to all bicyclists with registration of
their bicycles.
8. A study should be conducted to determine the impacts
of eliminating on-street parking along those streets
designated for bikeways.
9. A program should be initiated to replace parallel
slat drainage grates which are hazardous to bicycling.
-46-
APPENDIX I
BIKEWAYS FOR HILO AND KAILUA
The Hawaii State Master Plan for Bikeways, the draft Kona Community
Development Plan (CDP} and the Hilo Community Development Plan
(CDP) designate bikeways for Hilo and Kailua. The bikeways for
Hilo and Kailua developed here basically follow the recommendations
of these plans.
The first step was to develop a preliminary bikeway network for
Hilo and Kailua in accordance with the goals, objectives, and
standards of The Bikeway Plan. Heavily used bicycle routes and
major destination points such as recreational areas, shopping
centers, schools, and employment areas were determined. Future
developments such as neighborhood parks as planned for in the
(CDP) were also included. Bikeways were planned from residential
areas to these destination points along the most direct routes.
The result was a complete bikeway network that delineated
desirable routes.
Information was then gathered on traffic volume, street and side-
walk conditions, construction costs, and causes of bicycle
accidents. These presented constraints that were used to modify
the preliminary bikeway network. For example, if the road right-
of-way was not wide enough to allow construction of a bikeway,
an alternate route had to be chosen. The modified plan also
specifies the type of bikeway needed~ bike/walk path, bicycle
route, bicycle lane, or bicycle path.
A plan of implementation was decided upon with major consideration
given to coordination with other projects in the Hawaii County
Capital Improvement Program. For example, if a road was planned
to be resurfaced and was designated for a future bikeway, the
bikeway could be constructed at the time of the resurfacing. In
this way, the plans of the Department of Water Supply and
Department of Public Works would be incorporated into the bikeway
plans.
The implementation program of the Hilo and Kailua bikeways is
divided into major phases. The first phase of Bikeways for Hilo
is further divided into six parts each to be implemented within
consecutive one year periods. The timing of implementation may
be accelerated in the event that more funds are available.
-47-
BIKEWAYS FOR HILO
PHASE I -This phase connects most of the recreational and
shopping areas, concentrating on central Hilo. It"allows access
to the beach area, the University, Community College, Kaiko'o
Mall, Downtown, Hilo Shopping Center, Wailea State Park, and
Hoolulu Park.
Part 1
Manono Street - A bicycle lane is recommended for both
sides of Manono Street between Piilani and Leilani Streets.
There are sidewalks on both sides of Manono Street from
Piilani Street to Kamehameha Avenue, and these should be
converted to bike/walk paths. The remaining section from
Leilani Street to East Kawili Street will be designated
as a bicycle route to complete the bikeway.
Kamehameha Avenue - A bike/walk path for the makai side
and a combination bicycle lane and bike/walk path for the
mauka side are planned. The makai side will continue to
allow parking for access to the park area adjacent to
Kamehameha Avenue. The mauka side requires removal of
parking up to Honiron, where parking will be retained for
employees.
Downtown -New one-way circulation of the downtown plan
was implemented on August 10, 1975. Bicycle routes
should be designated along the one-way streets of Keawe
and Kinoole in accordance with the new circulation.
Puueo -Wainaku Street sidewalks should be converted to
bike/walk paths to allow access to the town for residents
in the Puueo area.
Part 2
West Kawili Street -This street is heavily used by the
University students, especially those living in Ash Housing.
The shoulders should be widened for bicycle lanes on both
sides of the street, and may be shared with pedestrians.
-48-
Kawili between Kinoole and Kilauea -The realignment of this
street coordinated by the Public Works Department has been
completed. The bicycle lanes planned for the shoulders of
the road should be constructed.
East Kawili Street -This is the last segment connecting the
Community College with the University and the rest of the
bikeway network, and will be designated as a bicycle route.
Kapiolani Street -Bicycle routes are proposed between
Lanikaula Street and Kawili Street to accommodate student
traffic.
Part 3
This part largely connects Waiakea and the University with
Downtown.
Kinoole Street -This street is being resurfaced and
widened by the Public Works Department. A bicycle lane is
being recommended for the section from Kawili Street to
the railroad right-of-way.
Railroad Right-of-Way -(Abandoned, owned by the State)
This is proposed to be used as a mini-park and bicycle path
connecting Kinoole Street and Kilauea Avenue.
Kilauea Avenue -The lightly travelled sidewalk on the
makai side of the street should be used as a bi-directional
bike/walk path from Ponahawai Street to the railroad
right-of-way.
Pauahi Street -Sidewalks on both sides should be converted
to bike/walk paths to connect Kilauea Avenue and Kamehameha
Avenue and to service the Kaiko'o area.
Ponahawai Street -The sidewalks on both sides of the street
are being recommended as bike/walk paths to connect Kinoole
Street 'Hi th Kamehameha Avenue.
-49-
..
. .
Part 4
Mohouli Street -This street has been resurfaced by the
Department of Public Works. A proposed bicycle lane may
be shared with pedestrians to be used by resid2nts in the
area.
Parts 4 and 5
Kalanianaole Street - A combination of bicycle route, lane,
and bike/walk paths is proposed to accommodate bicycling
to swimming spots, picnic areas, or for recreational riding.
Should funding permit, the bikeway could extend the entire
length of Kalanianaole Street instead of just part way.
Kamehameha Avenue and Silva Street -Will be widened to
become the major roadway to reach the Keaukaha area. Thus,
the portion of Kalanianaole Street between these two
streets will be less travelled by cars and will be suitable
for a bicycle route.
Part 6
Banyan Drive - A two-way bicycle path to be used exclusively
for bikes is planned on the outside of one of the existing
sidewalks. Lihiwai Street (around Liliuokalani Park)
should be restricted to one-way traffic and the other lane
used by bicyclists and/or pedestrians.
PHASE II -This phase largely connect the major residential areas
to the city system devised in Phase I. Six schools, three parks,
and the library will be reachable by the bicycle system in
addition to the destination points included in Phase I. This
phase also proposes an intensive system of bikeways throught Wailea
Park for recreational riding. The implementation of Phase II is
dependent on funding and the need for systems for other areas in
the County which may postpone this phase.
PHASE III -The main purpose of this phase is to connect the new
Waiakea High School and zoo to the rest of the system. The
implementation depends on the time of construction of these two
developments and completion of Phase II. Planned within Phase III
are short paths along the Flood Drainage Canal from the University;
and bicycle lanes through the school district of Waiakea High,
Intermediate, and Elementary. A new neighborhood park is proposed
-so-
for the Waiakea Uka district. A bicycle lane is being proposed
to connect this park to the existing Waiakea Uka Gym and to the
Bikeway system. The Hilo COP proposes a path along the Bayfront
for bicycles and pedestrians, this is also included in Phase III.
BIKEWAYS FOR KAILUA
PHASE I -This phase connects with the existing bike lane and
also provides access to Kailua and the beach areas.
Alii Drive - A bike route is recommended along Alii Drive
be~ween Kamehameha III Road and the Kuakini Highway and
Palani Road junction.
Kuakini Highway - A bike lane, approximately 2 miles long,
is recommended for each side of Kuakini Highway beqinning
at the Kuakini Highway and Palani Road junction heading
South.
:;;
c z c .. 0
hila bay
~I PUAINAKO I STREET I I I
ST.
51:
general lyman field
LEGEND:
SIX (6) YEAR
IMPLEMENTATION PRQ~~B~
000000[)[) BICYCLE ROUTE I I PART
00000 BICYCLE LANE
BICYCLE PATH
0000000 BIKE /WALK PATH
~ BUSINESS
"'7
c!J
PARK
SCHOOL
,,
PHASE --=-~-=-=--=--
PART 2
PART 3
PART
PART
PART
4
5
6
o aooo •ooo eooo LJLJ~-=-~·--b,. J
SCALE IN FEET
... "'
c z c z 0 2
hila boy
._;
"' ~
0 z 0 z c ~
LEILANI
LANIICAULA
~~ • von1onv '-'lhJ "'"I.e'-' \ I I
ST.
ST.
general lyman f1eld
SIX ~~L-XEAR
LEGE;NQ:
[][][](][][](](] BICYCLE ROUTE
00000 BICYCLE LANE
IMPLEME~_TAT!QN_E.RQ2~A!Y1_
PART
~
l I PART 2
BICYCLE PATH
BIKE /WALK PATH
BUSINESS
PARK
SCHOOL
PHASE
PART
PART
PART
PART
o aooo •oao eooo
I F9 t='l F"""~~= ==-.., ---I ~ b-1 '--1 ~-·------=-' SCALE IN FEET
3
4
5
6
~
,__
"'
.. z .. :z: 0
hilo boy
1-"' I
ll
PilL ANI !L w,
~ z w > "" IC[ICUANAOA
LEILANI
LANIK4ULA
~~ PUAINAKO I STREET I I I
ST
ST
generol lymon field
LEGENQ.:
BICYCLE ROUTE
00000 BICYCLE LANE
DO 00000 BICYCLE PATH
0000000 BIKE /WALK PATH '*' BUSINESS
PARK
~ SCHOOL
SIX ~YEA_R_
IMPLEME!'JTA"f_ION
PART
PART
c.=::=:J PART
PART
PART
PART
PHASE . -=· =
o 1000 •ooo eooo I ,...., ,...., ,_......,~-~=""'9 I
1::-.1 L.-.J b:-.1 ba===:.-.-~:==---J
SCALE 1111 FEET
PROGRAM --
2
'3
4
5
6
., t
NORTH
""' "'
.. z .. z 0
h1lo boy
..,
"' I
II
PIILANI a
lUI ::> 2 "" > q
KEKUANAOA
LEILANI
LANIKAULA
~, PUAINAKO I STREET ' I I
ST.
st
general lyman field
LEGEND:
[)[)[)[)[)[)[)[) BICYCLE ROUTE
00000 BICYCLE LANE
c!J
BICYCLE PATH
BIKE /WALK PATH
BUSINESS
PARK
SCHOOL
PHASE
SIX (6) '(~AR
I!VIPLEMEttWJQ~--~-RR<?J:t~M-
PART
PART 2
PART
I I PART
PART
PART
3
4
5
6
o aooo .:.=:-·.:-.roo ·.t. ~oo eooo L.J ..... L~ =t.~.·~· _...... -_,J
~
[J:i[j
SCALE 1111 Ff"f r NORTH
..
'"' "'
... z ... :z: 0
hila boy
..,
"' I
II
PIILANI §.!.
w .::> z w > cr
KEKUANAOA
LEILANI
LANIKAULA
;L PUAINAKO I STREET ' I I
ST.
St
general lyman field
LEGEND:
BICYCLE ROUTE
00000 BICYCLE LANE
BICYCLE PATH
0000000 BIHE /WALK PATH
"""
BUSINESS
PARK
SCHOOL
SIX SS~ YEAR
IMPLEMENTATION
PART
PART
PART
PART
I l PART
PART
PHASE .1
F=~~==~=z=·~ooo eooo !-=====~ SCALE IN FEET
..
PROGRAM
2
3
4
5
6
... en
c z c ::1: 0
h1lo boy
..: ... I
II
PIILAIIII ll w. ::1 z w > cr
K£KUANAOA
l£1LANI
LANIKAULA
~, PUAINAKO I STREET ' I I
ST.
ST.
general lyman field
SIX SS2 YEAR
~&GENO: IMPLEMENTATION __ PROGRAM
DDDDDDDD BICYCLE ROUTE PART
BICYCLE LANE PART
0000000 BICYCLE PATH PART
OOOOODO BIKE /WALK PATH PART
BUSINESS PART
"V' PARK I l PART
SCHOOL
PHASE I
o zooo •ooo eooo LrLrl_r·=====t==--==~
SCAL~ IN FE~T
2
3
4
5
6
I I~
NORTH
... . ...
•
. -f .
0
~
.... "' IIJ
II.
IIJ .J ~~~ :s.
0
-II _,
II II
WI!
(1)11
<t''
~II
0 ""
00000 BICYCLE LANE
0000000 BICYCLE PATH
"'7 PARK
0 SCHOOL
PHASE Ill
~==c.==~===-·~oo.o eooo
SCALE IN FEET
hilo
boy
~
NORTH
•
...
~ ·.
~ __.,....,
,,
~~
y .... -. ••. t-·1"' ~ ........ . ••~..r·s&_.,. ... , '="._-...-..r.,..
-' / •
_,..,--"'
-/"' --------------//---;/:>~/
// I /. " ~
"" ... ·
__ / _, -" ' '"
\ -r
pacific
o c e a n
_KAI~WA
BIKEWAY ... -::: ...
I ~ ..
CDODDO~DO!":
LJDDCJCJOCJ
=.:;t~ ~=:::::::Jr:~:J
L E., ~H~ N Q_=
B ICYCLE ROUTE
l•t':YCLE ~.ANE
C:XISTING
BICYCLE L~NE
SYSTEM !7LJ ~~ 3'("~ ' • H) ··i
L
"' r I t:T NORTH
•
BIBLIOGRAPHY I '
# "' ' .. . .
1. Hawaii County, Planning Department. General Plan,
December, 1971.
2. State of Oregon. Bikeway Design, Oregon State Highway
Division, Salem, Oregon 97301, January, 1974.
3. Smith, Daniel T., Jr., DeLeuw, Cather and Company.
Safety and Location Criteria for Bicycle Facilities,
FHWA-RD-75-112, prepared for Federal Highway Administration,
Offices of Research and Development, Washington, D. c.
20590, February, 1977.
4. Sunn, Low, Tom and Hara, Inc./H. Mogi Planning and Research
Inc. Bikeplan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan,
March, 1977.
5. Tempe, Arizona. Tempe Bikeway Plan, Fall 1974.
6. U. S. Federal Highway Administration, Department of
Transportation. Bikeways-State of the Art-1974,
FHt·7A-RD 74-56, Washington, D. c.
-61-
• • • . ~ , . . .