maui county downhill bicycle tour study

Transcription

MAUI COUNTY
DOWNHILL BICYCLE
TOUR STUDY
Department of Public Works,
County of Maui
JUNE 2010
MAUI DOWNHILL BICYCLE TOUR STUDY
Prepared for
Department of Public Works
County of Maui
Prepared by
Kimura International, Inc.
1600 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1610
Honolulu, HI 96814
June 2010
Contents
1.7
1.8
1.9
Page
Introduction
Study Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................... 1-1
Enabling Legislation .......................................................................................... 1-1
Brief Overview of the Commercial Downhill Bicycle Tour Industry ............... 1-2
Project Background: Key Events ....................................................................... 1-4
Role of the National Park Service ...................................................................... 1-6
Previous County Studies of Downhill Bicycle Tour Operators ......................... 1-7
1.6.1 Maui Police Department Study .............................................................. 1-7
1.6.2 Corporation Counsel Study .................................................................... 1-8
Upcountry Greenway Master Plan ..................................................................... 1-9
Methodological Framework of this Study ....................................................... 1-11
Organization of this Report .............................................................................. 1-11
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Downhill Bicycle Tour Industry
Downhill Tour Operators ...................................................................................
Downhill Tour Participants ................................................................................
Tour Operations .................................................................................................
Rider Qualifications and Screening ...................................................................
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Data Analysis and Findings
Tour Routes ........................................................................................................ 3-1
Traffic Conditions on Key Roads ...................................................................... 3-2
Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)/Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) ............. 3-8
Accident Analysis .............................................................................................. 3-9
3.4.1 NPS Accident Statistics ......................................................................... 3-9
3.4.2 State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Crash Data ................ 3-13
3.4.3 State of Hawaii Department of Health ................................................. 3-16
3.4.4 Emergency Medical Service ................................................................ 3-17
3.4.5 Self-Reported Industry Data ................................................................ 3-18
4
4.1
Community Input
Public Information Meetings ............................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 Public Meeting 1 .................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Public Meeting 2 .................................................................................... 4-2
Stakeholder Meetings ......................................................................................... 4-7
4.2.1 Kula Community Association ................................................................ 4-7
4.2.2 Main Street Program .............................................................................. 4-9
4.2.3 Maui Bicycle Alliance ......................................................................... 4-10
4.2.4 Upcountry Citizens for Bike & Traffic Safety ..................................... 4-10
4.2.5 Downhill Bicycle Tour Companies ..................................................... 4-10
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
4.2
i
2-1
2-1
2-4
2-6
Maui Downhill Bicycle Tour Study
Contents
Page
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Regulatory Environment
Bicycle Tour Business Permit ............................................................................ 5-1
National Park Service, Commercial Use Authorization .................................... 5-2
Motor Carrier Transportation Regulations under the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) ............................................................................................ 5-9
Traffic Laws: Bicycle Riding Regulations ...................................................... 5-10
Bicycle License and Tag .................................................................................. 5-11
Complete Streets .............................................................................................. 5-11
Regulation of Businesses Similar to Commercial Bicycle Tours .................... 5-12
5.7.1 Commercial Ocean Recreation Activity (CORA) Permit .................... 5-12
5.7.2 Honolulu Pedicabs ............................................................................... 5-13
Small Business Regulatory Review ................................................................. 5-14
6
6.1
Proposals
Physical Improvements ...................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Staging Area(s) ...................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Shoulder Widening and Pull-outs .......................................................... 6-2
6.1.3 Bridge Improvements ........................................................................... 6-17
6.1.4 Bike Path Connector from Crater Road to Haleakala Hwy ................. 6-18
6.1.5 Rest Stops and Scenic Overlooks ........................................................ 6-20
6.1.6 Baldwin Avenue Shared Use Path ....................................................... 6-21
6.2
Regulatory Proposals .......................................................................................
6.2.1 Close Permit Loophole ........................................................................
6.2.2 Specify Restrictions and Conditions on Use of Roadways ..................
6.2.2.1 Prohibit bicycle tours on certain road segments ......................
6.2.2.2 Restrict bicycle tours during certain times of the day ..............
6.2.2.3 Restrict the number of guided bicycle tours
(convoys) allowed ....................................................................
6.2.2.4 Regulate the spacing of bike tour convoys ..............................
6.2.2.5 Restrict the size of convoys (number of riders per tour) .........
6.2.2.6 Regulate the qualifications of participants by
age, height, weight, and/or skill level ......................................
6.2.2.7 Require the mandatory use of pull-outs by escort vans
and trailers ................................................................................
6.2.2.8 Require speedometers on the cruise leader’s bicycle ..............
6.2.3 Develop a Credentialing and Oversight Program ................................
6.2.4 Data Collection ....................................................................................
6.2.5 Surcharge Fee per Bicycle ...................................................................
6.2.6 Mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing .................................................
6.3
6-21
6-21
6-22
6-22
6-24
6-24
6-24
6-26
6-27
6-27
6-28
6-29
6-30
6-31
6-31
Non-Regulatory Proposals ............................................................................... 6-32
6.3.1 Identify Vans and Trailers ................................................................... 6-32
6.3.2 Complaint Hotline and Follow-up ....................................................... 6-32
ii
Contents
Page
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6
6.3.7
6.3.8
Best Practices Manual ..........................................................................
Safety Video .........................................................................................
Scenic Byway .......................................................................................
Directional Signs for Bicyclists ...........................................................
Increase Police Enforcement of Traffic Laws .....................................
Install Electronic Speed Monitors ........................................................
6-33
6-34
6-35
6-36
6-36
6-36
7
7.1
7.2
Assessment and Recommendations
Assessment ......................................................................................................... 7-1
Recommendations .............................................................................................. 7-4
8
References
Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
National Park Service, Commercial Use Authorization, Conditions, Special
Conditions, Safety Plan Addendum, 2007
National Park Service, Case Incident Log 2006
Kula Community Association, Bike Tour and Rental Safety Position Statement
Public Information Meeting 1, July 21 and 22, 2008
Public Information Meeting 2, November 19 and 20, 2008
iii
Contents
List of Figures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9a.
9b.
9c.
9d.
9e.
9f.
9g.
9h.
9i.
9j.
10.
Page
Location Map, Bike Tour Routes ....................................................................... 1-5
Upcountry Greenway Master Plan ................................................................... 1-10
Traffic Counts, Haleakala Crater Road .............................................................. 3-4
Traffic Counts, Haleakala Highway .................................................................. 3-5
Traffic Counts, Baldwin Avenue ....................................................................... 3-6
Traffic Counts, Makawao Avenue ..................................................................... 3-7
Typical Plan—Pull-out Area .............................................................................. 6-5
Typical Section—80-foot ROW w/Cut, w/Fill .................................................. 6-6
Potential Improvements (Mile 9-10) .................................................................. 6-7
Potential Improvements (Mile 6-8) .................................................................... 6-8
Potential Improvements (Mile 1-5) .................................................................... 6-9
Potential Improvements (Mile 1 to Lower Kimo Drive) ................................. 6-10
Potential Improvements (Mile 4-5) .................................................................. 6-11
Potential Improvements (Mile 3) ..................................................................... 6-12
Potential Improvements (Mile 2) ..................................................................... 6-13
Potential Improvements (Mile 1 to Hanamu Road) ......................................... 6-14
Potential Improvements (Baldwin Avenue to Haliimaile Road) ..................... 6-15
Potential Improvements (Ohaoha Place to Ike Drive) ..................................... 6-16
Proposed Bike Path, Intersection of Haleakala Hwy and Crater Rd ................ 6-19
List of Charts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Downhill Bicycle Tour Participants, August 2007 and 2008 ............................ 2-2
Total Bike Accidents, Haleakala National Park, 1999-2006 ........................... 3-10
Bicycle Involved Crashes, Haleakala Crater Road, 1995-2006 ....................... 3-13
Comparison of Bicycle Involved Crashes and Other Vehicular
Crashes, Haleakala Crater Road, 1995-2006 ................................................... 3-14
Bicycle Involved Crashes, Haleakala Highway, 1995-2006 ........................... 3-15
Comparison of Bicycle Involved Crashes and Other Vehicular
Crashes, Haleakala Highway, 1995-2006 ........................................................ 3-16
Bike Tour Accidents, 2007 .............................................................................. 3-18
List of Tables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Downhill Bicycle Tour Participants, August 2007 and August 2008 ................ 2-3
Tour Routes ........................................................................................................ 3-1
BLOS/BCI Calculations ..................................................................................... 3-9
Vehicular Accidents by Zip Code, 2007 .......................................................... 3-17
Kula Community Survey, 2008 ......................................................................... 4-8
Convoy Spacing Calculations (Scenarios)........................................................ 6-25
iv
1.
Introduction
In 2008, the County of Maui contracted with Kimura International, Inc. to conduct a
study of commercial bicycle tours that traverse down the slope of Haleakala. The study
was motivated by strong public concern about the safety of tour operations and
disruptions to local traffic. A statute enacted by the 2007 State legislature allows
counties to regulate commercial bicycle tours, thereby providing the legal basis for
changes to the Maui County Code.
1.1
Study Purpose and Objectives
Specific study objectives included the following:

Describe the downhill bicycle tour industry

Conduct an assessment of the downhill bicycle tour industry with input from tour
operators, stakeholder organizations, community members, and public agencies

Investigate alternatives and develop recommendations for possible regulation of
commercial bicycle tours (both guided and unguided) on State and County roadways
1.2
Enabling Legislation
The legislation enacted in 2007 provided for the following:
[§46-16.3] Regulation of commercial bicycle tours. Any law to the contrary
notwithstanding, the council of any county may adopt and provide for the enforcement of
ordinances regulating commercial bicycle tours on state and county highways, including
but not limited to ordinances relating to the number of tours, the number of bicycles
within a tour, scheduling of tours, physical spacing of tours, rules of the road, health and
safety requirements, equipment maintenance, driver and guide qualifications, driver and
guide drug testing, accident procedures and reporting, and financial responsibility
requirements. Each county shall follow federal guidelines for commercial bicycle tours
that begin from federal or state parks and continue on to state highways.
For the purposes of this section:
“Bicycle tour” includes both guided bicycle tours and unguided bicycle rental operations.
1-1
1.3
Chapter 1 Introduction
Brief Overview of the Commercial Downhill Bicycle Tour Industry
According to industry lore, the first commercial bicycle tour down Haleakala took place
in 1983. The original concept for the tour was to supply riders with bicycles and safety
gear for a “gravity assisted bicycle adventure.” Because the route is largely downhill, the
ride does not require significant physical exertion and is more accessible to a wide range
of bicycle riders. At the same time, the route has high aesthetic values, passing through
some of the most scenic landscapes on the island.
There are two types of bicycle tours: escorted (or guided) tours, and independent (or
unescorted) tours. Escorted tours have a maximum of 13 riders in a convoy led by a
professional guide or cruise leader. The convoy is accompanied by a van, often hitched
with an equipment trailer. In contrast, independent tours outfit the riders (bicycles, safety
gear, maps and instructions) and ferry them to the start point, but riders come down on
their own and at their own pace.
Escorted bicycle tour group descending Crater Road
1-2
At present there are seven companies, a relatively stable number that has not changed
since the National Park Service decided to prohibit commercial bicycle tours within
Haleakala National Park. These companies have experienced a relatively tumultuous
period in the industry beginning with limited access to the national park and the ongoing
economic recession. Of the seven companies, five operate escorted tours, while two are
independent operators. The seven companies vary by size and the number of tours they
run.
All of the bicycle tour operators use Crater Road (State Route 378) and Haleakala
Highway (State Route 377), see Figure 1. The main tour route leaves the State highway
at Kealaloa Avenue and tour operations become more differentiated once they hit County
roads. Tours are conducted 365 days of the year, passing through the communities of
Kula, Makawao, and Paia.
See Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the bicycle tour industry.
Haleakala Highway, looking toward Haleakala
1-3
Escorted tour group on Hanamu Road; independent bicyclist in blue
1.4
Project Background: Key Events
Timeline describing key events in the regulatory history of the downhill bike tours.
1995
Ordinance 2426 establishes permit requirement for bike tour businesses
Nov 2005
Mar 2006
Nov 2006
Council Public Works Committee holds public hearings related to
downhill bicycle tours
Recommends passage of bill to increase insurance requirements
Feb 2007
Mayor Charmaine Tavares signs Ordinance 3435, increasing liability
insurance requirement from $1 million to $3 million
Jun 2007
State legislature passes bill giving Counties power to regulate bike tour
operators
Sep 2007
Oct 2007
Bike tour client killed inside Haleakala National Park, culminating a
12-month period with 2 fatalities and 3 other serious accidents
NPS imposes stand down (60 days)
Feb 2008
Mar 2008
NPS releases Safety Analysis Report
NPS extends moratorium until a Commercial Services Plan is completed
May 2008
Maui County study begins
1-4
071204/001 011110 r3
Department of Public Works, County of Maui1
Hana Hwy
(Rte 36)
State of Hawaii
Haiku
Kokomo Road
(Rte 398) County
Paia
Baldwin Avenue
(Rte 390)
County
Makawao
Makawao Ave
(Rte 365)
County
Hanamu Rd
County
Pukalani
Haleakala Highway
(Rte 377)
State of Hawaii
Kula Hwy
Park Boundary
Current
Launch
Area
Park
Headquarters
Kula
Kula Hwy
(Rte 37)
State of Hawaii
Haleakala National Park
Waiohuli
Keokea
Visitor
Center
Haleakala Crater
Road (Rte 378)
State of Hawaii
Ulupalakua
Ranch
0
NORTH
1
2
3
SCALE IN MILES
1-5
Figure 1
Location Map, Bike Tour Routes
1.5
Role of the National Park Service
Haleakala National Park, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Park Service (NPS),
is one of Maui’s premier visitor attractions. Virtually all of the Haleakala bicycle tours
include a visit to the national park. Prior to the October 2007 safety stand down, the
escorted bicycle tours originated at the Visitor Center near the summit. After commercial
bicycle tours were stopped inside the park, the tour operators modified their programs—
combining a bus tour within the park followed by the downhill bicycle ride which starts
outside the park boundaries at an elevation of 6,500 feet. There are two main staging
areas off Crater Road (State Route 378).
In the past, the NPS played a significant role in the way the bicycle tours were conducted.
The Commercial Use Authorization (CUA) for bicycle tours carried general conditions,
special conditions, and a Special Operations and Safety Plan Addendum for Bike Tours,
providing guidelines, rules and practices to mitigate and manage risk. These attachments
to the CUA may be found in the appendices to this report. To ensure compliance with the
CUA conditions, park rangers regularly inspected and monitored bike tour operations.
The State law enabling regulation of commercial bicycle tours recognizes the importance
of the national park. §46-16.3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, states that counties shall follow
federal guidelines for commercial bicycle tours that begin from federal or state parks and
continue on to state highways. The NPS is currently in the process of developing a
Commercial Services Plan for Haleakala National Park. This study report was deferred
in anticipation of the draft plan, originally scheduled for release in spring 2009.
However, the plan’s timetable has been delayed for various reasons. Maui County has
decided to proceed with this study of the downhill bicycle tours, but will continue to
coordinate with NPS, as appropriate.
Haleakala National Park entrance
1-6
1.6
Previous County Studies of Downhill Bicycle Tour Operators
The County ordinance requiring permits for bike tour businesses originally passed in
1995. In 2005, Council hearings began for more stringent regulation of the bike tours,
beginning with a higher insurance requirement. In the ten years between 1995 and 2005,
the number of tour participants increased as tourism on Maui flourished. At the same
time, Upcountry residents and traffic levels were also increasing.
Two studies were prepared to help the community and Councilmembers understand
growing tensions between residents and bicycle tours on Upcountry roadways: a study by
the Maui Police Department in 2006 and a study by the Corporation Counsel in 2007.
1.6.1 Maui Police Department Study
A report by Maui Police Officer Jeffrey Mahoney, Traffic Section, regarding the
Haleakala downhill bicycle tours was transmitted by letter dated June 26, 2006 from
Thomas M. Phillips, Chief of Police to Joseph Pontanilla, Chair, Public Works and
Transportation Committee, Maui County Council
Observations
Officer Mahoney made the following observations:
Roadway is newly paved along the uppermost portions of Crater Road (378)
down to almost Mile Post Marker #2. The roadway along the uppermost portion
of Crater Road consists of many curves with short straightaways. Shoulder areas
are quite narrow and there are not many locations that these tour groups may use
as turnouts when traffic builds up behind the groups.
As the route traverses down Crater Road, it runs into Haleakala Highway (377)
where all the groups turn right at this main intersection. There is a posted stop
sight for downhill traffic. Observation at this intersection found that most
vehicular traffic slowed down but failed to stop at the posted stop sign. All of the
bicycle tour groups utilized the shoulder but also did not stop at this intersection.
Continuing down Haleakala Highway (377) the roadway again consists of many
curves and longer stretches of straightaways. Just as the upper portion, this mid
portion has few turnouts for groups to pull over to allow building traffic to pass.
This results in some motorists trying to pass the groups along the longer
straightaways, some over double solid yellow center lines.
Speed limits along most of the upper and mid portion of the route is posted at 30
mph with even lower speed warning signs at many of the curves in the road. Bike
tours seem to be below or near the speed limit consistently. Cannot say the same
1-7
for motor vehicle traffic along these same portions. Motor vehicle speeds average
8 to 15 mph over the posted speed limits.
Summary and Recommendations
1.
Limit the number of tour operations allowed through the permit process
2.
Set rider requirements; number of riders per tour to a maximum of 12, establish a
minimum age limit of 16 and impose stricter requirements on the physical ability
to perform this activity.
3.
Establish a system of reporting incidents, such as injuries, accidents and
complaints associated with this activity to further evaluate the current system.
4.
Bicycles should be equipped with lights and reflectors due to the changing
lighting and weather conditions associated with the mountainous terrain.
5.
Tour groups should not be allowed to ride in sight of one another. This should
minimize the build up of traffic and allow individual groups to utilize turnouts.
6.
Require the trail vans to drive with lights on, have proper signage on vans
indicating type of activity ahead, and follow no closer than one half mile behind
the group. Instead of a trail van, supplement with a trail guide behind the last
rider of the group. Two way communications can alert guides to approaching
vehicles and because of the distance, allow bicycles time to get off of the road.
7.
Law enforcement will be present, as needed, and continued violations by one
company should face some type of penalties from a suspension up to revocation
of their permit.
8.
An assessment of the current roadways being utilized for this activity and the
effect on traffic should be conducted. Liability and potential litigation concerns
resulting from this assessment must also be considered.
1.6.2 Corporation Counsel Study
By letter report to the County Council dated January 18, 2007, the Corporation Counsel
submitted a review of potential liability based on court records and other public
documents of lawsuits against bicycle tour business operators. The review included 16
lawsuits involving commercial bicycle tours filed between 1999 and 2006.
The County of Maui has been named as a defendant in at least one bicycle tour businessrelated accident involving a $15 million claim for damages. In the case involving the
County, the plaintiff allegedly crossed over the center line on Baldwin Avenue and
collided with an oncoming vehicle during the bike tour. As a result of her injuries, the
1-8
plaintiff was left a paraplegic. The County did not make any payment in settlement of the
case.
Lawsuits involving the alleged defective maintenance or design of County highways have
the potential of exposing the County to greater liability for damages due to the law on
joint and several liability1 for joint tortfeasors (parties committing the tort). While State
statutes provide Counties with certain protections from liability arising from recreational
activities on beaches or public lands, they do not provide such protections for activities
on highways.
1.7
Upcountry Greenway Master Plan
In July 2004, the County of Maui, Department of Planning, issued the Upcountry
Greenway Master Plan.
The plan began by noting that “Upcountry” identifies and reflects a geographic location
comprised of close-knit communities that place a high value on open space and rural
characteristics. Greenways—defined as linear open spaces that provide routes for nonmotorized travel and recreation—were proposed as a means of connecting places within
and between communities, contributing to the economic and social integration of the
Upcountry region. The following goal provided the foundation for the plan:
Goal
An integrated system of non-motorized transportation and recreation
multi-use routes, trails and paths, which respect the rights of private
property owners and utility service companies, and which are compatible
with existing and future land uses in the region.
Of all the regions of Maui, a greenway plan was developed first for Upcountry
communities with the intent that it serve as a prototype for similar plans throughout the
island. In other words, Upcountry was viewed as being particularly appropriate and
hospitable to facilities that promote alternative transportation and outdoor recreation.
The proposed greenways themselves are a mix of off-road routes (paths and trails) and
routes within or adjacent to the right-of-way. Proposed routes in the bicycle tour area are
shown in Figure 2. Proposals within the bicycle tour area include the following:
•
•
•
Kealaloa Avenue—Priority Route within or adjacent to right-of-way
Hanamu Road—Priority Off-road Route
Baldwin Avenue—Priority Route within or adjacent to right-of-way
1
Under joint and several liability, a claimant may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they
were jointly liable and it becomes the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective
proportions of liability and payment. This means that a plaintiff may recover all the damages from any of
the defendants regardless of their individual share of the liability. That defendant must then pursue the
others for a contribution to their share of the liability.
1-9
071204/021 122909 r2
Department of Public Works, County of Maui
Haiku
Paia
Priority off-road route
Priority route within or adjacent to R.O.W.
Near-term off-road route
Near-term route within or adjacent to R.O.W.
0
1/2
1
NORTH
SCALE IN MILES
Source: County of Maui, Dept. of Planning, July 2004
1-10
Figure 2
Upcountry Greenway Masterplan
1.8
Methodological Framework of this Study
This study is based on the collection and assessment of data from many sources in an
effort to put together a comprehensive and accurate picture of the commercial downhill
tour operations and their impacts on public roadways and Upcountry communities.
Quantitative information and qualitative information are used in equal measure.
Quantitative information consists of traffic data, accident data, and counts of tour groups
and participants. These types of information help to gauge the size and intensity of use,
and changes that have occurred over time.
Qualitative information includes the knowledge, opinions, and insights of people with
first-hand experience of the commercial downhill tours. In one-on-one meetings, small
groups, and large public forums, the study team learned about the industry and heard the
many sides to the downhill bicycling story, each contributing to the overall narrative.
Because the activity has been going on for over 25 years, many ideas for how it can be
improved have already been formulated. Some of these have been implemented, some
tried part way, others are only now emerging. This study seeks to identify the most
effective and feasible of the proposals and foster their consideration in a systematic way.
1.9
Organization of this Report
The chapters in this report are organized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Background information and methodological framework
Description of the downhill bicycle tour industry
Analysis of traffic and safety data
Community input
Regulatory environment
Study proposals
Assessment and recommendations
References
1-11
This page is intentionally left blank.
2.
Downhill Bicycle Tour Industry
This chapter describes the downhill bicycle tour industry. Information about the bicycle
tours was obtained from several sources, including a survey of tour operators, in-person
interviews, and company literature obtained from tour operators and online. Additional
data was obtained from the National Park Service.
2.1
Downhill Tour Operators
As of 2009, there were seven downhill tour operators. Five companies primarily offer
guided or escorted tours: Bike It Maui, Cruiser Phil’s, Maui Downhill, Maui Mountain
Cruisers, and Mountain Riders. Two companies offer independent or unescorted tours:
Haleakala Bike Company and Maui Sunriders. Based on information compiled by the
National Park Service for the years from 1999 to 2007, the number of companies
operating in the park has remained relatively constant1. Only one company, Emerald
Island Bicycle Tours, ceased operations in 2004, before the current stand down. The
existing tour operators represent a stable group with continuity of ownership and many
years of experience.
2.2
Downhill Tour Participants
To determine the number of downhill bicycle tour participants, Kimura International
conducted a survey of downhill tour operators. The seven companies were asked to
provide information about the number of tour participants for the months of August 2007
(before the NPS safety stand down) and August 2008 (after the stand down). August was
selected as a representative month which captured the summer tourism season. Six of the
seven companies provided data on both the number of vans and riders. The survey data
were compared against information supplied by the NPS. The NPS data was also used to
estimate participant numbers for the downhill tour operator with missing survey data.
As seen in Chart 1 and Table 1, the NPS stand down has brought about a significant
change in the downhill bicycle tour industry.
•
Between August 2007 and August 2008, the total number of downhill bike tour
participants dropped by 49% from 11,803 for the month of August in 2007 to 5,819 in
the month of August in 2008.
1
Haleakala National Park, U.S. Department of the Interior, Commercial Downhill Bicycle Tours Safety
Stand-down Management Analysis, Volumes 1 through 10.
2-1
Ch. 2 Industry Description
•
Among the escorted tour operators, there was a slight reduction in the average
number of riders per van, decreasing from 11.4 in 2007 to 10.7 in 2008.
•
In August 2008, independent riders made up about 42.8% of all downhill bicyclists,
compared to 22.8% in August 2007.
Chart 1
Downhill Bicycle Tour Participants, August 2007 and 2008
12,000
No. of Tour Participants
2,573
10,000
8,000
6,000
2,492
8,735
4,000
3,327
2,000
0
August 2007
August 2008
Escorted
Independent
Tour operators have stated that the National Park component is important to the overall
perception of the activity’s value. Because many tourists have a limited number of days
on the island, they are less likely to make multiple trips to Haleakala—once to visit the
park and once to take the bicycle tour. In re-thinking the quality of the Haleakala
National Park experience, the NPS not only barred the bicycle tours, but also reduced the
number of permits granted to the bike companies to conduct bus tours of the park. In
some cases, this meant a reduction at sunrise from five permits to two permits. The
critical issue of future NPS policy regarding bus (and possibly bicycle) tour permits is
expected to be addressed in the pending Commercial Services Plan. In the meantime, the
cap on NPS bus tour permits coincides with a broader slowdown in tourism due to
recessionary factors. When visitor activity increases, bicycle tour operators could make
alternate arrangements, such as buying seats on a third-party bus tour that would deliver
bicycle tour participants to the staging area after the park visit. Another option is to
2-2
eliminate the Haleakala park visit and market an abbreviated tour consisting of just the
downhill ride.
Table 1. Downhill Bicycle Tour Participants, August 2007 and August 2008
Escorted Tours
Independent Tours
Total Tours
Monthly
Total
Daily
Average
Monthly
Total
Daily
Average
Monthly
Total
Daily
Average
August 2007
820
26
158
5
978
32
August 2008
320
10
173
6
493
16
Net Change,
2007-2008
-500
-16
15
0
-485
-16
Percent Change,
2007-2008
-61%
-61%
9%
9%
-50%
-50%
Monthly
Total
Daily
Average
Monthly
Total
Daily
Average
Monthly
Total
Daily
Average
August 2007
8,735
282
2,573
83
11,308
365
August 2008
3,327
107
2,492
80
5,819
188
Net Change,
2007-2008
-5409
-174
-81
-3
-5490
-177
Percent Change,
2007-2008
-62%
-62%
-3%
-3%
-49%
-49%
Vans
Riders
Note: Slight discrepancies due to rounding.
Source: Kimura International, 2008. Downhill Bicycle Tour Operator Survey. The NPS provided monthly
totals for August based on the 2007 Annual Report and number of vouchers collected in 2007 and 2008.
Future Growth in the Downhill Bike Tour Industry
In one-on one interviews, the downhill bicycle tour operators expressed the following
views about the future of the industry:
•
Long-term economic viability is a concern given National Park uncertainties, tourism
cutbacks, and general economic slump
•
The most important factor affecting the future size of the industry is the NPS
Commercial Services Plan and policy of issuing park permits
•
The industry will not expand to former levels with most industry representatives
saying it had gotten “too big” (prior to the NPS safety stand down)
2-3
2.3
Tour Operations
Check-in and Initial Briefing
All downhill bicycle tours begin with a tour orientation and safety briefing at the
baseyard before leaving for Haleakala. At this time, participants are asked to read and
sign a document variously termed acknowledgement of risk or release waiver. Some
companies also require completion of a medical/physical clearance form. Because
participants make reservations by telephone, online, or through a third-party booking
agent, they should already be familiar with the company’s policy on rider qualifications,
but the baseyard briefing provides another opportunity to screen and counsel riders. The
safety briefing is given verbally and is supplemented by written information. All
companies provide lengthy and pointed lists of rules and cautions.
Guided or Escorted Tours
At the launch site, cruise leaders have the discretion to determine if weather conditions
are too extreme. They may choose to start the tour at a lower elevation. If conditions are
not satisfactory, tours are canceled and fees refunded.
Before mounting up, cruise leaders provide a final safety briefing and determine the order
of the riders. The cruise leader rides first, followed by slower riders. All riders,
however, are expected to travel at the cruise speeds specified in the company’s literature,
which range from 15 to 25 mph. Bicyclists are instructed to keep 20-30 feet of space
between bicycles to allow adequate stopping room.
Final briefing before the bicycle descent begins
2-4
There are two types of maneuvers to allow vehicles to pass. In a rolling pass, the cruise
leader signals all riders to slow down which enables spacing to tighten up to a bicycles’
length. The shorter convoy, coupled with bicyclists riding in the shoulder, facilitates
passing by vehicles. A second maneuver is the stop pass where riders turn off the road
completely, stop, and allow traffic to pass. The cruise leader (at the front of the convoy)
and van driver (at the rear) communicate by radio to assess tour progress and traffic
conditions.
During the tour, the cruise leader makes several stops so that riders can take photos and
refresh themselves. At any point, riders are permitted to ride in the van, instead of
continuing on bike. Conversely, the cruise leader may direct riders exhibiting difficulties
into the van to complete the tour.
Independent or Unescorted Tours
Two companies specialize in independent tours. Participants are provided with
backpacks with the following: contact phone numbers, map and directions back to the
baseyard, card with Hawaii Traffic Laws, card with the company’s safety rules, and
combination lock. Riders are also provisioned with helmet, rain gear, and gloves.
Because cell phones are ubiquitous, riders are instructed to call the van driver if
assistance is needed. In case of accident requiring medical attention, they are instructed
to call 911 first, then the van driver or company office.
Following a van tour of the national park, riders are taken to the launch site where they
begin the unescorted ride. Independent tour participants are given a window of time to
complete the tour, during which they may stop and visit as desired.
Routing Concerns
Some sections of the tour route have elicited community concern, especially through
more congested urban areas. Some companies have modified their ride to avoid passing
through those sections. Current routing, according to information collected through the
downhill tour operator’s survey and conversations with the tour operators:
Yes
No
Through Makawao Commercial
District
4
3
Along Baldwin Avenue
5
2
Through Paia Commercial District
1
6
(Baldwin and Hana Hwy)
2-5
A number of bicycle tours end at Holy Rosary Church on Baldwin Avenue
2.4
Rider Qualifications and Screening
Rider Qualifications
All of the bicycle tour companies have screening criteria for prospective riders, but
restrictions vary.
Minimum age: 7 to 15 years
Maximum age: 65 years (one company only)
Minimum height: 4’10” to 5’0”
Maximum weight: 250 to 300 lbs (one company has no maximum)
Pregnancy: uniformly prohibited
Bicycling experience is the single most important qualification. But there are no
consistent criteria, with “experience” is defined as:
•
A competent rider with recent experience
•
Person confident riding in traffic on public roads
•
A good rider
•
Bicycling experience within the last 24 months
2-6
3.
Data Analysis and Findings
This chapter provides quantitative analyses of roadway and traffic conditions and
accident levels. Data from various sources are used to put together the statistical picture.
3.1
Tour Routes
The bike tour route consists of State and County roads (see Figure 1). The following list
shows the roadways used.
Table 2. Tour Routes
Roadway
Start and End Points
Approx. Distance
(miles)
State Highways
Haleakala Crater Road (378)
Launch Area to Haleakala Hwy
9.4
Haleakala Highway (377)
Crater Road to Kealaloa Rd
5.0
Hana Highway (36)
Baldwin Ave to Staging Area
0.2
Kealaloa Avenue
Haleakala Hwy to Hanamu Rd
0.4
Hanamu Road
Kealaloa Rd to Olinda Rd
0.8
Olinda Road
Hanamu Rd to Makawao Ave
1.0
Baldwin Avenue
Makawao Ave to Hana Hwy
7.0
Makawao Avenue and Kokomo
Road (independent tour route)
Olinda Rd to Haiku Town
5.0
County Roads
The full length of the escorted tour from the launch site at about Milepost 9.5 on Crater
Road to the dismount site on Hana Hwy is approximately 23.8 miles. One escorted tour
company limits its tour route to State roads, stopping near Milepost 2 on Haleakala Hwy.
Two tour operators make an interim stop, where riders dismount. Riders and equipment
are loaded onto the van and trailer and driven through Makawao Town, also by-passing
Hanamu Road and Olinda Road. Bicyclists re-mount and continue down Baldwin
Avenue, ending the ride at Holy Rosary Church. Another guided tour operator
occasionally ends at Holy Rosary Church, but the tour remains on bicycles through
3-1
Chapter 3 Data Analysis
Makawao Town. At one time almost all escorted tours ended at Paia Beach Park, which
entailed riding through Paia Town and crossing Hana Highway. More recently, in
response to complaints about bicycle convoys through town, the number of tours ending
at Paia Beach Park has dropped significantly.
The independent bicycle tours generally follow the same route. One independent tour
ends at a baseyard on Baldwin Avenue on the outskirts of Paia Town. The other
independent tour operator is based in Haiku so bicyclists are instructed to turn right at the
four-way stop in Makawao Town onto Makawao Avenue, then makai-bound onto
Kokomo Road.
3.2
Traffic Conditions on Key Roads
The information below, and the corresponding figures, describe motor vehicle traffic
conditions on key roads used by the downhill bicycle tours.
Haleakala Crater Road, (Route 378)
Nov. 2005, between Poni Moi Place and 4000 Foot Elevation sign at the1 MP sign
Figure 3
Total Daily Traffic 1,611 vehicles
AM Peak Hr (to National Park boundary)
AM Peak Hr (to Kekaulike Avenue-downhill)
•
•
•
8:00-9:00 AM, Volume 62 vehicles
Downhill traffic volume is highest from 7:15 a.m. to 8:50 a.m.
The peak rate, between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m., was 30 vehicles (rate of 120 vehicles
per hour) or two vehicles per minute
Volumes drop to less than half the peak, averaging about one vehicle per minute and
continue at low volumes until the afternoon
Haleakala Highway, (Route 377)
Nov 2005, between Kula Highway and Kealaloa Road/1 MP sign
Figure 4
AM Peak Hr (to eastern Makawao/Pukalani)
AM Peak Hr (to Kula Hwy/Kekaulike-downhill)
•
•
This traffic count was taken below the one-lane bridge (below the Kealaloa Avenue
junction where most bicyclists turn off)
There is a significant drop in traffic volumes after 8:00 a.m.
3-2
Baldwin Avenue
Nov 2005, between Alexander and Kaluanui
Figure 5
AM Peak Hr (to Kaluanui Road)
AM Peak Hr (to Hana Hwy-downhill)
•
•
•
7:00-8:00 AM, 119 vehicles
7:15-8:15 AM, 193 vehicles
Peak hours are not as pronounced
Downhill volume is higher through most of the day
Downhill volume is between 1280 and 180 vehicles per hour (2 to 3 per minute) for
most of the morning
Makawao Avenue
June 2005, between Makawao Urban Boundary and Kokomo Road
Figure 6
AM Peak Hr (to Hana Hwy-downhill)
AM Peak Hr (to Old Haleakala Hwy)
•
Except for the period from 7:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., downhill volume is about 4
vehicles per minute for most of the morning
3-3
071204/002 122909 r3
Haleakala Crater Road (November 2005 counts)
"between Poni Moi Place and 4000 Feet Elevation sign at 1 MP sign"
Toward
Toward Haleakala National Park
100
50
0
50
Toward Makawao
Flow Rate (vehicles/hour)
150
100
Toward Makawao
150
midnight
4am
noon
8am
3-4
4pm
8pm
midnight
Figure 3
Traffic Counts, Haleakala Crater Road
071204/019 122909 r2
Haleakala Highway (November 2005 counts)
Toward
500
Toward Haleakala National Park
400
300
200
100
0
100
Toward Pukalani
"between Kula Highway and Kealaloa Road / 1 MP sign"
200
300
400
Toward Pukalani
500
midnight
4am
8am
noon
3-5
4pm
8pm
midnight
Figure 4
Traffic Counts, Haleakala Highway
071204/003 061510 r4
Department of Public Works, County of Maui3
Baldwin Avenue (November 2005 counts)
"between Alexander & Kaluanui"
Toward Kaluanui
Toward Kaluanui
200
150
100
50
0
Toward Hana Highway
250
50
100
150
200
Toward Hana Highway
250
midnight
4am
8am
noon
3-6
4pm
8pm
midnight
Figure 5
Traffic Counts, Baldwin Avenue
071204/020 061510 r3
Makawao Avenue (January 2005 counts)
Toward Hana Highway
600
Toward Hana Highway
400
200
0
Toward Makawao Avenue
"between Makawao Urban boundary & Kokomo"
(200)
(400)
Toward Makawao Avenue
(600)
midnight
4am
8am
noon
3-7
4pm
8pm
midnight
Figure 6
Traffic Counts, Makawao Avenue
3.3
Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)/ Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI)
To gauge the suitability of key roadways for use as bicycling facilities, the study team
calculated the Bicycle Level of Service/Bicycle Compatibility Index. (BLOS/BCI). This
methodology was developed by transportation engineers, in cooperation with the FHWA.
The BLOS/BCI model numerically rates the “bikeability” of on-road bicycle facilities
with data inputs in 10 fields:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Through lanes per direction
Width of outside lane
Paved shoulder, bike lane, or marked parking area
Bi-directional traffic volume (ADT)
Posted speed limit
Percentage of heavy vehicles
FHWA’s pavement condition rating
Percentage of road segment with occupied on-street parking
On-street parking time limit, in minutes
Location in residential area
Bicycle Level of Service and Bicycle Compatibility Index are emerging as national
standards for quantifying the bike-friendliness of a roadway. While other “level of
service” indices relate to traffic capacity, these measures indicate bicyclist comfort level
based on specific roadway geometries and traffic conditions. Roadways with a better
(lower) score are more attractive (and usually safer) for bicyclists.
Data inputs for calculation of BLOS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Through lanes per direction
Width of outside lane, to outside stripe
Paved shoulder, bike lane, or marked parking area-outside lane strip to pavement
edge
Bi-directional traffic volume (average daily traffic)
Posted speed limit
Percentage of heavy vehicles
FHWA’s pavement condition rating
Percentage of road segment with occupied on-street parking
Percentage of segment with sidewalks
Sidewalk width
Sidewalk buffer/parking lane width
Buffer/parking lane average tree spacing
3-8
Table 3. BLOS/BCI Calculations
Score
Level of Service
Compatibility Level
Crater Road (378) between Poni Moi Place and 4000’ Elevation
BLOS
1.94
B (1.51-2.50)
Very High
BCI
1.65
B (1.51-2.30)
Very High
Haleakala Highway (377) in the vicinity of Kealaloa Road
BLOS
2.28
B (1.51-2.50)
Very High
BCI
2.06
B (1.51-2.30)
Very High
The BLOS/BCI index reveals that the existing roadways are suitable for bicycling. The
scores are influenced by relatively low traffic volumes and low posted speed limits.
However, the BLOS/BCI does not account for bicycle riding in groups which results in a
line of riders.
3.4
Accident Analysis
Analyses of accidents were conducted using data from five sources, with each source
contributing to the overall record of accidents among downhill bicycle tour participants.
•
•
•
•
•
National Park Service
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation
State of Hawaii, Department of Health
Emergency Medical Service, Kula
Self-report by downhill bicycle tour operators
3.4.1 NPS Accident Statistics
In February 2008, the National Park Service published a Safety Analysis Report of
commercially guided tours in Haleakala National Park. The following are key findings of
the study
•
For the period between 1999 and 2006, the injury rate was 8.5 injuries per 10,000
riders
•
The injury rate declined after a comprehensive review in 1999 resulted in a Safety
Action Improvement Plan that added conditions to the park permit. In the chart
below, the drop in accidents is seen after 2000.
3-9
Chart 2
Total Bike Accidents
Haleakala National Park, 1999-2006
154
160
Number of Accidents
140
132
120
97
100
83
90
88
80
75
80
60
40
20
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: National Park Service, Safety Analysis Report: Commercially Guided
Tours in Haleakala National Park, February 28, 2007
NPS Case Log Data
In addition to the Safety Analysis Report, the National Park Service also released in 2007
a set of addenda that included annual data on the bicycle tours. The following
information was taken from the NPS Incident Case Logs for 2006 (last full year before
the safety stand down) and 2007 (data through October, when the stand down went into
effect). According to the conditions of the Commercial Use Authorization, tour operators
are required to report all accidents. The 2006 and 2007 logs are reproduced in
Appendices B and C. They have been retyped and sorted by case number, but otherwise
duplicate the NPS document with no substantive change.
When the October 2007 safety stand down began, NPS authorizations allowed for a
maximum of 40 guided tours per day or as many as 90,000 participants per year.
3-10
2006 NPS Incident Case Log
Accidents
•
103 incidents were reported in the Case Incident Log
•
86 of the 103 incidents (83.5%) were accidents, including 1 fatality
•
2 of the 86 (2.3%) accidents involved MEDEVAC
•
2 of the 86 (2.3%) accidents involved EMS ground transport; 7 (8.1%) involved POV
or other form of transport;
•
3 other accidents is likely to have required transport (broken bones or sprains)
•
50 of the 86 (58.1%) accidents listed as "minor injury"
•
13 of the 86 (15.1%) accidents listed as "no injury"
•
8 of the 86 (9.3%) accidents provided no detail
Descriptions of the more serious injuries included loss of consciousness, broken bones,
neck/shoulder injuries, internal injuries
•
•
•
•
Breakdown of accidents by gender: 51 female (59.3%), 26 male (30.2%), and 9
gender unknown (10.5%)
Age range: 12-83; 5 persons were 16 years or younger
Breakdown of transport cases by age: 1 < 16; 3 in 20s; 2 in 30s; 2 in 40s; 2 in 60s; 1
unknown age
1 fatality involved a 60-year old male rider
Non-Accidents
•
10 of 103 incidents (9.7%) were citations
•
of 103 incidents (3.9%) were vehicular warnings
•
1 multi-vehicle accident (minor damage)
2007 NPS Incident Case Log
Accidents
•
147 incidents reported in the Case Incident Log
•
NPS stand down barring bicycle tours began October 2007.
•
77 of the 147 incidents (52.4%) were accidents, including 1 fatality
•
2 of the 77 (2.3%) accidents involved MEDEVAC
•
8 of the 77 (10.4%) accidents involved EMS ground transport; 11 (14.3%) involved
POV or other form of transport
•
49 of the 77 (63.6%) accidents listed as "minor injury"
3-11
•
7 of the 77 (9.1%) accidents listed as "no injury"
•
7 of the 77 (9.1%) accidents provided no detail
Descriptions of more serious injuries included fractures, back pain, head injuries, and
sprains
•
Breakdown of accidents by gender: 54 female (70.1%), 17 male (22.1%), and 6
gender unknown (7.8%)
•
Age range: 12-78; 4 persons were 16 years or younger
•
Breakdown of transport cases by age: 2 in 20s; 4 in 30s; 3 in 40s; 10 in 50s; 2
unknown age
•
1 fatality involved a 53-year old female rider
Non-Accidents
•
59 of 147 incidents (40.1%) were citations
•
of 147 incidents (3.4%) were vehicular warnings
•
of 147 incidents (3.4%) were safety inspections
•
1 multi-vehicle accident (collision)
3-12
3.4.2
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Crash Data
The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) compiles information about accidents
(termed crashes) on State highways. In terms of analyzing bicycle accidents, the HDOT
database is restricted because the data are limited to roadways under State jurisdiction
and crashes must involve a motor vehicle; bicycle-only crashes are excluded.
Furthermore, HDOT does not release geographically specific data.
The charts below show data aggregated over a 12-year period—from 1995 to 2006.
Chart 3
Bicycle Involved Crashes, Haleakala Crater Road, 1995-2006
9.00-10.15
8.00-8.99
Milepost Limits
7.00-7.99
6.00-6.99
5.00-5.99
4.00-4.99
3.00-3.99
2.00-2.99
1.00-1.99
0.05-.99
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Number of Crashes by Outcome
Fatals
Injury Only
Property Damage Only ($3000+)
Source: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation
•
During the 12 years between 1995 and 2006, there were 29 crashes on Crater Road
involving a bicycle, including one fatality
•
By far, the largest concentration of crashes occurred in the first mile of Crater Road,
located in the lower part of the mountain where the predominant land use is
residential and the potential for conflicts between bicycles and automobile increases.
3-13
Chart 4
Comparison of Bicycle Involved Crashes
and Other Vehicular Crashes, Haleakala Crater Road, 1995-2006
9.00-10.15
8.00-8.99
Milepost Limits
7.00-7.99
6.00-6.99
5.00-5.99
4.00-4.99
3.00-3.99
2.00-2.99
1.00-1.99
0.05-.99
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Number of Injured Persons
Bicycle Involved Crashes
Other Vehicular Crashes
•
Over the same period, there were 102 total crashes on Crater Road. The 29 bikeinvolved crashes amounted to 28.4% of all vehicular crashes.
•
Motor-vehicle only crashes outnumbered bike-involved crashes on all sections of
Crater Road except for the stretch between MP 6.00-6.99.
3-14
40
Chart 5
Bicycle Involved Crashes, Haleakala Highway, 1995-2006
5.00-6.00
Milepost Limits
4.00-4.99
3.00-3.99
2.00-2.99
1.00-1.99
0.05-.99
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Fatals
Injury Only
•
In the 12 years between 1995 and 2006, there were 5 bicycle-involved crashes on
Haleakala Highway.
•
2 crashes occurred in the more populous section between Lower Kimo Drive and
Crater Road.
3-15
2.5
Chart 6
Comparison of Bicycle Involved Crashes and Other Vehicular Crashes,
Haleakala Highway, 1995-2006
5.00-6.00
Milepost Limits
4.00-4.99
3.00-3.99
2.00-2.99
1.00-1.99
0.05-.99
0
5
10
15
20
25
Other Vehicular Crashes
•
Bicycle-involved crashes accounted for 8.6% of all crashes on Haleakala Highway.
•
In comparison to Crater Road, crashes on Haleakala Highway are more likely to
involve motor vehicles.
3.4.3
State of Hawaii Department of Health
The State of Hawaii, Department of Health (DOH), Emergency Medical Service (EMS)
and Injury Prevention System was asked to provide data on bicycle accidents in particular
and vehicular accidents in general.
Table 1 shows a breakdown of bicycle and vehicular accidents by zip code area. Data
was also requested for the Island of Hawaii because of the similarity in overall
population.
3-16
Table 4. Vehicular Accidents by Zip Code, 2007
Selected Zip Codes/
Island Total
All Vehicular
Accidents
Non-Bicycle
Accidents
Bicycle-Involved
Accidents
96790
50
30
20
96768
64
51
13
96799
1
1
0
96708
41
41
0
Island of Maui
1,000
870
130
Island of Hawaii
1,622
1,550
72
96790 = Kula
96768 = Makawao/Pukalani
96799 = Paia
96708 = Haiku
According to the DOH data, a relatively high proportion of bicycle accidents occurred in
the Kula zip code, where 40% of vehicular accidents in 2007 were bicycle-related. In
comparison, although there were more vehicular accidents overall in the Makawao/
Pukalani zip code, but only 20% of them were bicycle-related. For the island of Maui,
13% of all vehicular accidents were bicycle-related.
Even more striking is the comparison with Hawaii Island, which had 50% more vehicular
accidents than Maui—1,622 on the Big Island compared to 1,000 on Maui. But only
about half the number (55%) of bicycle accidents—72 on the Big Island compared to 130
on Maui. Overall, bicycle-related accidents accounted for only 4.4% of total vehicular
accidents on the Big Island (compared to Maui’s 13%). Statewide, 5.4% of all vehicular
crashes are bicycle-related.
3.4.4
Emergency Medical Service
Candy Lam, EMS Supervisor with the Med 11 Unit in Kula provided data for bicycle
accidents occurring in 2007. The detailed data included location information for most of
the cases. Whether the accidents involved commercial bike tour members (and not other
bicyclists) could not be confirmed.
The EMS database for 2007 included 32 accidents. Two accidents that took place on
Kula Highway were disregarded since commercial bike tours do not travel on that road.
Of the remaining 30 accidents, 19 of them—comprising a significant 63.3%—occurred
on Crater Road. Of the 19 Crater Road accidents, 7 took place within the National Park,
9 took place on the State highway portion, and the location of 3 was unknown, but most
likely took place on the State highway as well. An additional 5 accidents took place on
Haleakala Highway, also under State jurisdiction. A relatively small number—3
accidents—took place on County roads. The locations of three accidents were unknown.
3-17
Consistent with the NPS Case Incident Log, a large majority of people involved in
accidents were women: 25 out of 30 (83%). The NPS incident data for 2006 also
indicates that the majority of accident victims were women, but the proportion was
smaller (59%). Half of the bicycle accidents involved people aged 50 or older, including
one fatality, a 65-year woman.
Ground transport was used for most of the accidents. However, there were two cases of
MEDEVAC involving accidents occurring within the National Park; a third case would
have been evacuated by air, but the service was not available at the time. A significant
proportion of accidents (43.8%) requiring EMS support occurred between 7:00 and 9:00
a.m.
3.4.5
Self-Reported Industry Data
As part of the survey of downhill bike tour operators, the questionnaire asked about
accidents experienced in 2007. Self reports were submitted by 5 out of 7 downhill bike
tour companies for 2007. The five companies reported a total of 78 incidents of “rider
down” from a total of 7,078 clients. The majority were minor incidents, but “911” was
called in 15 cases and riders were taken to the ER for examination in a total of 30 cases.
Chart 7
Bike Tour Accidents, 2007
Reported by 5 out of 7 Companies
78
Rider Down
15
Called 911
30
Taken to ER
0
Fatalities
1
Property Damage
0
20
40
Source: Kimura International, 2008
3-18
60
80
100
4.
Community Input
Community input was actively sought during the study process. The Department of
Public Works sponsored two rounds of public information meetings. Each round
included meetings in both Kula and Makawao and publicized through newspaper, radio,
and online calendars. Meetings were also held with stakeholders groups and
individuals—in person and by telephone and e-mail.
4.1
Public Information Meetings
4.1.1
Public Meeting 1
Meeting Time, Location, and Purpose
The study team for the Maui County Downhill Bike Tour Study conducted the first set of
public meetings on Monday, July 21, 2008 at Makawao Elementary School and Tuesday,
July 22, 2008 at Kula Community Center. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain
public input on alternatives to be assessed in the study.
Based on the attendance sheets, 13 people attended the July 21st meeting and 21 people
attended the July 22nd meeting. Both meetings used the same format which consisted of
a plenary session and slideshow (see Appendix E).
At each meeting, attendees were divided into two groups for discussion. Recorders
summarized key points on flip charts visible to the entire group. To organize the
discussions, the groups were asked to direct their suggestions and comments to three key
themes:

Physical improvements
Regulations
Safety, courtesy, enforcement
At the end of the working session, which lasted 45-50 minutes, one person from each
group volunteered to be the spokesperson. The spokesperson recapped his or her group’s
discussions to all the attendees. After each presentation, the facilitator checked with the
other group members to ensure that points had been conveyed accurately. During this
time, group members had an opportunity to clarify or elaborate on their original
comments.
4-1
Chapter 4 Community Input
Public information meeting at Makawao Elementary School, July 2008
4.1.2
Public Meeting 2
The study team conducted the second set of public meetings on Wednesday, November
19, 2008 at Kula Elementary School and Thursday, November 20, 2008 at the Eddie Tam
Memorial Center in Makawao. The purpose of these meetings meeting was to review
preliminary alternatives and to obtain feedback on them.
Based on the attendance sheets, there were about 40 people at the November 19 meeting
in Kula and 15 people at the November 20 meeting in Makawao.
Both meetings used the same format which consisted of a slideshow presentation
followed by facilitated discussion (see Appendix F).
Public Input
At each meeting, attendees were given an opportunity to comment on each of the
preliminary proposals brought up in the slideshow. As the discussion progressed, main
points were recorded on flip chart paper (the comments are reproduced below).
4-2
Kula, November 19, 2008
Regulatory Proposals
Mandatory pull-outs
•
Radio communication; increase shoulders, avoid separate bike paths
•
Enforcement—reward those who comply
Bike-free zone
•
Should be 7-9 a.m.?
•
Ban vans during this time—“van free” zone
•
If bikes stay on right side, there’s no need for a bike-free zone
Restrict the number of tours
•
Economy has reduced the number of tours; conditions are better now
•
Vans are the major problem
•
Riders not staying on right side; ineffective tour leaders (“bad apples”) spoil it for all
•
Laws are abused by drivers as well. The general public is unaware of bicyclists’
rights
Regulate spacing of convoys
•
National Park was doing this previously
•
Some tour companies do this; others don’t
•
Difficult to control given the nature of the activity; tours end up having to stop for a
variety of reasons and the spacing gets messed up
•
“Ticket dispensers” could be used to regulate timing and keep spacing
Credential program
•
Need enforcement, “teeth”
Company name on vans
•
Required by PUC
•
Many of the proposed regulations are already regulations imposed by other agencies
Rider screening
•
Age restrictions are less important than skill level
•
Kids often have more (recent) riding experience than adults
•
Most accidents have been middle-aged riders, not kids
•
Agility test for riders
4-3
•
There used to be a space where riders could be screened at the beginning of the ride,
but it was fenced off by Haleakala Ranch. The ranch then offered the land (to the
State), but no follow up.
Surcharge
•
Bike tour company owners don’t like it
•
Tour prices/costs have already gone up
Hotline
•
Worked for helicopter noise several years ago
Makawao, November 20, 2008
General
•
Consider historical data on tour numbers and participants
•
Costs—who pays for this?
•
Concerned that benefits are for seven private companies
•
Don’t feel that recreational bicyclists will benefit from pull-outs
•
Recreational bicyclists don’t want to go down Haleakala
•
Public policy questions and budget allocations will be decided by Council
•
Makawao merchants are interested in safety
•
Don’t want the bike tours to divert from limited resources
Physical Improvement Proposals
•
Don’t understand why all cyclists would be affected by a ban (on certain roads during
peak traffic period)
•
There should be a bike-free zone on Baldwin Avenue; or limit to no more than 3
riders in tandem
•
Conform to Community Plan, which does not allow bicyclists on Baldwin Avenue
•
Build bike path along Baldwin or use Highway 37
•
Tours need to be spaced at least 10 minutes apart
•
Coordinate among the bike tour companies
•
NPS set up time intervals. First 3 companies had to start 10 minutes apart. All tours
thereafter needed to leave 5 minutes apart.
•
Draft NPS commercial services plan is expected in the spring
•
Ban all bike tours
4-4
•
Ordinance needed to regulate safety gear, equipment maintenance, speed limit
•
NPS already has many of the regulatory proposals in their regulations (as conditions
attached to the use permit); therefore some proposals are redundant
•
Add company name identification to the back of trailers
•
Flashers on vehicles
•
Add company identification on bicycles
•
If there is a hotline, complaints need to have follow through
•
When a complaint comes in, the responsible company needs to be notified
immediately so they can take action
•
Tie permits to the permitting process. Companies that violate regulations should be
penalized through the permitting process.
•
What kind of investigation process will there be?
•
Drug/alcohol testing needed for tour leaders and van drivers
•
Control tour leaders who exhibit unsafe behavior
•
Support Baldwin Avenue bike path
•
Multi-purpose paths are needed on Maui
•
Responding to comment that Baldwin Avenue path will disproportionately benefit
tour companies—taxpayers pay for a variety of recreational facilities, including
facilities that individual taxpayers may have no interest in.
•
Concern about the downhill speed on the proposed Baldwin Avenue path
•
Minimum age isn’t correlated with skill; it’s not worth regulating
•
Provide opportunities to opt out of tour with full or partial refunds
•
Standardize experience criteria
•
Advanced skills are needed to go down the mountain
•
Based on his experience, Glenn Kimura said that rides are not unsafe if participants
listen to the rules and concentrate
Safety, Courtesy, and Enforcement Proposals
•
Hotline—immediacy is important in promoting accountability. At one time, the
industry implemented a hotline using a commercial answering service. Early on,
there were 250 calls per month, including 15 calls from one person during a one-week
period. The number of calls dropped to around 7 per week. The problem was that the
public didn’t call.
4-5
•
Realize that some companies are trying to do the right thing and maintain good
community relations. Don’t want bad apples to characterize the industry.
•
In the past, there’s been opposition to road signs in Kula
•
The Paia intersection is disrupted by tour groups. In particular, motorists wanting to
make a right turn have to wait several cycles while bicyclists cross the highway.
Regulation is needed.
•
How to implement? Does everything need an ordinance?
•
Make some regulations part of the permitting process.
•
Let visitors have a good, safe experience, many seek out the downhill ride; but
provide a designated stretch
•
Stop tours at Osskie-Rice Arena
•
When asked whether the tour companies have an association, the owner of a guided
bike tour company responded that there is a loose association only. The companies
cannot agree on operations.
•
Make Maui more bike friendly, but facilities should be available for all bicyclists
(residents, visitors, riders of all skill levels)
•
Support an off-road path down Haleakala (mountain biking)
•
Altitude can have a significant effect on riding ability
•
Oppose Baldwin Avenue path as an inappropriate diversion of resources
•
Guided tours are better at controlling riders
•
National Park roads seem more hazardous (than State and County roads)
•
A lot of visitor activities are inherently risky
•
Long-time residents speed on Crater Road, Haleakala Hwy
4-6
4.2
Stakeholder Meetings
4.2.1 Kula Community Association
The Kula Community Association (KCA)1 represents the community located in the early
stages of the downhill bicycle tour, including Crater Road and portions of Haleakala
Highway. KCA has taken a pro-active stance toward the commercial downhill bicycle tours.
In a Bicycle Tour and Rental Safety Position Statement adopted in March 2007, the
association declared:
The Board of Directors of the Kula Community Association support measures that
will improve the safety of downhill bicycle tours and rentals and address the concerns
of Kula’s residents and visitors, Upcountry motorists, and others while maintaining
the quality of this visitor industry activity. The Association is interested in a solution
that applies to all commercial bicycle activities, is based on accurate information
collected through public study and with the input of all stakeholders.
The complete text of the KCA statement may be found in Appendix D.
In February 2008, KCA queried its members about the downhill bicycle tours. In its
annual survey, KCA included the following question:
The County of Maui has hired a firm to conduct a study of the commercial
downhill bicycle tour industry. Part of the study will ask for community input.
Have you seen or had problems with the commercial bicycle tours or their riders?
Do you have an opinion on what the County should do, if anything, about the
tours?
A total of 108 respondents provided comments on the bicycle tour question, including 41
written and 67 emailed comments.
The downhill bike tour question on the Kula Survey was an open-ended question that
allowed respondents to express their thoughts without pre-established categories. For
analytical purposes, the responses were post-coded into a more limited number of themes.
Each separate idea expressed by a particular respondent was assigned to the most relevant
category. Some respondents expressed more than one idea; therefore, the total number of
responses or comments (194) exceeds the number of respondents (108). By post-coding,
it was possible to determine the frequency of mentions and proportion of respondents
expressing similar themes.
The survey was neither structured nor implemented as a scientific instrument, so the
responses cannot be generalized to a larger population. Nevertheless, the survey
responses provide a valid representation of community sentiment.
1
There is no community association in Pukalani. Makawao and Paia have only merchants’ associations.
4-7
In particular, the survey revealed a wide spectrum of opinions about the downhill bike
tours. There were 23 mentions of bicycle tours being “hazardous,” 22 mentions related to
“nuisance” and 18 calls for a “ban or stopping the tour.” Yet there were also 23 mentions
of bicycle tours being “fine, no problem, or allowed to continue.” Comments in this
category were as frequent as comments related to “hazard.” A large number of
respondents also mentioned the need to improve physical facilities for bicycling with 23
comments calling for (more) bike lanes or bike paths.
Table 5. Kula Community Survey, 2008
Survey Findings by Category
(108 Respondents)
Response Category
Number
Percent
Provide bike lanes or paths
23
21.3%
Hazardous activity
23
21.3%
Leave them alone; they're fine; no problem;
allow them to continue
23
21.3%
Nuisance
22
20.4%
Ban; stop tours
18
16.7%
Restrict number of tours
16
14.8%
Complaint with how tours are conducted;
not following rules of the road
9
8.3%
Increase safety; do it safely; make it safer
for everybody
8
7.4%
Independents are hazardous
7
6.5%
Regulate (general)
7
6.5%
Restrict rider quals; screen riders
7
6.5%
Restrict time or routes
7
6.5%
Surcharge fee; cyclist fee
6
5.6%
Other
4
3.7%
Restrict tour size
4
3.7%
Good for tourism
3
2.8%
Situation has improved
3
2.8%
Aloha needed
2
1.9%
Support small business
2
1.9%
Total number of specific responses
194
Percentages calculated on base of 108 respondents
4-8
Meeting with KCA Representatives
According to KCA representatives, the organization’s position is that safer roads are
needed for everyone. At the same time, two concerns were highlighted:
1. Safety concerns. Drivers fear that a bicyclist will fall in front of their cars.
2. Traffic concerns. Because roads are blocked, some residents cut through the side
streets, creating a speeding problem in residential areas, e.g., Kimo Drive
Among the specific concerns mentioned were complaints by residents along Hwy 377
about trash, riders using their lawn as bathrooms, and accidents that caused property
damage or traumatized homeowners.
When bike tours were barred within the National Park, the community lost the only form
of regulation. Park rangers conducted random inspections and used to check license,
insurance, and equipment.
4.2.2
Main Street Program
Meetings with members of the Main Street program, including representatives of the
Main Street Boards from Makawao and Paia, were held in July and August 2008. The
purpose of these meetings was to discuss how the Main Street program could be involved
most effectively in the downhill bike tour study.
The group’s overall position is that the industry needs to be regulated, but not banned
altogether. Government oversight has faltered by allowing regulations to fall through the
cracks.
In a letter distributed at the August meeting, a Makawao merchant raised a number of
concerns, including adverse impacts on local businesses and interference with pedestrian
movements. Seniors are not coming into town and businesses are experiencing slippage
in sales as patrons go to other, more hospitable commercial areas.
Members of the Main Street program saw little evidence of increased business due to
exposure from the bicycle tours. In the early days of the bicycle tours, according to one
member, a greater effort was made to “shop the town” and cultivate personal
relationships with merchants. But during her tenure (working at the family store), she
saw no financial benefit from the passing bicycle tours.
4-9
4.2.3
Maui Bicycle Alliance
The Maui Bicycle Alliance expressed its concern that community feelings toward
downhill tours will spill over to casual cyclists. For example, local riders have been run
off the road. The Alliance is also concerned that proposed rules will be so general that
they will have unexpected impacts. For example, insurance rules that might affect
nonprofit organizations sponsoring bike events. Regulatory measures need to
differentiate between different bicycling groups.
MBA opposes the Baldwin Avenue bike path because there are other, higher priority
projects that would better serve Maui residents, but haven’t been done yet. Maui is going
backward in the use of Transportation Enhancement funds. The limited funds should be
used for the local community. Plus there are areas on Baldwin where shoulders or pullouts can be put in.
Summarizing the MBA’s positions:
Downhill bike tours need to be regulated
Policies should be supported by good data and statistics
Local bikers have had a hand’s off approach, as long as it doesn’t affect them.
4.2.4
Upcountry Citizens for Bike & Traffic Safety
The objectives of Upcountry Citizens for Bike and Traffic Safety are:
1. Make bike tours safer
2. Make bike tours more compatible (with community use of roadways)
Group leader, Jimmy Muschietti, recognized that bike tours are not going away. It’s not
the companies, but the procedures that are the problem, he stated. It would be better if
they remove the vans and follow the law by keeping bikers to the right or on the
shoulders. Vans don’t need to constantly follow the convoy, but can be stationed along
the routes so they are within minutes of the convoy and still function as first responder.
4.2.5
Downhill Bicycle Tour Companies
During a May 2008 meeting with downhill bike tour operators, they noted the dramatic
change that occurred when the National Park Service ordered the safety stand down in
October 2007. Recently, NPS has begun issuing Commercial Use Authorizations that
allow vans to go into the park for motorized tours—but bike tours are still prohibited.
In the park, the bike tours don’t affect residents. The problems start in Kula. The tour
operators recognized community frustration because the industry had gotten “too large.”
At the height of their operations (just before the stand down), there were 30-35 vans per
4-10
day going up to Haleakala. Currently, peak numbers are about 19 vans, of which 11-12
go up for the sunrise tour. Numbers are lower in the off season.
The tour operators emphasized that many of the problems have gone away or taken care
of themselves as the numbers of bike tours and riders have fallen. They insisted that the
picture has changed, so it’s important to look at the current situation and not what existed
before. Under existing economic conditions, they said, companies are successfully using
the infrastructure they have.
They also admitted to “bad apples” in the past, presumably referring to poor quality or
under qualified tour personnel. There can be bad apples in any company and they were
weeded out when the companies cut back. The operators seemed to allude to the
industry’s ability to self-police.
Opinions on Proposals being Floated
Pull-outs. One of their key points is that bicycles don’t want to be treated like inferior
vehicles. If the bikes pull over, there’s no problem, but negative community attitudes
remain. They cite the 2006 police study which identified a problem with driver
impatience. They’re hoping for new or improved pull-outs.
Reducing Tour Size. The tour operators expressed a strong opposition to trimming the
size of the tours. They pointed out that the Maui Police Department recommended 12
riders, which is not much different from the current 13. The loss of one additional
customer would have a large financial impact on their operations. The guided tour
companies use 15-passenger vans that fit 13 plus a 2-person crew. Overhead, insurance,
and gas costs have increased. Some days there are only two companies going up.
Moving the Van/Trailer. Van/trailers don’t need to be a half mile behind. The problem
of traffic tie-ups can be addressed if the vans/trailers pull over.
Demand for Bicycle Tours
The discussion of financial hardships led to the point that market demand for bike tours
will remain. The question (for the guided tour companies) is: what is the safest product
that can be delivered? Some companies contended that they might be squeezed to the
point where it becomes more cost-efficient to simply rent bicycles and not provide guided
tours.
4-11
5.
Regulatory Environment
This chapter reviews the regulatory environment in which the downhill bicycle tours are
conducted. Regulations covered in this chapter include the County’s business tour
operator permit, National Park Service commercial permit, motor carriers regulation
under the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Department of Transportation (DOT),
and traffic laws.
The downhill bicycle tour industry has similarities with two regulated industries:
Commercial Ocean Recreation Activities (CORA) on Maui and pedicabs on Oahu. One
section of this chapter examines how these industries are regulated.
5.1
Bicycle Tour Business Permit
A permit specific to bicycle tour businesses is required under Chapter 5.22 of Maui
County Code:
A. It is unlawful for any business or person to conduct a bicycle tour on County
property without first obtaining a bicycle tour business permit issued by the
director in accordance with this chapter (italics added).
The ordinance requires contact information for the applicant; description of areas,
location or routes to be utilized for the proposed bicycle tour business; description and
registration numbers of all motor vehicles and bicycles to be used by the business;
description of any structure or personal property to be used in conjunction with the
bicycle tour business; and any other information that may be required by rules adopted to
enforce the requirements and rules of the chapter. As amended in 2006, the ordinance
requires the bicycle tour business to obtain comprehensive liability insurance coverage of
no less than $3,000,000. The bicycle tour business is further required to indemnify,
defend, and hold the County harmless against any loss sustained, in whole or in part, as a
result of the activities of the bicycle tour business over and above those losses covered by
the bicycle tour business’ general liability insurance coverage, including claims regarding
design and maintenance of roadways and the County’s permit review and approval
process.
The permit to conduct commercial bicycle tours is processed by the County Department
of Finance, Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing division. As currently interpreted,
this permit does not apply to the independent tour companies. The permit costs $100.00
per company per year. The DMV collects the application and passes it to the Maui Police
Department which assesses the route(s). The application is returned to DMV which
issues the permit. In 2008, three companies had this permit.
5-1
Chapter 5 Regulatory Environment
In 2007, the Hawaii State Legislature passed enabling legislation that allows County
Councils to pass additional, detailed regulation of bicycle tours on State and County
roadways.
[§46-16.3] Regulation of commercial bicycle tours. Any law to the contrary
notwithstanding, the council of any county may adopt and provide for the
enforcement of ordinances regulating commercial bicycle tours on state and
county highways, including but not limited to ordinances relating to the number of
tours, the number of bicycles within a tour, scheduling of tours, physical spacing
of tours, rules of the road, health and safety requirements, equipment
maintenance, driver and guide qualifications, driver and guide drug testing,
accident procedures and reporting, and financial responsibility requirements.
Each county shall follow federal guidelines for commercial bicycle tours that
begin from federal or state parks and continue on to state highways.
5.2
National Park Service, Commercial Use Authorization
The National Park Service (NPS) began issuing permits—called Commercial Use
Authorizations (CUA)—for commercial bicycle tours in 1986. In the beginning, client
numbers were estimated at 24,000. At the peak of its popularity in 2005, there were
106,000 clients participating in downhill riders through Haleakala National Park. In
November 2005, NPS implemented an Interim Operating Plan to manage commercial
services while developing a Commercial Services Plan (pending as of December 2009).
Under the Interim Plan, the number of bicycle tour participants was capped at 90,000 per
year.
For as long as the bike tours have been operating in the national park, there have been
efforts to mitigate serious accidents and injuries. Following a client fatality in 1998, NPS
conducted a root cause analysis and established a bicycle work group to develop and
implement a Safety Action Improvement Plan. The root cause analysis determined that
weather, equipment, and speed were primary causes of accidents. Based on the Safety
Action Improvement Plan, more stringent conditions were added to the bike tour permit.
Following are the conditions that were attached to the CUA for bike tours—suspended as
of October 2007. The rules are duplicated mostly verbatim (see below) to illustrate the
breadth and detail of their coverage. Among the operational and safety requirements are
bike safety inspections, maximum group size limits, launch intervals, required personal
protective equipment, specifications regarding the bicycle leader and vehicle escorts,
accident reporting, and minimum requirement that at least one employee per tour group
have first aid/first responder qualifications.
As described in the 2007 NPS Safety Analysis Report, there is no requirement for NPS
personnel to be on duty for the bicycle tours to operate, but NPS routinely provided
5-2
ranger staffing during the sunrise visitation period to oversee the commercial tour
operations, ensure compliance with permit conditions, mitigate conflicts (at the visitor
center parking area), and respond to accidents and injuries.
NPS Special Operations & Safety Plan
Under the Commercial Use Authorization (selected sections; see Appendix A for precise
wording)
•
Each bicycle shall be inspected to assure that it is mechanically sound and in safe
operating condition before each trip. Inspections to include tire condition and
pressure, brakes, reflectors, lights, seat adjustment, handle bars, and other necessary
items for safe operation.
•
All tour riders and employees to be provided personal protective equipment,
including helmets, rain gear, jackets, and gloves or mittens. Helmets must be worn.
•
Tour group size is not to exceed 14 bicycles, including the guide
•
Tour departures shall be staggered with a least a 10-minute interval between each
group
•
Tour clients, bicycles and support vehicles not to obstruct vehicular or pedestrian
traffic
•
Every opportunity shall be taken to allow following traffic to pass—either in a legal
passing zone or by pulling off the roadway
Special Conditions of Authorization, Haleakala National Park
Applies to astronomy tours, bike tours, hiking and backcountry tours, horse tours, and
vehicle (bus) tours
I.
•
Administrative
Responsible for informing clients of hazards likely to be encountered during their
visit/tour, and to provide guidelines, rules and practices that will mitigate and manage
risk. Including:
•
•
•
•
High elevation issues: influences on medical conditions, extreme temperature
changes, or wind conditions
Weather conditions
Steep narrow roadways, limited shoulders, limited sight distance, etc.
At all times, carry permit, conditions of authorization, and any addendum
5-3
•
Agree to cooperate in surveys conducted by NPS designed to assist in park
management actions
•
Annual report, required to submit annually, but not later than 30 days after December
31, an annual report which summarizes visitor use, including number of clients and
gross revenues for the year in the report.
•
Bi-annual safety report: summary of the most recent safety inspection to be submitted
twice a year (March 1 and November 1)
•
Revocation: CUA subject to revocation, suspension, and/or non re-issuance for
violation(s) of any term and conditions of the permit and/or violation of any Federal
law by the operator, his/her employees, an/or clientele of the Holder.
•
Suspension Policy: tours will cease if any conditions of the authorization are not met.
After two suspensions in a 12 month period, the CUA will be automatically revoked.
•
Corporate Immediate: Any of the following will result in an immediate
suspension of the permit and the permit will not be reinstated until the situation is
remedied: Lack of proper insurance coverage, expired IBP or CUA, revocation of
PUC license, violation notices issued on consecutive days for the same infraction;
and/or voucher debit account has a negative balance.
•
Individual: Any individual not in compliance with the conditions of authorization
will not be able to conduct tours within the park (e.g., driver with no Medical
Examiner card). If actions cannot be remedied on-site, the tour will cease.
•
Company—Major: Any one of the following infractions will result in a three-day
suspension effective 30 days from the date of the infraction: more passengers than
the number of seat belts; false documentation; and/or lack of training as required
in conditions of permit.
•
Company—Minor: After 10 violations of conditions issued (verbal or written) to
a company within a 12-month period, a one-day suspension 30 days from the date
of the 10th infraction will occur.
•
Tour guides/leaders and drivers will have nametags with the company name and
employees name clearly readable on outside of garments.
•
Holder must provide names, addresses, and phone numbers of tour clients or
employees and any other statistical information upon request.
5-4
II.
Vehicles
•
Proof of Operating Authority: Holder to provide proof of current operating authority
from the Hawaii PUC and from the DOT as applicable. All companies must show
proof of State Insurance Registration.
•
Suspension or Revocation of PUC and/or DOT Authority. If, for any reason, the
PUC and/or DOT authority is placed in any status other than “Active” this CUA wil
be immediately suspended and the Holder will not be allowed to enter Haleakala
National Park. No prior notice of suspension is necessary. After such a suspension
has occurred, the Holder must apply for reinstatement of the CUA, show proof of
reinstatement by PUC and/or DOT, and receive written authorization for Haleakala
National Park prior to entering the Park.
•
The Holder will establish a system of inspection and maintenance of transportation
used in the activity. Minimally, the inspections will be documented on a semi-annual
basis. The inspection must list all vehicles/trailers used, the condition in which it was
found, repairs made, etc. The system shall be traceable by vehicle/trailer license
number. These documents will be maintained by the Holder and will be made
available for park inspection upon request.
•
Rules of the Road: All vehicles will comply with posted traffic regulations, including
speed limits and double-yellow centerline markings. Holders shall take every safe
opportunity to use roadside turnouts to allow faster traffic to pass. Failure to comply
with traffic regulations will result in citations to the driver with possible suspension to
the Holder.
•
Commercial Tour Vehicle Inspections: The Holder shall cooperate fully regarding
the inspections of commercial tour vehicles in Haleakala National Park. Inspections
are conducted unannounced for visitor safety. Vehicles are checked for safety and
mechanical deficiencies, compliance with current state and federal laws and
regulations. Drivers’ licenses, medical certificates are checked.
•
All passenger vehicles must display readily visible markings identifying the business
name on both exterior sides of the vehicle. Minimum letter size is 4 inches. Vehicles
that transport 7 or less passengers may display PUC number on the front and rear
bumper; all larger vehicles must display on the side.
II.
•
Equipment
Each piece of equipment used in the activity shall be inspected to assure that it is
mechanically sound and in safe operating condition before each trip. A safety
inspection is to be made at the departure point of the tour. Minimally the inspections
shall be documented on a monthly basis.
5-5
III.
Training
•
New leaders will be required to have training on the tour a minimum of 3 times with
experienced leaders prior to soloing in that role. Training trips will be documented
showing date and time of trips and signature(s of the experienced employee
conducting the trip. Bike tour training trips will be comprised of a minimum of three
persons: tour leader, trainee leader, and driver. Experienced guide will inform the
entrance station upon arrival (or park ranger) that they have a trainee. The entrance
station staff or park ranger will initial the training documentation provided by the
holder.
•
Same for new drivers.
Conduct of Tour and Education
•
Supervision/Compliance: Holder shall provide adequate supervision of its employees
and clients, including:
•
Clean areas
•
Protection of natural and cultural resources
•
Out of bounds travel
•
Trash items
•
Cigarette butts
•
Feeding wildlife
•
Soil erosion
•
Water conservation
•
Pest management
•
Waivers: The Holder may require that participants sign an acknowledgement of risk
prior to participating in the activity. If the Holder chooses to use such a form, the
Superintendent must approve it. A sample of the “Acknowledgement of Risk” form
shall be attached to the completed permit application and/or renewal. Multiple
acknowledgements are not permissible.
•
Limitations: Bike tours departing within the park boundaries may not exceed 13
clients, 1 guide and 1 driver for a total of 15 persons.
Emergency Medical & Safety
•
Reports of Incidents: The Holder is required to report any personal injury and/or
property damage incident occurring within the parking involving Holder vehicles,
clientele and/or employees. The report must be made to a Law Enforcement Ranger
at the first available opportunity before leaving the park. A report will consist of a
written or verbal description of the incident. The Holder must cooperate with any
investigation of the incident by the National Park Service personnel.
5-6
•
If the Holder has clients in distress or need of medical attention that would not
warrant an ambulance, it is the Holder’s responsibility to provide transportation to
a lower elevation, or to further care. The needs of a distressed client will
supersede the regular completion of the tour.
•
Each vehicle/tour associated with the permit shall carry and maintain a kit for
emergency medical care. The kit shall be of sufficient size for the number of persons
in the group and the nature of the activity.
•
At least one person from each tour/vehicle shall have the appropriate
training/certifications as listed below. That person must carry the original card (CPR
card must be separate from other training certifications).
•
Bike tours: CPR & First Responder
•
CPR Certification must meet Federal Department of Transportation standards.
•
First Responder Certification must meet Federal Department of Transportation
Standards
•
Violation of any regulation and/or condition of this permit may constitute grounds
for suspension or revocation of this permit. Holder employees and clients are
subject to the same laws and penalties that apply to all park visitors. Repeat
violations or problems may result in a suspension of the permit for an
undetermined amount of time.
Special Operations & Safety Plan Addendum for Bike Tours
Equipment
•
Each bicycle inspected to insure that it is mechanically sound and in safe operating
condition before each trip. Prior to departure, a safety inspection of each bike on the
tour, including tire condition and pressure, brakes, reflectors, lights, seat adjustment,
handlebars, and other necessary items.
•
Provide all riders and employees with safety gear, including helmets, rain gear,
jackets and gloves or mittens. Helmets required.
•
Provide radio communication between the employee on the lead bike and the driver
of the support vehicle. The support vehicle will have the capability to contact the
NPS, Home Base, Haleakala Dispatch or 911 at all times.
5-7
Conduct of the Tour
•
Group shall not exceed fourteen bicycles including the guide.
•
Provide a leader on a bicycle and a vehicle escort for each trip.
•
When other bicycle tour groups are on the road, tour leaders shall take the following
action to reduce traffic congestion
•
The first three groups of the sunrise launch will allow a minimum of 10 minutes
“lead time” between groups at the beginning of the tour
•
All subsequent groups after the first three sunrise launches must keep a minimum
of 5 minute “lead time” between groups at departure and at rest stops.
•
A minimum distance of ½ mile and 5 minutes will be maintained between bicycle
groups at all times.
Parking, Off-loading, and Departure Protocols
•
Bike tour parking in the Haleakala Visitor Center lot is restricted to 10 designated
commercial tour parking stalls on the north side of the lot. Bicycle tour parking at
any area shall not interfere with access.
•
Bicycle tours shall depart beginning with the tour parked closest to the parking lot
exit. Parking stalls may not be blocked or otherwise saved for another tour except for
the first three sunrise launch trips. The first three sunrise launches are reserved for
companies on a monthly rotation basis. Tours may not move into a stall left vacant
by a departing tour in order to change their departure order. Three parallel rows with
3 vans and trailers will be parked behind the 10 stalls for a total of 19 bike tour vans
and trailers.
•
The tour guide is responsible for backing the van and trailer into the traffic lane.
Only one van and trailer may be staged to exit parking lot at any given time.
•
If a tour is not ready to leave the launch point when the ten minute or five minute
interval has passed, that tour will lose its place in line and allow the next staged tour
to leave the launching point. The departure order will then resume with the tour that
was temporarily delayed.
•
No more than 5 bicycle tour groups may unload bicycles at any one time at the
Haleakala Visitor Center area.
•
Launching at Hosmer Grove is on a first-come, first-serve basis by LE Ranger
permission,
5-8
•
Any accident involving bicycles and/or their riders must complete the Bicycle
Accident Report Form and given to a park ranger.
The Holder will ensure that clients, bicycles and support vehicles do not obstruct
vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The holder shall take every opportunity to allow traffic to
pass-either in a legal passing zone or by pulling off the roadway (emphasis in original).
Each company will provide staffing to be with clients at viewing areas. There must be at
least one employee for every 1-5 company vans and every multiple thereof.
5.3
Motor Carrier Transportation Regulations under the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC)
In 1961, the Hawaii State Legislature established a policy to regulate the transportation of
persons and property, for commercial purposes, over the public highways. These laws
govern commercial transportation in general, including the vans used by bicycle tour
businesses to pick up and deliver clients to and from their hotels, provide tours of
Haleakala National Park, and drop off clients at the bicycle tour launch area.
The Legislature empowered the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with the authority to
regulate the economic and safety aspects of motor carrier transportation. In 1977, the
State legislature transferred the responsibility of regulating the safety aspects of motor
carriers from the PUC to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety—now called the Motor
Vehicle Safety Office within the Department of Transportation. The PUC maintains
regulatory jurisdiction over the economic aspects.
Any person or entity that transports passengers or property for compensation or hire, over
the public highways in Hawaii, must obtain authorization from the PUC to be either a
common carrier or contract carrier. The PUC tour license costs $15 per vehicle per year.
Properly Marked Vehicle
A motor carrier authorized by the PUC to operate as either a common carrier or contract
carrier must have (1) the name, logo (identifying symbol), or initials of the company , and
(2) its PUC number prominently displayed on both sides of the vehicle and/or bumpers
(for smaller vehicles). Vehicles with seating capacity less than 7 can have name and
PUC number on front and rear bumpers. All others must display their name and PUC
number on both sides of the vehicle. Markings must be painted in contrasting colors and
the letters and figures cannot be less than 2-1/2 inches in height and ¼ inch in width.
Automobile Liability Insurance (for motor carriers of passengers)
•
1-7 passengers: bodily injury or death per person of $100,000; bodily injury or death
per accident of $200,000; liability for property damage of $50,000
5-9
•
•
For 8-25 passengers, liability for bodily injury or death per accident increases to
$500,000
For more than 25 passengers, liability per accident increases to $1,000,000
Penalty for Violating Motor Carrier Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Orders
Commission is authorized to issue a citation of $1,000 for each violation (plus $500
every day thereafter for continuing violation)—e.g., operating without a PUC license,
expired automobile liability insurance, failure to maintain a tariff, etc. It may also
institute proceedings to suspend or revoke the carrier’s authorization.
5.4
Traffic Laws: Bicycle Riding Regulations
Proper bicycle riding—following the rules of the road—is essential for the safety of
bicyclists. Where bicyclists share the road with motorists, rules of the road help to ensure
consistency of movement and the ability to better predict what the “other guy” will do.
Ultimately, the rules are the foundation for both road safety and courtesy. Bicycling laws
are laid out in State law in Section 291C, Hawaii Revised Statutes. For the most part,
Hawaii’s laws are similar to those in other states. However, people who don’t bicycle
regularly or are unfamiliar with bicycle riding on highways may require a refresher.
Rights and Responsibilities of Hawaii Bicyclists

Hawaii bicyclists are considered drivers of vehicles.

Bicyclists have most of the same rights and responsibilities as motorists.

To be taken seriously by other vehicle drivers, cyclists must obey traffic laws.
Riding on the Right
If bicyclists are traveling slower than cars, the bicyclists
should ride as near to the right hand edge of the road as
practicable.
Riding in the Middle
Bicyclists may ride away from the far right side only under
the following conditions:

When preparing for a left turn

Where necessary to avoid road-side hazards

Where the traffic lane is too narrow for a bicyclist and a
motor vehicle to travel safely side by side

When bicyclist is traveling at the normal speed of traffic
Follow Lane Markings
5-10
Obey Traffic Signs and
Signals
Violators are subject to the same penalties as drivers of
motor vehicles
Ride Single File
Bicyclists must ride single file on a road. On bicycle lanes
and paths, riding two abreast is permitted when the lane or
path is wide enough.
Do not Cling to Moving
Vehicles
Use Lights at Night
Use a headlight and red rear reflector at night (30 minutes
after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise).
From State Department of Transportation pamphlet. Traffic laws in §291C Hawaii Revised Statutes
Bicycle Convoy
Escorted bicycle tours ride in a convoy with up to fourteen riders. Does this constitute a
procession or parade? According to Section 10.52.060, Maui County Code, a permit is
needed if the procession or parade contains two hundred or more persons or fifty or more
vehicles.
5.5
Bicycle License and Tag
All bicycles that have two tandem wheels that are 20 inches or more in diameter are
required to be registered. The one-time registration fee is $15. The bicycle registration
program is administered by the Maui Department of Finance, Motor Vehicle Registration
and Licensing Division.
5.6
Complete Streets
The 2009 State Legislature passed, and the governor signed, what is referred to as the
Complete Streets Act (Act 54). This law amended Chapter 286, Hawaii Revised Statutes,
and directs the State Department of Transportation and County transportation
departments to adopt a complete streets policy “to reasonably accommodate convenient
access and mobility for all users of the public highways within their respective
jurisdictions…including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists, and persons of all
ages and abilities.” “Complete streets” is a nationwide initiative to promote safer, more
livable, and welcoming road networks for everyone.
In Hawaii, the complete streets policy will consider implementation through new
construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads and highways, with exceptions:
5-11
•
Costs that are excessively disproportionate to expected benefits
•
Safety of vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle traffic placed at unacceptable risk
•
Prohibited use of a particular highway, road, street, way, or lane by bicyclists or
pedestrians, including within interstate highway corridors
•
A sparseness of population, availability of other means, or similar factors indicating
an absence of future need
This new law establishes a policy framework requiring State and County governments to
take a broader look at how the transportation network serves all users through flexible
design and sensitivity to the community context. As a policy statement, it is an important
signal that the need to consistently accommodate different types of road users is a new
priority in highway design.
5.7
Regulation of Businesses Similar to Commercial Bicycle Tours
Two comparable industries were considered as demonstration of how regulations could
help to improve the use of public roads by the downhill bicycle tours. These industries
are Commercial Ocean Recreation Activities (CORA) on Maui and pedicabs on Oahu.
5.7.1 Commercial Ocean Recreational Activity (CORA) Permit
In August 2009, the County of Maui adopted Chapter 10-102, Rules of Practice and
Procedure for Commercial Ocean Recreational Activity (CORA) Permits1. The rules
regulate the operations of six CORA categories: surfing, kiteboarding, windsurfing,
kayaking, scuba diving, and snorkeling. The rules were developed to address
overcrowding issues at County Parks through a permitting process.
Among the key features of the CORA rules are the following:
•
Ocean activities operators are allowed to conduct business at 17 beach parks
(compared to 26 beach parks before the rules).
•
Limits are placed on the number of operators and students allowed in the parks.
•
For each activity, the rules establish a ratio of the maximum number of students
allowed per instructor
1
Ordinances are enacted by the Maui County Council, while administrative rules are promulgated by the
responsible agency. When the Council adopts (or amends) an ordinance into law, it sets the broad policies
and standards that are to be implemented. Responsibility for carrying out the objectives of the ordinances
falls to the agency with the necessary technical expertise and capability. Administrative rules cannot
exceed the authority given in the enabling ordinance, nor can it conflict with any ordinance. The rules
generally provide specific criteria and procedures to guide the agency’s decision-making.
5-12
•
At each park, there are specific restrictions on the kinds of activities that can operate
and permitted locations within parks
•
At some parks, restrictions on parking; equipment off-loading, loading, and storage
•
Requires that all CORA instructors have updated health and safety training, and
certification in a County-sponsored environmental protection and cultural awareness
program
•
Reduces or eliminates the number of hours available for park use on Sundays and
holidays
•
Requires one permit per park per activity
•
Requires minimum insurance coverage
•
Increased the cost of each permit to $500 (+ $100 application fee), with future fees to
be set by the Council’s Budget and Finance Committee.
The CORA rules are administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation, which has
authority to suspend or revoke a permit, impose fines, and pursue criminal charges that
could result in jail time for violators.
Comparison of CORA and Commercial Bicycle Tours
The CORA rules emerged after longstanding concerns by local citizens about the use and
availability of public park resources. The primary objective of the CORA rules was to
balance competing interests in an equitable manner. Public roads, like public parks, are
subject to space constraints and congestion. However, there are significant differences
between the commercial ocean recreation activities and commercial bicycle tours, and the
environments in which they occur. Regulating uses on the affected roadways would
involve both State and County agencies. The State Department of Transportation and
County Department of Public Works have jurisdiction over State and County roadways,
respectively, but traditionally have not been charged with extensive regulatory functions.
5.7.2
Honolulu Pedicabs
The City and County of Honolulu enacted an ordinance to regulate pedicabs in Waikiki in
1978, Chapter 12-5, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. Pedicabs are human-pedaled
carriages that transport passengers for hire. The number of pedicabs catering to visitors
in Waikiki increased through the mid-1970s, resulting in significant congestion. The City
justified regulation on the grounds that pedicabs are a vital and integral part of the public
transportation system in the city, and thus requires supervision, regulation, and control.
Key features of the pedicab ordinance included the following:
•
Evidence of financial responsibility in the form of minimum insurance liability
coverage
5-13
•
Certificate of pedicab operator, authorizing the parking of one pedicab in one
authorized sidewalk pedicab stand and in one road pedicab stand
•
Ability to pass an exam showing understanding of traffic laws and ordinances,
knowledge of City streets, and physical fitness.
•
Clarification that a pedicab operating on a roadway at a speed slower than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction is required to ride as near to the
righthand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when
passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction except under any
of the following situations:
(1) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway,
except where prohibited by official traffic control devices;
(2) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to,
fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards,
etc. or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the
righthand curb or edge.
•
Prohibition against processions, caravans, or trains of more than 15 pedicabs, unless a
permit is obtained. But no pedicab procession, caravan, or train of any number is
permitted during the hours of 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays.
•
No vehicle can be operated as a pedicab for hire unless it is in a reasonably clean and
safe condition inside, as well as externally. Every pedicab while on a public street is
required to carry a battery- or generator-operated headlight and taillight with spoke
reflectors on each wheel and tape reflectors along the front and back width of the
vehicle.
5.8
Small Business Regulatory Review
The Small Business Regulatory Review Board was established in 1998 by the Small
Business Regulatory Flexibility Act, codified in Chapter 201M, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
The Board is attached to the State Department of Business, Economic Development and
Tourism for administrative purposes. One of the main functions of the Board is to review
proposed agency regulations that may affect small businesses. The Board’s purview
extends to “agencies” which are defined as any State or County board, commission,
department or officer authorized by law to make rules, except those in the legislative or
judicial branches. However, for requests regarding County ordinances, the Board may
make recommendations to the County Council or the Mayor for appropriate action.
The regulatory review process focuses on a determination of small business impacts.
Prior to submitting proposed rules for adoption, amendment, or repeal, the agency must
prepare a small business economic impact analysis to educate the public about benefits
and consequences of proposed rules. While regulations are needed to achieve important
5-14
public policy goals, sometimes they may be unduly burdensome to small employers.
Regulatory flexibility ensures that small business regulatory impacts are measured and
analyzed, and that less burdensome alternatives are considered.
After preparing a small business impact statement, the document is submitted with the
proposed rules to the Board. Subsequently, the Board will post notice of and hold a
public hearing in conjunction with its monthly meetings.
Small businesses can seek redress by petitioning the agency that adopted the
objectionable rule whereupon the agency must forward the petition to the Board. The
agency is required to periodically review rules affecting small businesses to determine
whether the rules need to be continued.
Act 230, passed in 2008, created a small business “bill of rights” that requires agencies to
include in their small business impact statement for proposed rules a more rigorous
examination and justification of rules that impose standards more stringent than those
mandated by any comparable or related federal, State, or County law.
The Small Business Regulatory Review Board is an advisory body that views itself as an
advocate of small business.
The responsibilities of the Board include:
•
Commentary on small business impact statements to the rule-drafting agency
•
Identification and commentary on business impacts of existing administrative rules
and regulations
•
Recommendations to the Mayors or County councils regarding County rules
•
Review of small business petitions and complaints on business impact
5-15
6
Proposals
This chapter discusses proposals to improve the use of State and County roads by
downhill bicycle tours and mitigate impacts on other road users. The first part of this
chapter reviews the benefits and impacts of the proposals, which are divided into three
categories: (1) physical improvements, (2) regulatory proposals, and (3) non-regulatory
proposals. The second section shows an assessment of the proposals and summarizes the
study recommendations.
6.1
Physical Improvements
6.1.1 Staging Area(s)
Description
The current ban on downhill bicycle tours originating within
Haleakala National Park has led to tours being launched outside
the park boundary. This proposal involves improvements to the
staging area(s) which are located adjacent to Crater Road (Hwy
378). These areas are used to off-load bicycles from vans or
trailers, provide safety briefings, and line up riders for mount up
and launch. The main staging area is located above Milepost 9 on
the downhill side of Crater Road. A secondary launch area is
located slightly higher on the uphill side of Crater Road.
Improvements would consist of paving the shoulder area, creating
a smooth transition to the road pavement, and installing fencing
between the paved area and surrounding private property. Other
improvements could include portable restrooms and descriptive
signage that would make this a scenic overlook as well.
Benefits
The main staging area is regularly used by visitors traveling to
Haleakala National Park as a place to park and take in a
spectacular scenic vista. Improvements to the staging area,
therefore, would serve a range of users beyond the downhill
bicyclists.
Impacts
In addition to the initial construction cost, there will be operational
costs to maintain the area, with expenses for landscaping, trash
disposal, and restroom upkeep.
6-1
Discussion
Chapter 6 Proposals
The upper staging area is located less favorably because bicyclists
need to cross the roadway in order to start the downhill ride. A
curve in the highway diminishes sight distance. However, it
continues to be used because of space limitations at the lower
staging site.
Lack of formal launch area
6.1.2 Shoulder Widening and Pull-outs
Description
This proposal involves widening and/or lengthening shoulders so
that an entire convoy can move off the travel lane and allow
motorists to pass. Pull-outs are shorter sections of shoulder space
that can accommodate a van with trailer, but is generally too short
for a moving convoy. Figure 7 shows the typical plan of a pullout. It would have a minimum length of 100 feet with tapered ends
and a minimum width of 8 feet. Figure 8 shows typical crosssections within an 80-foot right-of-way. The identified locations
are currently grassed or graveled areas, and would be improved
with asphaltic concrete.
6-2
Chapter 6 Proposals
A preliminary field check identified 32 locations along Crater
Road (Highway 378) that are potential pull-out locations. These
locations are shown in Figures 9a through 9d. Some of these
places are already used as pull-outs by bike tour operators (labeled
“existing” pull-out locations).
HDOT has selected four sites for initial improvement as “priority”
pull-out areas—see Figures 9b and 9c.1 Other locations, currently
labeled “existing” or “potential” may be improved in the future.
There are 9 existing and potential pull-out locations along
Haleakala Hwy (Hwy 377), as shown in Figures 9d through 9h.
There are 3 shoulder widening opportunities on the downhill side
of Baldwin Avenue (see Figures 9i and 9j):
(1) makai of Haliimaile Road junction
(2) Ohaoha Place to Job Corps
(3) in front of Montessori School
2,640 feet (est.)
5,280 feet (est.)
2,640 feet (est.)
Potential shoulder widening location on Baldwin Avenue, from Job Corps looking mauka
1
Construction of pull-outs on Haleakala Crater Road is designated as a Priority I proposal (No. 45) in Bike
Plan Hawaii, HDOT’s 2003 bicycle facility master plan
6-3
Chapter 6 Proposals
Unlike the pull-outs proposed for Crater Road and Haleakala
Highway, the widened shoulders proposed for Baldwin Avenue, a
County road, are long enough for the entire convoy to pull over
while continuing to roll. A 1/4-mile widened shoulder can
accommodate a typical tour group with the following assumptions:
•
14 bicycles maximum and 1.5 second spacing of bicycles
traveling at 15 miles per hour
•
Average speed of cars passing = 30 mph spaced 1.8 seconds
apart
•
If bicyclists were to travel at an average speed of 20 mph, the
required distance doubles to 1/2 mile
•
Reducing the number of bicycles reduces the required length to
1/6 mile (for bicycles at 15 mph)
Benefits
Shoulder improvements would provide space for slower moving
vehicles to pull over and allow faster moving vehicles to pass. If a
tour group needs to stop, these spaces allow bicyclists to pull over
safely, outside the travel lane. Wider shoulders would also allow
Maui Police to park their vehicles for monitoring and enforcement
purposes.
Impacts
Construction of a typical pull-out area is estimated at $40,000,
including excavation, base course, asphalt pavement, signage, and
striping. Retaining walls and/or guardrail relocation, required in
some locations, would add to the baseline construction cost.
The shoulder improvement projects on Baldwin Avenue would be
more expensive, not only because longer segments are involved,
but the need for possible utility relocation, drainage improvements,
and traffic control. Costs are estimated to range from $200,000 to
$470,000. Costs would be lower if shoulder improvements are
shortened, essentially providing pull-outs.
6-4
071204/005 122909 r3
TYPICAL PLAN — PULL-OUT AREA
R/W
100' Min.
Existing 4' Wide
Grassed Shoulder
Existing Edge of
Pavement
2:1
Max
8' Wide Bicycle Pull-out Area
Existing 22' Wide Paved Travelway
Existing 4' Wide Grassed Shoulder
80' Wide R/W
R/W
Notes:
Minimum pull-out length determined to be
100' to store 14 bicycles and 1 van single file.
(68" avg. length per bike & 15 pass. van
approx. 225" long)
6-5
Figure 7
Typical Plan—Pull-out Area
071204/006 061710 r5
TYPICAL SECTION – 80' R/W (with cut)
(Haleakala Crater Road)
R/W
R/W
80' R/W
4' Grassed
Shoulder
22' Wide
Existing Travelway
CL
Exist. Edge
of Pavement
Proposed
8' Wide
Bike Pullout 2'
Exist. 4'
Grassed
Shoulder
ut
Existing Ground
C
2.0% Max. 2:1
_%
2.0+
Existing Ground
x.)
(ma
Finished
Grade
2' AC Gutter,
Where shown on plans
TYPICAL SECTION – 80' R/W (with fill)
R/W
R/W
80' R/W
4' Grassed
Shoulder
22' Wide
Existing Travelway
Prop. 8' Wide
Bike Pullout 2'
CL
Exist. Edge
of Pavement
Existing Ground
2.0+_%
Exist. 4'
Grassed
Shoulder
Finished
Grade
2.0% Max.
4:1
Fill
(m
ax.
)
2' AC Gutter,
6-6
Figure 8
Typical Section—80-foot ROW, w/Cut, w/Fill
071204/007 010410 r4
LEGEND
EXISTING PULL OUT AREA
POTENTIAL PULL OUT AREA
CULVERT
H A L E A K AL A
R A N C H
1
0
H A L E A K AL A
R A N C H
STAGING AREA
STAGING AREA
D
O
W
N
H
IL
L
6500
9
H A L E A K A L A C R AT E R
( R O U T E 3 7 8 )
WA I
A
R D
LE
BRID
GE
PULL OUT AREA
PULL OUT AREA
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-7
Figure 9a
Potential Improvements (Mile 9-10)
071204/009 062310 r5
LEGEND
CULVERT
POTENTIAL PULL OUT
8
POTENTIAL PULL OUT
EXISTING
PULL OUT AREA
IL
H
N
OK
AL
W
KU
D
A
O
HA
L
PO
BR
ID
GE
6
6000
5500
PRIORITY PULL-OUT AREA
H A L E A K AL A
CR ATER RD
( R O U T E
0 100
NORTH
300
7
3 7 8 )
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-8
Figure 9b
071204/010 062310 r5
LEGEND
EXISTING
PULL-OUT
AREA
CULVERT
EXISTING PULL-OUT AREA
NARROW PAVEMENT
WIDTH ABOUT 28’ WIDE
(DRAIN CULVERT CROSSING)
D
4000
W
N
H
IL
L
2
1
O
3
4500
4
POTENTIAL
PULL OUT AREA
EXISTING
PULL-OUT AREA
POTENTIAL
PULL-OUT AREA
5000
5
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-9
Figure 9c
071204/011 010410 r4
LEGEND
CULVERT
LO
WER KI MO D R
KIM
ER
U PP
R
OD
Kula Lodge
KULA
K U A L A NI
RD
DR
AL A
KUOK
BRIDG
K
POHA
DOWNHILL
AINA
POHAKUOKALA BRIDGE -- NARROW AREA
18’ WIDE PAVEMENT WIDTH. 50’ R/W WIDTH
HAS SPACE TO ADD SEPARATE PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAY
E
UA
LO A N O P L
Sunrise Protea Market
PA
LE
NA
POTENTIAL AREA FOR
SEPARATE BIKE PATH/
WIDER SHOULDER
PL
PO
M
NI
OI
PL
3500
TO KAHULUI HALEAKALA HWY
(ROUTE 377)
TO KULA KEKAULIKE AVE
(ROUTE 377)
0
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-10
1
Figure 9d
Potential Improvements
(Mile 1 to Lower Kimo Drive)
071204/012 010410 r4
LEGEND
CULVERT
4
H A L E A K A L A H W Y
( R O U T E 3 7 7 )
DOWNHILL
5
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-11
Figure 9e
071204/013 010410 r4
LEGEND
CULVERT
POTENTIAL PULL OUT
3
BRID
GE
GE
DOW
NHIL
L
BRID
H A L E A K A L A H W Y
( R O U T E 3 7 7 )
WAI
AL
E
BRID
WAIALE BRIDGE--NARROW AREA 18’
WIDE PAVEMENT WIDTH. 50’ R/W WIDTH
HAS SPACE TO ADD SEPARATE
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GE
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-12
Figure 9f
Potential Improvements (Mile 3)
071204/014 010410 r3
LEGEND
CULVERT
END OF MAUI DOWNHILL COMPANY
BIKE TOUR
D
O
W
N
H
2
IL
L
2500
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-13
Figure 9g
Potential Improvements (Mile 2)
071204/015 011110 r5
LEGEND
HALEAKALA HWY
(ROUTE 37)
CULVERT
Matchline
OLD
HALEAKALA
HWY
KULA HWY
(ROUTE 37)
CRUISER PHIL & BIKE IT MAUI
DISMOUNT AREA
TO H A L E A K AL A
( R O U T E 3 7 7 )
H
A
N
A
M
U
R
D
PA
AR K
ROAD
KEALALOA
P
Matchline
DOWNHILL
MAIN BIKE
TOUR ROUTE
ING
R KIN G
BRID
GE
1
BRID
BIKE TOURS FROM
HIGHWAY 377
TO KEALALOA
H
IG
HW
7
AY 3
7
GE
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-14
Figure 9h
(Mile 1 to Hanamu Road)
071204/016 061510 r5
HA
LI‘
IM
AIL
E
RD
WIDEN
SHOULDER
K A LU A N U I
D
O
W
RD
MONTESSORI
SCHOOL
OF MAUI
N
H
IL
L
WIDEN
SHOULDER
HUI
VISUAL ARTS
CENTER
BA
LD
WI
VE.
NA
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
x-xx
Figure 9i
(Baldwin Ave. to Halimaile Road)
071204/017 010410 r4
IK
E
D
R
MAUI JOB
CORPS
WIDEN SHOULDER
BA
LD
W
IN
AV
EN
UE
DO
W
NH
IL
L
O
O
HA
HA
PL
AC
E
KAMOLE
0 100
NORTH
300
500
SCALE IN FEET
6-16
Figure 9j
(Ohaoha Place to Ike Drive)
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.1.3 Bridge Improvements
Description
Traffic flow is often constricted in the vicinity of narrow bridges.
Bicyclists are correctly instructed to ride in the center of the travel
lane if shoulder space is insufficient for bicycles and motor
vehicles to travel in parallel. Escort vans frequently pull up behind
the convoy to protect riders at these pinch points. This proposal
calls for the construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge
adjacent to the existing highway bridge. HDOT has installed these
types of bridges in other locations with narrow bridges, such as
Kamehameha Highway on the North Shore of Oahu.
Preliminary field investigations have identified 4 locations where
footbridges may be feasible: (1) Crater Road crossing Waiale
Stream (2) Crater Road crossing Pohakuokala Stream, (3)
Haleakala Highway crossing Waiale Stream, and (4) Halaeakala
Highway crossing Pohakuokala Stream.
Benefits
A footbridge would separate bicyclists from motor vehicles. The
new bridge would benefit pedestrians and runners, as well as
bicyclists. Assuming that shoulders are satisfactory on the
approach to and beyond the bridges, the need for escort vehicles to
follow directly behind the convoy would be reduced.
Impacts
Compared to the typical highway bridge, footbridges are less
expensive to construct because of the lighter loads. Nevertheless,
the estimated cost of a footbridge is approximately $520,000. This
amount includes relocation of guardrails, new signage, and
striping.
Cantilevered structure from side of existing bridge
Pedestrian and bicycle bridge
6-17
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.1.4 Bike Path Connector from Crater Road to Haleakala Highway
Description
This proposal involves construction of a 10-foot wide bike path
connecting Crater Road and Haleakala Highway (see Figure 10).
The path, approximately 360 feet long, would be located within the
existing public right-of-way. Preliminary engineering indicates
that there is sufficient room for a two-foot wide clear zone on
either side of the path and a landscaping strip up to five feet wide
between the path and the road pavement.
Benefits
A separate bike path would allow bicyclists to make the right turn
from Crater Road onto Haleakala Highway without coming to a
full stop at the stop sign. Bicyclists would be able to maintain
speed for the slight grade increase on Haleakala Highway after the
turn. In contrast, tour participants today are required to walk their
bikes through the stop sign to make the curve. From a full stop, it
takes riders some time to get back to cruising speed and able to
keep up with motor traffic.
Impacts
The preliminary cost estimate is $130,000. A major cost factor is a
retaining wall to maximize use of the public right-of-way. Costs
will be higher if an existing drainage culvert must be modified.
Proposed bike path connector from Crater Road onto Haleakala Hwy
6-18
071204/008 122909 r3
Haleak
Bike Path
rR
oa
d
te
377)
ra
Route
hway (
ala Hig
$
#
Ha
le
a
ak
la
C
$
#
6-19
Figure 10
Proposed Bike Path, Intersection of
Haleakala Highway and Crater Road
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.1.5 Rest Stops and Scenic Overlooks
Description
This proposal would provide off-road areas where bicyclists can
safely leave the highway and park their bicycles. Scenic overlooks
would allow for resting and regrouping, picture taking, and
commentary from the guides.
Benefits
These areas are intended for the use and enjoyment of all highway
users. For the bicycle tours, formal scenic outlooks would help to
regularize rest stops, making it more predictable for motorists to
determine where convoys exit and enter the highway.
Impacts
Like all public facilities, overlooks and rest stops will need regular
upkeep, for example, trash removal and maintenance of
landscaping, pavement, and railings.
Scenic lookout with informational sign describing cultural, historical, and ecological features
6-20
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.1.6 Baldwin Avenue Shared Use Path
Description
In 2000, a plan was prepared to widen or add shoulders to Baldwin
Avenue. However, the plan was dropped due to adverse impacts to
rainbow shower trees. The County subsequently began planning a
shared use path that follows a mauka-makai alignment on the west
(Kahului) side of Baldwin Avenue. The path would extend for
approximately 6 miles and have a width of 13 feet (6 feet uphill; 7
feet downhill).
Benefits
The shared use path would remove guided bike tours from Baldwin
Avenue, beginning just below Makawao Town. Although some
community members have expressed concerns that the path would
be for the bike tours, it is being planned and designed as a facility
that enables all segments of the community to travel on foot and by
bicycles between Upcountry and the coast. Residents in
neighboring areas would have a walking and jogging facility for
fitness purposes.
Impacts
Costs for land and construction are estimated to require $2.7
million in County bonds and $5.6 million in federal funds.
Community support for the path is mixed given the cost of the
facility and priorities for bicycle facilities elsewhere. Bike tour
operators have expressed guarded support for the project.
6.2
6.2.1 Close Permit Loophole
Description
Amend the language of the Maui County Code so that the existing
permit requirement applies to downhill bicycle tour businesses
operating in the county. As currently written, the law states:
It is unlawful for any business or person to conduct a bicycle
tour on County property without first obtaining a bicycle tour
business permit issued by the director in accordance with this
chapter (italics added). Maui County Code, Chapter 5.22
Benefits
By modifying the ordinance, the permit requirement would apply
to all businesses that operate downhill bicycle rides down
Haleakala. Among the conditions for permit approval are
comprehensive liability insurance with minimum coverage of $3
6-21
Chapter 6 Proposals
million and a duty to defend the County, if the County is sued as a
result of activities by the bicycle tour business. These provisions
were enacted by the County Council as a measure of protection
against losses sustained and should apply equally to all downhill
bike tour operators.
Impacts
Costs are likely to increase for tour operators who currently
operate without the permit.
6.2.2 Specify Restrictions and Conditions on Use of Roadways
Various proposals have been raised to regulate the operations of downhill bike tours on
State and County roads, as discussed below:
6.2.2.1
Prohibit bicycle tours on certain road segments. In particular,
restrict bicycle tours from passing through Makawao Town and/or
Paia Town. Notable trouble spots are the intersection with fourway stop in Makawao, and the Hana Highway intersection in Paia.
Benefits
Restricting bicycle convoys would reduce congestion levels
already experienced within Makawao Town and Paia Town. In the
past, merchant associations in both towns have requested tour
operators to stop sending convoys through their commercial
districts. Some business owners feel that the bicycle convoys
inhibit customers from coming into town during certain times of
day.
Impacts
The prohibition would mean that tours are stopped outside the
Makawao commercial district, where riders would dismount,
bicycles loaded onto trailers, and the riders driven through town in
the van. Riders could then re-mount on the other side of the
commercial district. In the case of Paia, similar procedures could
take place, or, more likely, tours would end prior to entering the
main commercial district. Although these procedures require extra
effort from tour operators, they are being done by at least two
companies.
Restrictions would diminish riders’ ability to get an up-close look
at the quaint charm of small-town Maui afforded by bicycles.
Bicycle tour groups rarely stop in Makawao currently, so the
prohibition would not have a direct economic impact on the town;
however, some visitors return after their initial exposure. Paia is
6-22
Chapter 6 Proposals
the end point for many of the guided tours, so opportunities for
shopping and dining are less likely to be affected.
Discussion
A compromise is to restrict bicycle convoys through Makawao
after the start of business. Depending on when the bicycle tours
begin, convoys may pass through before businesses have opened.
Because Paia is at the far end of the tour route, most businesses are
open by the time bicyclists reach the town.
Baldwin Avenue also has been mentioned as inappropriate for
bicycle tours. In general, this road experiences relatively low
traffic levels with posted speeds ranging from 15-30 mph. See
Section 6.1.2, above, for a discussion on shoulder widening on
Baldwin Avenue.
Makawao commercial district
6-23
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.2.2.2
Restrict bicycle tours during certain times of the day. In
particular, establish a “bike free zone” on Haleakala Highway
between, say, 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. when bicyclists on the
sunrise tour converge with peak morning traffic.
Benefits
Conflicts between bicycle convoys and motor vehicles would be
eliminated while a “bike free zone” is in effect.
Impacts
For a “bike free zone” to be non-discriminatory, it would affect all
bicyclists, including those unaffiliated with a downhill tour.
Discussion
The time when the sun rises varies throughout the year; therefore,
the time when bicyclists arrive at Haleakala Highway will also
vary. During the summer months, there’s a greater likelihood of a
clash in timing between bicyclists and motorists using the
highway. At other times of the year, the peak usage among groups
is more likely to occur at different times.
6.2.2.3
Restrict the number of guided bicycle tours (convoys) allowed.
This proposal would establish a maximum number of guided tours
allowed each day. One proposal is a maximum of two sunrise
tours and two mid-morning tours per day per company
Benefits
Limiting the number of bicycle tours is a tool to manage roadway
use among competing users.
Impacts
This restriction would negatively affect the guided tour operators,
but not the independent tour operators.
Discussion
An alternative to capping the absolute number of tours is to
regulate the spacing of the convoys (see 6.2.2.4, below).
6.2.2.4
Regulate the spacing of bike tour convoys. This proposal would
institute a mandatory check-in procedure to control spacing
between tour convoys. A common complaint expressed by
members of the Upcountry community is the difficulty of passing
bicyclists when multiple convoys join together. Even the National
Park Service, in its Operations and Safety Plan, required tour
departures to be staggered with at least a 10-minute interval
between each group.
Benefits
Ensuring regular spacing between convoys will mitigate
disruptions to the flow of vehicular traffic. Although tour leaders
6-24
Chapter 6 Proposals
are conscientious about timing when their group sets off, spacing
becomes less regular mid-route as some convoys move faster or
slower than others, or groups need to rest to attend to rider or
equipment needs.
Impacts
Mandatory check-in procedures would work only if all guided tour
operators participate and comply with the system rules. A
cooperative system would include one or more check-in station
and a standardized set of procedures to maintain order.
Discussion
Table 6 shows hypothetical scenarios under conditions in which
bicycle convoys are spaced in intervals of 5 minutes or 10 minutes.
On Crater Road, where bicyclists are posited to travel at an average
speed of 8.5 mph through the switchbacks, a car traveling at 30
mph would encounter a convoy approximately every 0.7 mile or
1.4 minutes. With a 10-minute gap between convoys, the same car
would encounter a convoy every 1.4 miles or 2.8 minutes.
Along a stretch of roadways where bicyclists are traveling faster,
say an average of 20 mph along Haleakala Highway, a 5-minute
interval would mean that a car traveling at 30 mph would
encounter a tour group approximately every 1.5 miles or 3.0
minutes. With 10 minutes between convoys, encounters would
stretch to approximately every 3.2 miles or 6.4 minutes.
Table 6. Convoy Spacing Calculations (Scenarios)
Spacing Interval
between Convoys
Distance between
Convoys
Time Interval
between Convoys for
Car Driving at
30 mph
8.5 mph
5 minutes
0.7 mile
1.4 minutes
(Crater Road
switchbacks)
10 minutes
1.4 miles
2.8 minutes
20 mph
5 minutes
1.5 miles
3.0 minutes
(Haleakala Hwy)
10 minutes
3.2 miles
6.4 minutes
Average Speed of
Convoy
6-25
Chapter 6 Proposals
Tour groups stagger start times, but do not always maintain separation for the entire trip
6.2.2.5
Restrict the size of convoys (number of riders per tour).
Discussion
Currently, guided tours have a maximum of 13 riders and a cruise
leader. This number correlates with the 15-person capacity of the
vans being used (13 riders + 1 guide + 1 van driver). The National
Park Service, under its Commercial Use Authorization, established
14 as the maximum tour size. This proposal would reduce the
maximum size of each tour to 10 participants.
Benefits
Reducing the size of the tour group would make it easier for
vehicles to go around the bicycle convoy.
Impacts
Tour operators report that the economics of their business is
heavily dependent on their ability to operate at van capacity.
Because vans are not always filled, especially during recessionary
times, it is important to maintain the 13-rider tour size to offset less
profitable runs.
6-26
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.2.2.6
Regulate the qualifications of participants by age, height,
weight, and/or skill level.
Discussion
The intent of this proposal is to reduce injuries and fatalities
among tour participants. As shown in Chapter 3, the profile of
bicyclists involved in accidents is highly variable. Because it is in
the tour operators’ interest to create the conditions for a safe,
enjoyable ride, all of them have screening criteria to evaluate
participants. Ultimately, riders who might be at risk are best
detected by observation. Experienced cruise leaders are able to
spot weak or problematic riders—anyone “riding out of their
ability.” Decisions about who can or cannot participate in the
downhill ride should continue to be made internally. However, all
riders should be tested before starting on the downhill descent.
When the tours began in Haleakala National Park, the Visitor
Center parking lot was used as a test riding site. Because the
current launch area is too small for this purpose, riders should be
tested at the baseyard to ascertain riding ability.
6.2.2.7
Require the mandatory use of pull-outs by escort vans and
trailers. There are two main variations of this proposal. One is to
require escort vans and trailers to pull-over at the earliest
opportunity when vehicles begin to line up behind them. This is
the condition imposed by the National Park Service. Another
variation, sometimes called the “leapfrog system,” is to require
escort vans and trailers to move from pull-out area to pull-out area,
rather than shadowing the convoy and pulling over only when
vehicles begin to stack up. Under the leapfrog system, escort vans
may follow directly behind the convoy in certain limited situations,
such as sections with sharp turns and restricted sight distances or
narrow bridge crossings, where convoys may be more exposed.
For the most part, however, slow-moving vans and trailers would
not “block” traffic, but travel at posted speed levels as they jump
from one pull-out to the next.
Benefits
The strategic use of pull-outs can facilitate traffic flow and reduce
inconvenience to motorists stuck behind slow-moving vehicles.
The addition of posted signs that say “Mandatory Pullover for
Trailers in XXX Feet” would alert motorists to a passing
opportunity ahead.
Impacts
Some tour operators already employ the leapfrog system.
However, others do not and will have to re-tool their operations if
the use of pull-outs becomes mandatory. The number, location,
6-27
Chapter 6 Proposals
and size of pull-outs would have to be analyzed to ensure that all
escort vehicles can be accommodated.
Some tour operators firmly believe that strategic use of vans is
needed to protect riders. Specific locations include bridges with
little or no shoulders that become “pinch points” along the route,
sections with curves or limited sight distance, and uphill grades
that slow down bicycling speeds.
Discussion
A related proposal is to require company personnel on bicycles at
both the front and back of the convoy. Currently, all tours have a
professional guide on bike only at the front of the line. The
question is whether company personnel as the last rider would
eliminate the need for a tailing escort van. When asked, tour
operators felt that two employees on bicycles was an unnecessary
cost. Some tours have the last rider wear a distinctive vest.
6.2.2.8
Require speedometers on the cruise leader’s bicycle. The
speedometer would be part of a program to limit bicycle speed to a
pace that is manageable for safe control of bicycles, particularly
when negotiating turns.
Benefits
Reducing excessive speeds that require participants to keep up a
pace that may be too fast for their ability to safely control a bicycle
while negotiating a turn.
Impact
Effective control of bicycle speeds would need to be coordinated
with an initiative to establish safe speeds under various route
conditions, and cruise leader training.
Discussion
Attaching speedometers to all bicycles may serve as group control.
6-28
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.2.3 Develop a Credentialing and Oversight Program
This proposal involves the creation and operation of a program to reinforce industry
standards. “Credentialing and oversight” are used conceptually; designing a specific
program would require further consideration and discussion. The program could
encompass a range of activities and responsibilities. One program element might be
training and education to foster optimal operations with employees required to
demonstrate a prescribed level of competency. Another program element might involve
periodic inspections to check whether documented procedures are being followed or to
check whether equipment meets safety specifications. Enforcement is another possible
element; the ability to issue warnings, citations, and penalties (such as temporary
suspensions or revocation of permit). In such a program, the County (or authorized
entity) would essentially take over much of the functions that were performed by the
National Park Service prior to the stand down.
Personnel: The proposal for an employee credential program
would involve qualifying drivers and guides, standardized training
to disseminate and inculcate best practices across the industry, and
provide a system of incentives and/or penalties to sustain desired
levels of performance over time.
Under the conditions of the National Park Service’s Commercial
Use Authorization, bike tour operators participated in training
programs run by the Service and each crew was required to have at
least one person credentialed by the Red Cross with first responder
qualifications. With bicycle tours currently unable to operate in
the park, the NPS influence over, and oversight of, training and
personnel qualifications is also in hiatus. See also, Section 6.3.3,
Best Practices Manual.
Equipment: An oversight program for equipment would ensure
that safety equipment is available and that riding equipment is
well-maintained and functioning properly. The program could
include regularly scheduled inspections and/or random, spot
inspections. The NPS case log, reports numerous vehicular
violations, including defective lights; expired registration; expired
safety checks; bald tire; unmounted, uncharged, or inaccessible fire
extinguishers; and lack of seat belt.
Benefits
An industry-wide credentialing program would help to set
minimum standards of professionalism in conducting the downhill
bike tours. Inspection of tour bicycles and motor vehicles would
serve as backstops to the companies’ in-house maintenance efforts.
6-29
Impacts
Chapter 6 Proposals
Significant organizational resources would be required to set up
and operate a credible, long-term program. The program will also
require financial resources, which could be considerable. Bike
tour companies would be expected to cover the costs and some
expenses could be transferred from in-house programs to the
external credentialing program—however, it’s unlikely that a
company would be able to eliminate all internal functions, such as
training. To some extent, the program would add a new layer of
costs for the tour operators.
Another significant impact is the possibility that becoming
involved in credentialing and equipment inspections would
increase the County’s exposure to liability in future lawsuits. A
third party would be similarly affected.
6.2.4 Data Collection
Description
Collect information on tour operations, such as data on the number
of tour groups, number of tour participants, number of accidents,
and the disposition of accident cases.
Benefits
A formal data collection process would enable more accurate
tracking of the industry. Public policy should be based on
statistics, rather than perceptions.
Impacts
To be effective, data collection must be part of a system that
collects, organizes, analyzes, and reports the information.
Discussion
Basic information is already collected as part of the bicycle tour
business permit, including: applicant contact information;
description of the areas, locations, or routes to be used; description
and registration numbers of all monitor vehicles and bicycles to be
used; and description of structures to be used by the business. The
National Park Service also collects some information for the
Commercial Use Authorization. Barring privacy rules,
information sharing among governmental agencies can provide the
foundation for an information database. The existing ordinance
allows for additional information to be collected could be made a
part of the County’s permitting process. But the collection of
additional information should be clear about its purpose and use.
6-30
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.2.5 Surcharge Fee per Bicycle
Description
Establish a special purpose fund to be administered by the County
that would fund any credentialing, monitoring, or enforcement
program specific to the downhill bike tours. The fund would be
supplied by a surcharge fee on each bicycle that is part of a
commercial downhill tour group, whether escorted or independent.
Benefits
Fees would provide an income stream that could be used to fund
proposed improvements, operation and maintenance costs, and
program costs.
Impacts
A special purpose fund will require County authorization. An
administrative structure is needed to collect, manage, and disburse
the funds, with administrative rules to provide guidance.
Fees will affect the cost structure of the bicycle tours, either in
terms of higher prices or lower profit margins. Any surcharge
should be applied across the board so that all operators are affected
equally.
6.2.6 Mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing
Description
Institute a drug and alcohol testing policy for bike tour employees
in safety-sensitive positions. The program may be administered by
a qualified third party, but would be consistent with protocols and
procedures used in similar workplace situations and with proper
fairness safeguards.
Benefits
Mandatory drug and alcohol testing would create an environment
that enhances the safety and health of clients, co-workers, and the
general public.
Impacts
Employers would incur increased costs and need to set up an
appropriate human resources context for notification, testing,
addressing violations, and confidentiality and privacy.
Discussion
Most tour operators interviewed would not oppose mandatory
testing; however, they also feel that job conditions—specifically,
the early wake-up call day after day and close, small-group
interaction—are better indicators of employee fitness.
6-31
Chapter 6 Proposals
Tour operators can also reduce accident risk by making sure that
prospective clients know that use of prescription and over-thecounter drugs can impair their ability to safely descend Haleakala.
Even use of medication for colds and motion sickness can cause
drowsiness or inattentiveness. Similarly, lack of sleep the night
before can result in suboptimum physical fitness. Cautions should
be stressed in all promotional literature and all participants made
fully aware of the risks when signing a waiver or
acknowledgement of risk.
6.3
Non-Regulatory Proposals
Non-regulatory proposals are essentially voluntary efforts to improve safety and courtesy
on the road. These proposals cover actions on the part of the bike tour industry and the
community. This category also includes enforcement of existing laws.
6.3.1 Identify Vans and Trailers
Description
Attach company name and phone number so they are clearly
visible from the side and rear of vans and trailers.
Benefits
The ability to identify company owners would facilitate
community relations and reduce the perception by some local
residents that tour companies are masking poor road etiquette
behind anonymous vehicles.
Impacts
Tour operators would incur expenses to attach signs or decals on
all vehicles.
Discussion
The PUC requires all commercial carriers to identify vehicles, but
current markings are not always visible. A further consideration is
whether bicycles should have identifiable markers.
6.3.2 Complaint Hotline and Follow-up
Description
Provide a hotline where complaints can be made and direct
complaints to the responsible party for response and/or corrective
action. The hotline could also serve as a clearinghouse to track
accidents.
6-32
Chapter 6 Proposals
Benefits
A hotline would provide a central contact point to report illegal or
improper actions. A log would provide a means of tracking the
number, frequency, and nature of community complaints.
Impacts
Personnel resources would be required to monitor the line and
follow up.
Discussion
The industry has experimented with a hotline in the past. While
briefly in operation, it was not utilized as much as expected.
Reasons for the lack of response are unclear.
Safety briefing before the tour launch
6.3.3 Best Practices Manual
Description
Develop a “best practices” manual that would establish industry
standards for safe, consistent, and courteous interactions with other
highway users. For example, in the case of guided tours, best
practices would specify the actions of escort vehicles, including
when and where they may follow the convoy, and how escort
vehicles and convoys should respond when other vehicles begin to
6-33
Chapter 6 Proposals
back up. The manual would address conduct perceived as
offensive or egregious by host communities, for example, littering,
showboating by cruise leaders, and van drivers instructing
motorists to pass. It would also contain a safety plan with
practices to minimize risk, report accidents and property damage,
and procedures for following up.
Benefits
The Best Practices Manual is conceived as a negotiated document
to be developed with input from the downhill bicycle industry and
the community. It would document a compromise that meets the
needs of both sides. The community benefits by having a set of
standardized expectations about how the tours operate and the
knowledge that tours are being conducted in a way that minimizes
hazards and inconvenience. The industry benefits by having a set
of voluntary guidelines.
Impacts
Because the Best Practices Manual is voluntary, the lack of
external accountability and consequences may be a weakness.
Even with good intentions, maintaining standards over the longterm can be challenging.
Discussion
For a Best Practices Manual to be sustainable, the practices must
be internalized. It is incumbent upon the industry to make sure
that employees are fully trained, and that new tour operators also
adopt the practices.
6.3.4 Safety Video
Description
Develop a safety video to be shown in the van on the way up
Haleakala, similar to videos used by airlines.
Benefits
Video images would supplement current safety briefings held at
the baseyard before the van trip begins. Any number of issues can
arise so that tour participants are not fully briefed about safety
issues: written information distributed for reading in dark vans
(those on the sunrise tour), rushed presentations for tour
participants who arrive late, language difficulties among foreign
participants. Videos present information in a largely non-verbal
format. They allow extended coverage of certain types of
information—using footage from the route itself to preview
conditions, demonstrate what to do or NOT do, and how to deal
with emergencies.
6-34
Chapter 6 Proposals
Impacts
Tour companies will need to prepare an instructional video and
may need to outfit their vans with viewing equipment.
Discussion
To the extent that best practices are adopted, generic video
sequences could be produced for use by more than one company.
Unlike airline safety videos that are largely ignored by seasoned
travelers, the bike safety video would be watched because it will be
a first-time experience for most riders. Tour participants
undeniably receive a large amount of written do’s and don’ts—the
question is whether the information could be disseminated in more
effective formats.
6.3.5 Scenic Byway
Description
Designate and develop Crater Road (Hwy 378) and Haleakala
Highway (Hwy 377) as a scenic byway.
Benefits
Special signage associated with the designation would alert
motorists that this scenic route is intended for leisure travel, so to
expect slower speeds.
Impacts
A designated scenic byway would attract more visitors to the area.
There may be development pressures to provide commercial
services that have secondary impacts on residential communities
and local traffic conditions.
Discussion
The State Department of Transportation is in the exploratory stages
of a statewide scenic byway program. Actual implementation
requires organized local support to nominate a scenic byway and
provide the means of maintaining the designation. Local sponsors
can be organizations interested in promoting the economic
development potential of a scenic route and/or preserving the
unique visual, historic, and cultural qualities of the particular
transportation corridor.
Distinctive signage for the California scenic byway program.
Hawaii has not yet instituted an official scenic byway program, but
is evaluating candidates for a pilot program.
6-35
Chapter 6 Proposals
6.3.6 Directional Signs for Bicyclists
Description
This proposal calls for signage and pavement markings to help
bicyclists find their way along Upcountry bicycle routes.
Benefits
Distinctive directional signs are intended to prevent bicyclists from
getting lost. While getting lost and seeking local assistance can be
part of a rewarding bicycling experience, it is also recognized that
downhill biking equipment is heavier than touring models and less
accommodating if reversing course means an uphill climb.
Impacts
Appropriate approvals are needed for signs to be posted on public
or private property.
Discussion
If the scenic byway program is pursued, signage for touring
vehicles and bicycles should be coordinated.
6.3.7 Increase Police Enforcement of Existing (and Future) Traffic Laws
Description
This proposal calls for increased enforcement of traffic violations
through increased police presence and patrols.
Benefits
More intensive enforcement of existing traffic laws is expected to
reduce traffic violations and unsafe maneuvers by motor vehicles
and bicycles.
Impacts
Increasing police patrols in the tour area would divert limited law
enforcement resources from other duties and locations.
Discussion
A representative of the Maui Police Department mentioned various
enforcement challenges. In the case of violations by bicyclists
with tour groups: Who should be cited? the tour company? tour
participants? How will they be penalized? Existing traffic laws
are adequate for the typical bicyclist, but the problem is enforcing
bicyclists traveling in groups.
6.3.8 Install Electronic Speed Monitors
Description
Install electronic speed monitors to encourage public compliance
with posted speed limits on Haleakala Highway. Speed monitors
increase drivers’ awareness about speed levels. For the program to
have long-standing results, however, police support is also needed.
6-36
Chapter 6 Proposals
Benefits
Compliance with speed limits would increase safety for all
highway users. Given the rural environment, sidewalks are rare in
Upcountry communities. People of all ages use the highway rightof-way, including pedestrians, joggers, runners, dog-walkers,
wheelchair users, and bicyclists.
Impacts
There are costs to acquire and install electronic monitors. One
concern is that adding signs to Haleakala Highway would
contribute to visual pollution.
Discussion
A three-mile stretch of Kuhio Highway, on the east side of Kauai,
had experienced a number of major accidents. In response to
community concerns, HDOT lowered the speed limit from 50 mph
to 40 mph, installed electronic speed monitors, and posted signs
notifying motorists of active patrols by local police. The result of
the public awareness campaign, supplemented by strategic police
enforcement, has been a marked decrease in speed levels.
Examples of electronic speed check signs
6-37
7.
Assessment and Recommendations
7.1
Assessment
Like all good public policy, decisions about how to improve the conditions under which
downhill bicycle tours are conducted should be made in a way that balances beneficial
outcomes and adverse impacts. The study authors assessed the benefits and impacts
based on an analysis of the empirical data, in-depth discussions with stakeholders,
feedback obtained through public meetings, and examination of related documents and
media accounts.
Benefits were assessed at four levels: high, medium, low, and unknown. Impacts were
assessed in terms of implementation requirements—first, the need for organizational
resources and, second, the need for financial resources. The impacts or costs—
organizational and financial—were assessed at three levels: high, medium, and low.
Benefits
High
Favored by community and industry
Significant improvement in traffic flow and safety
Medium
Favored by community, but not industry
Favored by industry, but not community
Some improvement in traffic flow and safety
Low
No position by community and industry
Marginal improvement in traffic flow and safety
Unknown
Insufficient information
Impacts-Organizational Resources
High
Medium
Low
Requires creation of new governmental or non-profit entity
Requires modification of governmental entity and/or activities
Requires little or no organizational resources
Impacts-Financial Resources
High
Medium
Low
Requires significant funding
Requires moderate funding
Requires little or no funding
Chapter 7 Recommendations
Benefits
ImpactsOrganizational
Resources
ImpactsFunding
Staging areas
H
L
M
Shoulder widening and pull-outs
H
L
M
Bridge improvements
H
L
H
Bike path connector
H
L
M
Rest stops and scenic overlooks
M
L
M
Baldwin Ave shared use path
H
L
H
H
L
M
Proposal
Close permit loophole
Roadway restrictions
•
Prohibit tours on certain road segments
H
L
M
•
Restrict bicycle tours during certain times
M
L
H
•
Restrict number of tours allowed
H
L
H
•
Regulate tour group spacing
H
L
L
•
Restrict size of tour groups
H
L
H
•
Regulate qualifications of tour participants
•
Require mandatory use of pull-outs
H
L
L
•
Require speedometer for cruise leader
H
L
L
Develop credential/monitoring program
H
H
H
Data collection
M
M
M
Surcharge fee
H
H
H
Mandatory drug and alcohol testing
M
M
M
Identify vans and trailers
M
L
L
Complaint hotline
M
M
M
Best practices manual
M
M
L
Safety video
M
L
L
Scenic byway
M
H
H
Directional signage for bicyclists
L
L
L
Increase police enforcement
H
H
M
Install electronic speed monitors
M
L
M
Unknown
Non-regulatory Proposals
7-2
The proposals were assigned to priority categories based on the combination of benefits
and impacts (see 3-by-3 table, below).
Proposals expected to yield high or medium benefits with low impacts, and high benefits
with medium benefits are considered priority proposals for short-term implementation.
Proposals with low benefits with low impacts, and medium benefits with medium
impacts may be worth pursuing, but are not considered high priority initiatives and,
therefore, categorized for mid-term implementation.
Proposals with low or medium benefits, but medium or high impacts should be
eliminated, and attention given to proposals that are likely to produce better results and
are more feasible to implement.
Proposals with high benefits and high impacts carry high costs and/or are likely to be
more controversial. These proposals merit additional public discussion and further
consideration.
Low Benefits
Medium Benefits
High Benefits
Low Impacts
Low/Low
Mid-term
Implementation
Short-term
Implementation
Short-term
Implementation
Medium Impacts
Low/Med
Med/Low
Eliminate
Mid-term
Implementation
Short-term
Implementation
High Impacts
High/Med
Med/High
High/High
Eliminate
Eliminate
Further Consideration
7-3
7.2
Recommendations
The table below summarizes the recommendations of this study.
Non-regulatory Proposals
Short-term Implementation (High Priority)
Staging areas
Shoulder widening/pull-outs
Bike path connector
Close permit loophole
Prohibit tours on certain road
segments
Regulate tour group spacing
Require mandatory use of
pull-outs
Require speedometer for
cruise leader
Identify vans/trailers
Safety video
Data collection
Mandatory drug/alcohol
testing
Complaint hotline
Best practices manual
Directional signage
Install electronic speed
monitors
Restrict number of tours
allowed
Restrict size of tour groups
Develop credential/monitoring
program
Surcharge fee
Increased police enforcement
Restrict bicycle tours during
certain times
Regulate participant
qualifications
Scenic byway
Mid-term Implementation
Rest stops/scenic overlooks
Further Consideration
Bridge improvements
Baldwin Ave. path
Eliminate
7-4
Short-term Implementation (Priority)
A number of physical improvement projects are recommended as high priority projects,
including staging area(s), shoulder widening, pull-outs, and the bike path connector.
These projects would maximize usable space within the existing right-of-way. Improving
roadways would facilitate shared use among different users. These projects will require
public funds, but are eligible for substantial contributions from federal sources.
Closing the permit loophole in Sec 5.22.020, Maui County Code is a housekeeping matter
that should be addressed in the short term. The ordinance should apply to downhill bike
tour companies across the board, all of which utilize public facilities and resources.
Four regulatory measures are especially feasible for implementation in the short term. (1)
Prohibit tours on certain road segments. This recommendation is to disallow the use of
State and County roads by bicycle convoys in the main commercial districts of Makawao
and Paia during business hours. Roads in these areas are congested with motor vehicles
on the roadways themselves, vehicles entering and exiting driveways, and vehicles
entering or leaving street-side parking stalls.
(2) Regulate tour group spacing and (3) Require mandatory use of pull-outs are both
initiatives that would ease bicycle-vehicle conflicts. These proposals will require more
systematic use of practices that are already being used on a sporadic basis and can be
accomplished with fairly simple technology, such as a punch clock. However,
cooperation is needed among the tour operators, and it may be necessary to add
regulatory language to the County Code to obtain long-term compliance.
(4) Require speedometer for the lead bicyclist is a proposal to control speed by providing
critical operational information to the cruise leader. The speedometer should be used in
conjunction with rules about safe speeds for each segment of the route.
Non-regulatory proposals are actions that may not be required by law, but demonstrate a
willingness to foster good community relations. In that spirit, bike tour operators should
identify their vans and trailers so that company names are visible from the rear.
Identifying bicycles would also help the public understand who is doing what in their
neighborhoods. The safety video is an effective means of communicating important
information on bicycling safely and the State’s rules for legal and responsible bicycle
operation. The expense of producing the video and installing viewing equipment would
be relatively small on a cost-per-viewing basis.
Mid-term Implementation (+5 Years)
Rest stops and scenic overlooks are recommended for implementation in the mid term,
defined as five years or more in the future. These facilities offer benefits not only to
bicyclists, but others traveling on Crater Road. However, they do not address immediate
7-5
safety and traffic concerns. An exception would be any rest stop needed to regulate
spacing between tour groups, which is a high priority proposal.
Two regulatory proposals are recommended for mid-term implementation. One is to
collect additional data from tour operators as part of the permit application process.
Pertinent data include number of participants and number of accidents during the
previous year. However, data collection should be embedded in an organizational
context where the data have meaning and purpose. Another proposal is mandatory drug
and alcohol testing for van drivers and cruise leaders—employees in positions affecting
health and safety. While testing may be beneficial, employers appear to be addressing
this issue without a public mandate.
Also recommended for mid-term implementation are four non-regulatory proposals. The
complaint hotline has a lower priority because of poor response during a previous trial.
Moreover, with vans, trailers, and bicycles clearly identified (a high priority proposal),
those with complaints should be encouraged to direct their concerns to the company
involved.
Although the Best Practices Manual is categorized as a mid-term proposal, some of the
priority proposals—tour group spacing and mandatory use of pull-outs—depend on a
consensus about best industry practices. At the same time, a compilation of best
practices, in and of itself, would not alter behavior without a system of incentives.
Directional signs and electronic speed monitors are relatively low-cost items, but are not
expected to yield the level of benefits warranting priority attention. Electronic speed
monitors can be very effective, but need to be coordinated with increased police
enforcement.
Proposals Needing Further Consideration
Proposed bridge improvements and the Baldwin Avenue path represent a set of
improvements that would create off-road facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Facilities that provide separate travel ways for non-motorized modes of transportation are
very effective in improving safety and reducing impediments to the flow of motor
vehicles, but they can be costly, which puts them in this category.
Four regulatory proposals should receive further consideration. Instead of restricting the
(total) number of tours allowed, a preferred option is to regulate the spacing of tour
groups, which essentially puts a cap on the number of tours that can be accommodated
(per hour) during peak periods.
Similarly, the proposal to restrict the size of tour groups (decreasing the number of
participants from 13 to 10) is recommended for further consideration because of the
potential for significant adverse impact on tour operators. Unlike other recommendations
7-6
that require operational modifications, the size of tour groups affects the intrinsic
economics and viability of these businesses.
Developing a credential/monitoring program and the surcharge fee are among the most
intensive regulatory proposals—not only for the downhill bicycle tour industry, but also
for the County. These proposals require new administrative responsibilities and rulemaking and need additional discussion to determine whether the County wishes to
proceed in this direction.
Eliminate
Two proposals are recommended for elimination from further consideration. The
proposal to restrict bicycles tours during certain times entails a “bike free zone.” The
bike free zone was considered specifically for Haleakala Highway between Crater Road
and Upper Kimo Drive. Unlike Makawao Town and Paia Town, this section of Kula
does not have the same density of commercial activity, and experiences a distinct traffic
peak. A proposal to restrict bicyclists is complicated by the varying times when such a
restriction would be effective. Moreover, recreational bicyclists also opposed this
proposal because of the possibility that all bicyclists would be barred from a bike free
zone.
Regulating participant qualifications is also recommended for elimination because of
uncertain outcomes. Based on analysis of NPS and EMS data, accident victims do not
fall neatly into prescribed demographic pigeonholes. Instead, this issue should be left to
the discretion of individual company owners.
Finally, the scenic byway proposal is not feasible and should be eliminated. Although the
proposal has many attractive elements, designating a scenic byway requires the
mobilization of resources that are outside County and State jurisdiction.
7-7
8.
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1999.
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
County of Maui, Department of the Corporation Counsel. January 18, 2007. Letter to G.
Riki Hokama, Council Chair, regarding Bill No. 84 (2006), Entitled “A Bill for an
Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.22, Maui County Code, Relating to Bicycle Tour
Business.”
County of Maui, Department of Parks and Recreation. August 2006. Commercial Ocean
Recreational Study. Prepared by Munekiyo & Hiraga, Inc.
County of Maui, Department of Planning. July 2004. Upcountry Greenway Master Plan.
County of Maui, Police Department. June 26, 2006. Letter to Joseph Pontanilla, Chair,
Public Works and Transportation Committee, Maui County Council, regarding
Downhill Bicycling Tours.
Federal Highway Administration. FHWQ-RD-98-095. The Bicycle Compatibility Index:
A Level of Service Concept, Implementation Manual.
Kula Community Association. March 6, 2007. Bicycle Tour and Rental Safety Position
Statement
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division. September 2003.
Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, February 27, 2008. NPS Safety
Analysis Report: Commercially Guided Bicycle Tours, Haleakala National Park.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Haleakala National Park. Commercial Downhill Bicycle
Tours, Safety Stand-down, Management Analysis, Volume 1. 1999.
8-1
Chapter 8 References
Tours, Safety Stand-down, Bike Company Input, Volume 10. 2007.
8-2
Appendices
A.
National Park Service, Commercial Use Authorization,
Conditions, Special Conditions, Safety Plan Addendum, 2007
B.
C.
D.
Kula Community Association, Bike Tour and Rental Safety
Position Statement
E.
Public Information Meeting 1, July 21 and 22, 2008
F.
Public Information Meeting 2, November 19 and 20, 2008
Appendix A
National Park Service, Commercial Use Authorization
Conditions, Special Conditions,
Safety Plan Addendum, 2007
Appendix B
NPS Case Incident Log 2006
Number
06-0006
06-0067
06-0135
06-0140
06-0145
06-0157
06-0158
06-0164
06-0169
06-0173
06-0174
06-0175
06-0177
06-0178
06-0179
06-0180
06-0200
06-0210
06-0226
06-0227
06-0228
06-0229
06-0230
06-0231
06-0232
06-0233
06-0234
06-0235
06-0236
06-0237
06-0238
06-0239
06-0240
06-0241
06-0242
06-0243
06-0244
06-0245
06-0246
06-0247
06-0248
06-0249
06-0250
06-0251
06-0252
06-0253
06-0254
06-0255
06-0256
06-0257
06-0258
06-0259
06-0260
06-0302
06-0322
06-0324
06-0324
06-0376
06-0379
06-0380
06-0386
06-0387
Date
1/6/2006
3/8/2006
5/10/2006
5/16/2006
5/23/2006
5/29/2006
5/30/2006
6/7/2006
6/13/2006
6/16/2006
6/16/2006
6/16/2006
6/16/2006
6/16/2006
6/16/2006
6/16/2006
6/29/2006
7/9/2006
1/5/2006
1/12/2006
1/21/2006
1/24/2006
2/6/2006
2/7/2006
2/26/2006
3/21/2006
4/4/2006
4/6/2006
4/6/2006
4/18/2006
4/21/2006
4/24/2006
4/29/2006
5/1/2006
5/2/2006
5/7/2006
5/15/2006
5/20/2006
5/21/2006
5/23/2006
5/25/2006
5/29/2006
5/31/2006
6/1/2006
6/10/2006
7/1/2006
7/2/2006
7/11/2006
7/25/2006
7/19/2006
7/28/2006
5/5/2006
3/18/2006
8/20/2006
9/6/2006
9/13/2006
9/13/2006
11/21/2006
12/6/2006
12/6/2006
12/13/2006
12/14/2006
Location Company Description
MM19
MD
Accident
MMC
V Warning
OJ
Accident
MM19
MR
Accident
MM11
Accident
MM17
MD
Accident
MM19
Accident
MM10
Accident
HVC
Accident
HQ
MMC
Citation
HQ
CP
Citation
HQ
MMC
Citation
HQ
CP
Citation
HQ
MD
Citation
HQ
MS
Citation
OJ MM9 HBC
Accident
MM20.5 MD
Citation
HVC
MMC
MVA
MM14
CP
Accident
MM17.4 MD
Accident
MM10.3 MMC
Accident
MM17.4 MMC
Accident
MM17
MR
Accident
MM12.5 MMC
Accident
HVC
MD
Accident
MM13
MD
Accident
MM17.4 MMC
Accident
MM14.9 MR
Accident
MM14.5 MMC
Accident
MM14
MMC
Accident
MM14
MD
Accident
HVC
MD
Medical
MMC
Accident
MM13
CP
Accident
MM15
MD
Accident
MM16
MMC
Accident
MM18.7 MD
Accident
MM19
MR
Accident
MM16
MMC
Accident
MM10.3 MMC
Accident
MMC
Accident
MM17.2 MMC
Accident
MM14.9 MMC
Accident
MM11.5 MD
Accident
MM19.5 MD
Accident
MM16.5 MD
Accident
MM19.5 MMC
Accident
MM12.5 MR
Accident
MMC
Accident
MM13
MD
Accident
MM15
MMC
Accident
MM13
Accident
MM18
BIM
Accident
MM13.6 MR
Accident
MM14
MD
FATALITY
MM17
MMC
Accident
MM17
MMC
Citation
MMC
Accident
HVC
MMC
Citation
HVC
BIM
V Warning
HVC
MD
V Warning
HQ
MD
V Warning
Age
13
29
39
60
22
Gender Disposition Details
F
transported
unsafe vehicle operation
F
EMS
shoulder
F
POV
bike vs car knee
F
F
45
F
54
56
55
18
54
58
55
13
59
49
54
25
58
44
25
50
53
58
52
28
28
30
24
27
25
63
33
65
38
70
13
58
17
M
M
M
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
M
35
60
29
M
F
M
F
16
F
2006
Medevac
Medevac
EMS
POV
POV
broken ankle
speed 25/15
speed 25/15
speed 25/15
speed 25/15
speed 25/15
speed 25/15
possible neck/internal
disorderly conduct
MMC vs. NPS minor damage
no injury
minor injury
no injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
no injury
minor injury
leg
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
fell down, minor injury
minor injury
no injury
minor injury
minor injury
no injury
minor injury
minor injury
broken finger
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
hip pain
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
transported LOC
transported bike vs van
transported shoulder
VTP no FR cert
minor injury
disorderly conduct, MMC v BIM
disorderly conduct
defective tail lights
defective tail lights
Page 1
NPS Case Incident Log 2006
Number
06-0389
06-0394
06-0395
06-0396
06-0397
06-0398
06-0399
06-0400
06-0401
06-0402
06-0403
06-0404
06-0405
06-0406
06-0407
06-0408
06-0409
06-0410
06-0411
06-0412
06-0413
06-0414
06-0415
06-0416
06-0417
06-0418
06-0419
06-0420
06-0421
06-0422
06-0423
06-0424
06-0425
06-0426
06-0427
06-0428
06-0429
06-0430
06-0435
06-0436
06-0437
Date
Location Company
12/14/2006 HVC
MD
MR
MM14.9 MD
MM14.9 MD
8/6/2006 MM15
MR
8/9/2006 MM14.9 MD
8/10/2006 MM16
MD
8/14/2006 MM18
MMC
8/21/2006 MM16.5 MR
8/22/2006 MM17.4 MD
8/31/2006 HVC
MMC
9/7/2006 MM17
MMC
9/8/2006
9/10/2006
9/11/2006
9/13/2006
9/20/2006
9/24/2006
8/26/2006
9/27/2006
10/2/2006
10/5/2006
10/6/2006
10/7/2006
10/7/2006
10/14/2006
10/14/2006
10/20/2006
10/24/2006
10/25/2006
11/6/2006
11/6/2006
11/18/2006
11/17/2006
11/23/2006
12/7/2006
12/15/2006
12/21/2006
12/22/2006
MM13
HVC
MM18.5
MM16.5
MM13
MM18
MM18.5
MM13
MM17
MN17
MM11.3
MM16.5
MM11.3
MM12
MM16
MM14
MM19.5
MM13.5
MM17.4
HVC
MM17.4
MM10.5
HVC
MM18.9
MM14.9
HVC
HVC
MMC
MD
HBC
MMC
HBC
MD
MMC
HBC
MMC
MD
CP
MMC
MMC
MD
MD
MD
CP
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MR
BIM
CP
MR
MD
MD
Description
Citation
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Medical
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Age
Gender Disposition Details
VTP unsafe trailer
51
70
48
25
12
58
53
34
M
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
tripped on rock, minor
minor injury
33
73
57
32
38
40
62
63
34
55
57
28
64
68
F
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
F
M
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
no injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
no injury
no injury
minor injury
minor injury
minor injury
no injury
minor injury
26
57
28
34
59
24
37
17
65
19
44
83
M
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
M
M
no injury
minor injury
minor injury
no injury
minor injury
minor injury
no injury
sprained ankle
minor injury
no injury
minor injury
minor injury
2006
Page 2
Appendix C
Appendix D
Kula Community Association
Bike Tour and Rental Safety Position Statement
The Kula Community Association Board supports measures including, but not limited to:
•
Fund and conduct the Department of Public Works Proposed Downhill Bicycling
Tour Study;
•
Determine the number of tours and riders that our roads can safely
accommodate;
•
Create methods to keep groups from traveling together or in close proximity;
•
Modify permit process to include a safety plan with minimum age
requirements, and effectively monitor the use of these plans. Safety plans
might include items such as standardized qualifications and training for tour
drivers and guides, county-approval of safety information given to activity
participants, accident procedures and reporting requirements, and regular
equipment maintenance checks;
•
Record and submit all bicycle accidents as part of the permitting process and
institute a county hotline for residents and tourists to report problems and
have follow-up if necessary;
•
Set permit fees to cover costs of monitoring and enforcing safety plans and the
actual cost of issuing permits;
•
Require companies to indemnify the county on their insurance plans and set
adequate liability coverage amounts;
•
Include penalties and revocation of permit for failing to meet permit
requirements or for failing to obtain a permit and proper insurance;
•
Require commercial bike rentals/short-term sales companies that deliver
rental or sales customers to Haleakala National Park or Crater Road to meet
permit and insurance requirements;
•
Identify and require the use of pull-out areas for tour vans to allow motorists to
pass;
•
Improve pull-out areas with funds generated by commercial activity users;
•
Provide portable rest rooms not visible from the road, with funds generated by
commercial activity users.
•
Work with medical providers and bicycle companies to track the number and
nature of bicycle accidents with the goal of using information gathered to
reduce accidents in the future;
•
Construct the proposed separated bike path for Baldwin Avenue and manage
commercial activity so that residents may safely use the path as cyclists,
walkers, or runners;
•
Establish state legislation to enable the County of Maui to regulate
commercial groups on state roads if they desire to do so.
The Association Board does not support any measures that would also apply to
recreational biking. The Association Board recognizes that all bicycle tour and rental
companies operate differently and that some may have excellent risk management
programs that could serve as models for the industry. The Proposed Downhill Bicycle
Tour Study by the Department of Works is strongly supported as the best method of
studying the issue by collecting data, analyzing the issue, interviewing all stakeholders,
and making recommendations. We encourage Maui County to address this issue to
better protect itself, its residents, and its visitors.
Appendix E
Public Information Meeting 1
July 21 and 22, 2008
Maui County Downhill Bike Tour Study
Summary of Public Meeting No. 1
July 21 and 22, 2008
The study team for the Maui County Downhill Bike Tour Study conducted its first set of
public meetings on Monday, July 21 at Makawao Elementary School and Tuesday, July
22, at Kula Community Center. The study is being conducted by the County of Maui,
Department of Public Works under project manager Joe Krueger. A team of consultants
also supports the study, led by Kimura International, Inc.
The purpose of the meeting, as described in the official news release (Attachment 1), was
to obtain public input on alternatives that will be assessed in the study.
Meeting Notice and Public Involvement
The news release was distributed approximately ten days prior to the meeting dates to
three news organizations (Maui News, Maui Time Weekly, and Maui Weekly), three
radio stations (KAOI, KEAO, and KKUA), community television (Akaku), and the
internet site www.MauiCalendar.com. Stakeholder groups Kula Community Association
and Maui Bicycle Alliance sent out meeting information via their respective electronic
mailing lists.
The public meetings are one component of a public involvement process that will provide
opportunities at different stages of the project for stakeholders and members of the
community to make suggestions and give feedback.
Meeting Overview
Based on the attendance sheets, 13 people attended the July 21st meeting and 21 people
attended the July 22nd meeting. Members of the study team greeted those attending the
meetings and requested that they sign in (Attachments 2a and 2b).
Both meetings used the same format which consisted of a plenary session followed by
smaller discussion groups.
Presentation and Comments
Herb Lee was the overall facilitator for the meetings. He made key introductions and
gave an orientation of the evening’s proceedings. Herb emphasized that the study was in
its early stages and that a key meeting objective, therefore, was to collect information,
particularly suggestions for how to improve conditions surrounding the downhill bike
tours.
Glenn Kimura used a slideshow to provide background information and a context for the
study. The slideshow covered the following topics.

Project background
Study purpose and objectives
Study methods
Project schedule
A hardcopy version of the slideshow can be seen in Attachment 3.
Public Input
At each meeting, attendees were divided into two groups for discussion. One group was
facilitated by Paul Horikawa and the other by Glenn Kimura. They were assisted by
recorders who summarized key points on flip charts visible to the entire group.
To organize the discussions, the groups were asked to direct their suggestions and
comments to three key themes:

Regulations
At the end of the working session, which lasted 45-50 minutes, one person from each
group volunteered to be the spokesperson. The spokesperson recapped his or her group’s
discussions to all the attendees. After each presentation, facilitator Herb checked with
the other group members to ensure that points had been conveyed accurately. During this
time, group members had an opportunity to clarify or elaborate on their original
comments. The comments, taken from the flip charts and the follow-up discussions, are
shown in Attachments 4a and 4b.
In addition to the discussion groups, comment sheets and pre-addressed stamped
postcards were available for those wishing to provide comments in writing or to mail in
comments at a later date.
Summary of Public Meeting 1
2
Attachment 1
News Release
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON DOWNHILL BIKE TOUR STUDY
TO BE HELD JULY 21-22
The County’s Department of Public Works will hold two public meetings on the downhill
bike tour industry. Upcountry residents, tour operators, bicyclists, and interested persons
are invited to attend meetings on Monday, July 21, at 7:00 p.m., in the Makawao
Elementary School cafeteria and on Tuesday, July 22, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kula
Community Center.
Bicycle tours originating at Haleakala National Park and below the park have been a
concern by both the County Administration and County Council. Issues to be studied
include number of participants, safety, impact to traffic, and others.
The County has contracted planning firm Kimura International to conduct a study that
will provide recommendations and alternatives to the County Council for ordinances
regulating commercial bicycle tours on state and county highways. Both escorted and
unescorted (bicycle rental) tours are a focus of the study.
The July 21-22 meetings are a kick-off to the public input process. The purpose of these
meetings is to obtain input on alternatives that will be assessed during the course of the
study.
Contacts:
Glenn Kimura, Kimura International, (808) 944-8848
Joe Krueger, Maui Department of Public Works, 270-7745
Attachment 2a
Attachment 2b
Attachment 3
Maui County Downhill Bike Tour
Study
Public Meeting No. 1
July 21, 2008 – Makawao
July 22, 2008 – Kula
County of Maui
Kimura International Inc.
Agenda
y Welcome and Introductions
y Plenary Session (Slide Presentation)
y Project Background
y Study Purpose and Objectives
y Study Methods
y Project Schedule
y Working Group Session
y Physical Improvements
y Regulation
y Safety, Courtesy, Enforcement
y Other Ideas
Study Team
y Project Manager
y Joe Krueger, Department of Public Works
y Primary Contractor/Planning – Kimura International
y Glenn Kimura
y Nancy Nishikawa
y Leslie Kurisaki
y Community Relations – Lee Communications
y Herb Lee
y Civil Engineering – R.M. Towill Corporation
y Walter Chong, PE
y Traffic Engineering – Julian Ng, Inc.
y Julian Ng, PTOE
y Legal Counsel
y Paul Horikawa
Key Events
Ordinance 2426 establishes permit
requirement for bike tour business
Council Public Works Committee holds
public hearings related to downhill
bicycle tours
Council recommends passage of bill
to increase insurance requirements
Mayor Tavares signs Ordinance
3435, increasing liability insurance
requirement from $1 mil to $3 mil
State Legislature passes bill giving
Counties power to regulate bike
tour operators
1995
Nov 05 – Mar 06
Nov 06
Feb 07
Jun 07
Bike tour client killed inside Haleakala National
park, culminating a 12-month period with 2
fatalities and 3 other serious accidents
National Park Service imposes stand
down (60 days)
NPS releases Safety Analysis Report
NPS extends moratorium until commercial
services plan is completed
Maui County study begins
Sep 07
Oct 07
Feb 08
Mar 08
May 08
Study Purpose and Objectives
• Conduct an assessment of the downhill bike tour industry
• Investigate alternatives and develop recommendations for possible ordinances to
regulate commercial bicycle tours (both guided and unguided) on state and county
highways
• The intent of any new ordinance is to provide for the safety of bicyclists and
motorists using public roadways
Study Methods
• Collect accurate information about the scale of operations of the downhill
bike tour industry
• Collect information on safety and traffic impacts
• Share information with all stakeholders
-proprietary information will be aggregated to industry level
• Listen to all stakeholders
• Encourage all stakeholders to suggest and discuss possible solutions
• Assess the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives
• Develop cost estimates where appropriate
Study Schedule
May
Notice to proceed
July
Briefing for community
Information gathering
October
Obtain community feedback on
preliminary recommendations
January
Draft report
April
Final report
2008
2009
Bike Tour Routes
Kokomo Road (Rte 398)
County
Baldwin Ave (Rte 390)
County
Haleakala Hwy (Rte 377)
State of Hawaii
Haleakala Crater Road (Rte 378)
State of Hawaii
Kula Highway (Rte 37)
State of Hawaii
Haleakala Crater Road (Rte 378)
National Park Service
Hanamu Road
County
Visitor Activity that’s Distinctive to Maui
y Bike tours began in 1983
y Prior to stand down, NPS allowed for
90,000 visitors to participate in bike
tours starting inside the park (Safety
Analysis Report, 2-27-08)
y At peak, annual revenues estimated at
$11 million (PBN, 3-30-07)
y Tours highlight a unique and highly
scenic, “mountain to the sea”
experience
y Downhill ride reduces physical
demands, broadens market appeal
Bike Tours are Popular Elsewhere Too
Lake Champlain, VT
Dayton, OH
Abita Springs, LA
Santa Rosa, CA
Problem 1: Safety Concerns
• According to NPS Safety Analysis Report, injury rate for 1999-2006 was 8.5
injuries per 10,000 riders
• Injury rates declined after a comprehensive NPS review resulted in a Safety Action
Improvement Plan (1999) and added conditions to the park permit.
Total Bike Accidents
Haleakala National Park, 1999 to 2006
Under the Commercial Use Authorization (Selected)
• Each bicycle shall be inspected to assure that it is mechanically sound and in safe
operation condition before each trip. Inspections to include tire condition and
pressure, brakes, reflectors, lights, seat adjustment, handle bars, and other necessary
items for safe operation.
• All tour rides and employees to be provided personal protective equipment,
including helmets, rain gear, jackets, and gloves or mittens. Helmets must be worn.
• Tour group size not to exceed 14 bicyclists, including the guide.
Under the Commercial Use Authorization (Selected)
• Tour departures shall be staggered with at least a 10-minute interval between each
group
• Tour clients, bicycles, and support vehicles not to obstruct vehicular or pedestrian
traffic
• Every opportunity shall be taken to allow following traffic to pass--either in legal
passing zone or by pulling off of the roadway
• Traffic Counts for Haleakala Crater Road (Route 378)
Nov 2005, Between Poni Moi Place and 4000-foot Elevation Sign at 1 MP Sign
Haleakala Crater Road (November 2005 counts)
"between Poni Moi Place and 4000 Feet Elevation sign at 1 MP sign"
150
Flow rate (vehicles/hour)
100
50
toward Haleakala National
Park
toward Makawao
0
-50
-100
-150
•
•
•
midnight
4am
8am
noon
time of day midnight > midnight
4pm
8pm
Downhill traffic volume is highest between 7:15 a.m. to 8:50 a.m.
The peak rate, between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m., was 30 vehicles (rate of 120
vehicles per hour) or two vehicles per minute
Volumes drop to less than half the peak, averaging about one vehicle per minute
and continue at low volumes until afternoon
• Traffic Counts for Haleakala Highway
Nov 2005, Between Kula Highway and Kealaloa Road/ 1 MP Sign
Haleakala Highway (November 2005 counts)
"between Kula Highway and Kealaloa Road / 1 MP sign"
500
400
300
Flowrate(vehicles/hour)
200
100
toward Haleakala
National Park
toward Pukalani
0
(100)
(200)
(300)
(400)
(500)
(600)
midnight
4am
8am
noon
4pm
8pm
• Haleakala Highway count taken below the one-lane bridge (below Kealaloa Road
junction, where most cyclists turn off)
• There is a significant drop in traffic volumes after 8:00 a.m.
• Traffic Counts for Baldwin Avenue
Nov 2005, Between Alexander and Kaluanui
Baldwin Avenue (November 2005 counts)
"between Alexander & Kaluanui"
250
200
150
100
50
toward Kaluanui
0
toward Hana Highway
(50)
(100)
(150)
(200)
(250)
midnight
4am
8am
noon
4pm
8pm
• Peak hours not as pronounced
• Downhill volume is higher through most of the day
• Downhill volume between 120 and 180 vehicles per hour (2 to 3 per minute) for
most of the morning
• Traffic Counts for Makawao Avenue
June 2005, Between Makawao Urban Boundary and Kokomo
Makawao Avenue (January 2005 counts)
"between Makawao Urban boundary & Kokomo"
600
400
200
toward Hana Highway
toward Makawao Avenue
0
(200)
(400)
(600)
midnight
4am
8am
noon
4pm
8pm
y Downhill volume, except for the period 7:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., is about 4 vehicles
per minute for most of the morning
Bike-Related Initiatives Currently
Under Way
• Baldwin Avenue Project
• State Highways
Baldwin Ave. Bike Path Project
• Original plan to widen shoulders
scrapped; adverse impact to
shower trees
• Revised plan is for separate path
parallel to Baldwin Avenue, on
west (Kahului) side
• Path would be 6 mile long, 13
feet wide, (6 feet uphill; 7 feet
downhill)
Baldwin Avenue
Baldwin Ave. Bike Path Project
• Status: On Hold
• Design nearly complete; future action pending outcome of this
assessment
• Community feelings are mixed
• Land and construction costs estimated to require $2.7 million in
County bonds and $5.6 million in Federal funds
Bicycle-Related Improvements,
State Highways
• Project to construct pull-out areas on Haleakala National Park Access Road,
on STIP for FY 2010
Community Input on Possible
Improvements (in Working Groups)
1
3
Physical
Improvements
2
Regulation
Safety,
Courtesy,
Enforcement
•Bike paths
•Shoulder widening
•Pull outs
•Launch and dismount areas
•Scenic lookouts and rest stops
•Signs
•
•
Mandatory Bike Pull-out XXX Feet
Inside Curve-Slow Down
Bike path parallel to roadway, Village of Woodridge, Il
A short turnout will allow an escort van to
pull over. Longer distances needed – ¼ to
1/2mile – for an entire convoy to pull over
Look for opportunities to widen shoulders
Strategically placed signs may be
warranted. This sign indicates an inside
curve with decreasing radius – a hazard for
bicyclist. Couple with warning sign to
slow down.
Lack of formal launch site
Scenic lookouts may be combined with
restroom facilities
Regulations
Rights and Responsibilities for Hawaii Bicyclists
• Hawaii bicyclists are considered drivers of vehicles
• Bicyclists have most of the same rights and responsibilities as motorists
• To be taken seriously by other vehicle drivers, cyclists must obey traffic laws.
Ride on the right
If bicyclists are traveling slower than cars, the
bicyclists should ride as near to the right hand edge
of the road as practicable
Ride in the middle
Bicyclists may ride away from the far right side only
under the following conditions:
• When preparing for a left turn
• Where necessary to avoid road-side hazards
• Where the traffic lane is too narrow for a bicyclist
and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side
• When bicyclist is traveling at the normal speed of
traffic
Regulations
Rights and Responsibilities for Hawaii Bicyclists
Follow Lane
Markings
Obey Traffic Signs
and Signals
Violators are subject to the same penalties as drivers
of motor vehicles
Do not Cling to
Moving Vehicles
Use Lights at Night
Use a headlight and red rear reflector at night (30
minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise)
From State Department of Transportation pamphlet
Traffic laws in §291C Hawaii Revised Statutes
Regulations
Expand County’s permit requirement
• Chapter 5.22 Maui County Code:
A. It is unlawful for any business or person to conduct a bicycle tour on
County property without first obtaining a bicycle tour business
permit issued by the director in accordance with this chapter (italics
added).
Possible change so that insurance requirement applies to use of any
public road in the county.
Regulations
New State Law (as of 2007)
y [§46-16.3] Regulation of commercial bicycle tours. Any law to the contrary
notwithstanding, the council of any county may adopt and provide for the
enforcement of ordinances regulating commercial bicycle tours on state and county
highways, including but not limited to ordinances relating to the number of tours, the
number of bicycles within a tour, scheduling of tours, physical spacing of tours,
rules of the road, health and safety requirements, equipment maintenance, driver and
guide qualifications, driver and guide drug testing, accident procedures and
reporting, and financial responsibility requirements. Each county shall follow
federal guidelines for commercial bicycle tours that begin from federal or state parks
and continue on to state highways.
For the purpose of this section:
“Bicycle tour” includes both guided bicycle tours and unguided bicycle rental
operations (italics added).
Regulations
Specify restrictions and conditions on use of
certain roads
y For example:
y
y
y
y
y
y
Bike free zone on Haleakala Highway, 7-8 a.m.
Number of convoys allowed
Spacing of convoys
Size of convoys (number of riders per tour)
Tighter restrictions on tour participants by age,
height, weight, and/or skill level
Mandatory use of pull-outs
Tour groups stagger start times, and need to
maintain separations all the way down
Regulations
Develop a credential program
For example:
y Crew qualifications and training
y Equipment maintenance and inspections
y Operating procedures; accident reporting and follow up
y Surcharge fee per bicycle
y For bike tours and rentals with vans and ascending Crater Road
y Funds to be used for credential program, monitoring and enforcement
Safety, Courtesy, Enforcement
y Develop “best practices” manual
y Establish industry standards for consistent, courteous interaction with
neighborhood vehicles
y Institute risk minimization and safety plans
y Procedures for reporting accidents
y Develop airline-type safety video to be shown in van on the way up
y Designate and develop Hwy 377 as a scenic byway
y Highway is promoted for leisure travel
y Special signage
Safety briefing before tour launch
Nationwide Scenic Byway Programs
Hawaii is one of the few states without an
official scenic byway program
y Increase police enforcement (pull-outs for squad cars)
y Install electronic speed check signs
y Identify all vans and trailers (company
name and phone number)
y Hotline to report offenders
Other Ideas?
yyyyyy-
Study
our
y
r
o fo n!
l
a
h
Ma ipatio
c
parti
July 21, 2008 – Makawao
July 22, 2008 – Kula
County of Maui
Attachment 4a
Public Input
July 21, 2008, Makawao Elementary School
PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS
Group 1
• Have pull out areas for vans
• Van waiting stations
• Bike friendly guardrails
• Pull out locations suggested:
o Baldwin below Holomua
o Baldwin above Kaluanui
o Baldwin in Makawao Union Church area
• Widen shoulders; Holomua would be a good area (1/4 mile stretch)
• Provide alternate routes for bikers and/or vehicles
o however, there’s no good way to get bikes to Kula Road without affecting
existing homes
• Provide bike lanes on Rt. 377
• Rich Goodenough indicated he marked up a map showing potential pull out areas
Group 2
• Widen shoulders for the bike tours
• Widen shoulders for skilled bicyclists
• Shoulders should be consistent. It’s problematic when shoulders appear/disappear.
• Develop a legal launch area that’s regulated. Include restroom facilities
• There should be pit stops with port-a-potties
• Create mandatory pull outs with port-a-potties
• Compliments for tour company that had a trailer with port-a-potty
• Designate formal pull out areas
• Pull outs need to be sufficiently large to accommodate the vans and trailers
• Define “pull outs”
• Guard rails in areas with narrow shoulders should be made safe for bicyclists, for
example, with rounded top edges
July 21, 2008, Makawao
1
REGULATION
Group 1
• Bicyclists have the right to use the road until they can safely allow vehicles to pass
• Credentialing
• Any regulation must be required by law and be industry-wide; self-regulation has not
worked
• Have riders wear shirts identifying the bike tour company
• Have vans painted with company name and phone number
• Third party certification is important. Need someone with the ability to enforce
regulations.
• Maui Bicycle Tour Association (industry group) could play a role in developing
certification guidelines
• Require companies to show video to riders on the way up the mountain
• Need for multi-lingual instructions
• There is a need to understand differences between guided and unguided companies
• It is less important to distinguish between guided and unguided than to differentiate
who is allowed to ride (i.e., skill level of clients)
• There are different types of unguided tours targeting different markets. Some target
high caliber athletes/experienced bikers, while others have clients that are infrequent
bikers. (“pump and dump”)
• Who’s making the determination who can ride? Need to screen potential riders. Third
party recruiters who sell tickets don’t screen riders.
• Unguided groups should have escort van
• Difficult to require escort for unguided tours because “freedom” is part of their
marketing
• Priority should be rider safety, not just selling the package
Group 2
• Consistency in rider qualifications, such as skill level and age
• Taxes (surcharge) to pay for enforcement, improvements
• Mandatory reporting of accidents. Possibly a survey form to be filed with a central
administrator after each tour
• Establish a regulatory “agency”
• Put more teeth in the County’s existing regulations
• Reduce the number of bike tours relative to other visitors to the national park
• Regulate bicycles during the peak A.M. traffic period
2
COURTESY, SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT
Group 1
• Should have requirement/regulation similar to diving companies, where people are
not allowed to get off the plane and go diving (wait period required)
• Standardize rider apparel to increase visibility and safety (reflectors, etc.)
• Community needs to communicate with the bike companies if they have complaints
about specific drivers. Bike companies welcome feedback on their employees
• Vans sometimes caravan (multiple vans)
• Drivers are also speeding and exceeding the posted speed limits
Group 2
• Enforce rules of the road for bicyclists and motorists
• Add signs for sharp corners
• Require information on risks of downhill bicycling and standardize it for the industry
• Require disclosures when recruiting clients
• Industry needs to set parameters for sales by third party agents
• Enforcement should apply to all vehicles
• Retract permits if violate regulations
• Bottom line is who you put on a bike
• There are also conflicts between escorted and self-guided riders
• What are the differences in accident rates between escorted and self-guided riders?
OTHER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
•
•
•
Study the casualty rate of bike tours on Maui versus elsewhere
Check on other bike tour regulations in other states
Improve coordination among County, State, and federal governments
3
Attachment 4b
Public Input
July 22, 2008, Kula Community Center
PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS
Group 1
• Existing guard rails in some areas (e.g., Rt. 377 near Kula Lodge) limit the potential
for road widening and pull out areas
• Widen shoulders on the downhill side
• Need to remember that there are also bikers that go uphill on opposite side of the road
• Separate bike path on private property?
• Separate automobile path (e.g., Lower Kimo Road)?
• Broken glass on the road is a problem on Kula Highway near Rice Park
Group 2
• Shoulders on Haleakala Hwy (377) should be widened from the intersection with Rt.
378 (Crater Road) to the intersection with Highway 37 (“5 Trees” area)
• Construct bike paths; separate facilities for bikes
• Guideline for shoulder width on major collector roads (County) is 6 feet wide; on
highways, 8-10 feet is desirable so disabled vehicles can pull off
• Shoulders serve a variety of purposes
• Add separate bike lanes to existing bridges since that’s where shoulders often narrow
• Increase the right-of-way through land acquisition; this will help to decrease the
radius of curves through switchbacks
• Improve the launch area. Work with Haleakala Ranch to acquire land or easement.
• Develop pull outs for vans with enough space for vehicles to get off the road
completely
• Pull outs are not only for the bike tours, but can be of value for general public
• Develop helipads for medical emergencies (i.e., bike accidents)
• Improve/repave Kokomo Road
• Support expressed for designating Haleakala Hwy (Rt 377) a scenic bypass—since
it’s part of the access to a national park
• Develop a staging area for the national park at a lower elevation. This is where cars
would park and people shuttled to and from the park.
• Install signs, especially in hazardous locations
• Build more bikeways for children and families
July 22, 2008, Kula
1
REGULATION
Group 1
• There have already been recent regulations limiting tour companies (there were
formerly 19, now there are 10)
• Need to be enforcement of regulations
• Speed limits for vehicles also need to be enforced—many drivers who complain
about being held up by vans are exceeding speed limit
• Need for age minimums on unguided tours; have seen very young children on bikes
and in trailers
• Comment from unguided tour employee—children are often better riders than adults.
They have no age minimum except to ride a single bike (younger children must be in
trailers). All riders are reminded to stay to the right of the road
• Bicycle licensing similar to drivers license?
• Riders are often not cognizant of their surroundings and don’t pay attention
• Suggest banning bikes in town areas between 7:00 and 8:00 am to avoid work and
school traffic conflicts
• Residents in cars also exceed posted speed limits
• Enforcement should focus on both bikes and autos
• There are motorcyclists who race in the area
• Limit number of bike companies?
• Need to regulate and control who is eligible to ride; riders should have a minimum
skill level. This needs to be standardized and enforced.
Group 2
• Limit the number of bicyclists
o Place limits based on respect for the ‘aina
• Implement a system that includes a mandatory checkpoint system to regulate the flow
of bicyclists and the intervals between tours. In this system, all tours would be
required to stop, check in, and take off again after a regulated interval.
• How do you regulate the self-guided, independent tours and cyclists?
• The physical improvements that have been suggested may adequately address the
problems. Regulations should be deferred until we’re able to evaluate how (well)
they work
• No vans (following bicycle tours)
• Tour operators have a limited ability to regulate client behavior. (Group was in
general agreement that the situation has improved, so some behavior modification is
possible)
July 22, 2008, Kula
2
SAFETY, COURTESY, ENFORCEMENT
Group 1
• Incident with bike company use of Haleakala Ranch land has had negative fallout on
other bicycling groups and events; Cycle to the Sun event requested aid station site
from Haleakala Ranch, but was denied because of negative experience with
commercial bike tours
• Comment from bike tour company: we screen for medical conditions through an
extensive questionnaire. (Not all companies do this, however)
• Comment from bike tour company: we offer van tours as an option which is more
family-friendly
• Unguided riders need to be more cognizant of their surroundings and where they stop
to sightsee, read maps, etc.
• Drug and alcohol testing of tour drivers should be required
• Better definition of “accidents” needed
• County “ranger” to enforce regulations needed. Position could be funded through a
surcharge on bike riders
• Maui Bike Alliance could assist in monitoring
• U.S. Cycling Federation could provide guidance on appropriate regulations and
procedures. They regulate other bicycling events.
• County should check insurance
• Permitting—spot checks have revealed that not all companies comply with
requirements
Group 2
• Make sure bicyclists stay on right as mandated by traffic law
• Make sure the safety guidelines used by bicycle tour companies are updated and
consistent with one another
• As an operational procedure, vans should be required to wait in pull outs
• Develop (industry-wide) plan for medical emergencies
• Driver education for everybody
• Van drivers should follow vehicle laws, including adhering to the minimum speed
limit
• Re-assess client screening criteria
• Develop an “ideal model” which incorporates safe ways to descend the mountain
• Allow for the safety of resident bicyclists who also use Maui roads
• Safety is the #1 concern
• Require speedometers for the lead bike
July 22, 2008, Kula
3
OTHER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
•
•
•
•
Do other states tax bicyclists for the construction of bikeways?
The bike tour industry has already down scaled
Some bike tour guides are providing cultural and other types of information
Take advantage of new funding sources
July 22, 2008, Kula
4
Appendix F
Public Information Meeting 2
November 19 and 20, 2008
Summary of Public Meeting No. 2
November 19 and 20, 2008
The study team for the Maui County Downhill Bike Tour Study conducted its second set
of public meetings on Wednesday, November 19 at Kula Elementary School and
Thursday, November 20, at the Eddie Tam Memorial Center in Makawao. The study is
being conducted by the County of Maui, Department of Public Works under project
manager Joe Krueger. A team of consultants also supports the study, led by Kimura
International, Inc.
The purpose of the meeting, as described in the official news release (Attachment 1), was
to obtain public input on preliminary alternatives.
Meeting Notice and Public Involvement
Notices of the upcoming meetings were distributed 2-3 weeks prior to the meeting dates.
A news release was sent via email, fax, and/or posted mail to three news organizations
(Maui News, Maui Time Weekly, and Maui Weekly), three radio stations (KAOI,
KEAO, and KKUA), and community television (Akaku). Stakeholder groups Kula
Community Association and Maui Bicycle Alliance sent out meeting information via
their respective electronic mailing lists. Notices were also sent via email or posted mail
to participants who signed in at the first round of public meetings.
The public meetings are one component of a public involvement process that will provide
opportunities at different stages of the project for stakeholders and members of the
community to make suggestions and give feedback.
Meeting Overview
Based on the attendance sheets, there were about 40 people at the November 19 meeting
in Kula and 15 people at the November 20 meeting in Makawao. Members of the study
team greeted those attending the meetings and requested that they sign in (Attachments
2a and 2b).
Both meetings used the same format which consisted of a slideshow presentation (see
Attachment 4) followed by facilitated discussion.
1
Public Input
At each meeting, attendees were given an opportunity to comment on each of the
preliminary proposals brought up in the slideshow. As the discussion progressed, main
points were recorded on flip chart paper (see below).
In addition to the discussion groups, comment sheets and pre-addressed stamped
postcards were available for those wishing to provide comments in writing or to mail in
comments at a later date. (See submitted comments in Attachment 3.)
Kula, November 19, 2008
Mandatory pull-outs
•
Radio communication; increase shoulders, avoid separate bike paths
•
Enforcement—reward those who comply
Bike-free zone
•
Should be 7-9?
•
Ban on vans during this time—“van free” zone
•
If bikes stay on right side, no need for a bike-free zone
Restrict the number of tours
•
Economy has reduced the number of tours; conditions are better now
•
Vans are the major problem
•
Riders not staying on right side; ineffective tour leaders (“bad apples”) spoil it for all
•
Laws are abused by drivers as well. The general public is unaware of bicyclists’
rights
Regulate spacing of convoys
•
National Park was doing this previously
•
Some tour companies do this; others don’t
•
Difficult to control given the nature of the activity; tours end up having to stop for a
variety of reasons and the spacing gets messed up
•
“Ticket dispensers” cold be used to regulate timing and keep spacing
Credential program
•
Need enforcement, “teeth”
Company name on vans
•
Required by PUC
2
•
Many of the proposed regulations are already regulations imposed by other agencies
Rider screening
•
Age restrictions are less important than skill level
•
Kids often have more (recent) riding experience than adults
•
Most accidents have been middle-aged riders, not kids
•
Agility test for riders
•
There used to be a space where riders could be screened at the beginning of the ride,
but it was fenced off by Haleakala Ranch. The ranch then offered the land (to the
State), but no follow up.
Surcharge
•
Bike tour company owners don’t like it
•
Tour prices/costs have already gone up
Hotline
•
Worked for helicopter noise several years ago
Makawao, November 20, 2008
General
•
Consider historical data on tour numbers and participants
•
Costs—who pays for this?
•
Concerned that benefits are for seven private companies
•
Don’t feel that recreational bicyclists will benefit from pull-outs
•
Recreational bicyclists don’t want to go down Haleakala
•
Public policy questions and budget allocations will be decided by Council
•
Makawao merchants are interested in safety
•
Don’t want the bike tours to divert from limited resources
Physical Improvement Proposals
•
Don’t understand why all cyclists would be affected by a ban (on certain roads during
peak traffic period)
•
There should be a bike-free zone on Baldwin Avenue; or limit to no more than 3
riders in tandem
•
Conform to Community Plan, which does not allow bicyclists on Baldwin Avenue
•
Build bike path along Baldwin or use Highway 37
3
•
Tours need to be spaced at least 10 minutes apart
•
Coordinate among the bike tour companies
•
NPS set up time intervals. First 3 companies had to start 10 minutes apart. All tours
thereafter needed to leave 5 minutes apart.
•
Draft NPS commercial services plan is expected in the spring
•
Ban all bike tours
•
Ordinance needed to regulate safety gear, equipment maintenance, speed limit
•
NPS already has many of the regulatory proposals in their regulations (as conditions
attached to the use permit); therefore some proposals are redundant
•
Add company name identification to the back of trailers
•
Flashers on vehicles
•
Add company i.d. on bicycles
•
If there is a hotline, complaints need to have follow through
•
When a complaint comes in, the responsible company needs to be notified
immediately so they can take action
•
Tie permits to the permitting process. Companies that violate regulations should be
penalized through the permitting process.
•
What kind of investigation process will there be?
•
Drug/alcohol testing needed for tour leaders and van drivers
•
Control tour leaders who exhibit unsafe behavior
•
Support Baldwin Avenue bike path
•
Multi-purpose paths are needed on Maui
•
Responding to comment that Baldwin Avenue path will disproportionately benefit
tour companies—taxpayers pay for a variety of recreational facilities, including
facilities that individual taxpayers may have no interest in.
•
Concern about the downhill speed on the proposed Baldwin Avenue path
•
Minimum age isn’t correlated with skill; it’s not worth regulating
•
Provide opportunities to opt out of tour with full or partial refunds
•
Standardize experience criteria
•
Advanced skills are needed to go down the mountain
•
Based on his experience, Glenn Kimura said that rides are not unsafe if participants
listen to the rules and concentrate
4
Safety, Courtesy, and Enforcement Proposals
•
Hotline—immediacy is important in promoting accountability. At one time, the
industry implemented a hotline using a commercial answering service. Early on,
there were 250 calls per month, including 15 calls from one person during a one-week
period. The number of calls dropped to around 7 per week. The problem was that the
public didn’t call.
•
Realize that some companies are trying to do the right thing and maintain good
community relations. Don’t want bad apples to characterize the industry.
•
In the past, there’s been opposition to road signs in Kula
•
The Paia intersection is disrupted by tour groups. In particular, motorists wanting to
make a right turn have to wait several cycles while bicyclists cross the highway.
Regulation is needed.
•
How to implement? Does everything need an ordinance?
•
Make some regulations part of the permitting process.
•
Let visitors have a good, safe experience, many seek out the downhill ride; but
provide a designated stretch
•
Stop tours at Osskie-Rice Arena
•
When asked whether the tour companies have an association, the owner of a guided
bike tour company responded that there is a loose association only. The companies
cannot agree on operations.
•
Make Maui more bike friendly, but facilities should be available for all bicyclists
(residents, visitors, riders of all skill levels)
•
Support an off-road path down Haleakala (mountain biking)
•
Altitude can have a significant effect on riding ability
•
Oppose Baldwin Avenue path as an inappropriate diversion of resources
•
Guided tours are better at controlling riders
•
National Park roads seem more hazardous (than State and County roads)
•
A lot of visitor activities are inherently risky
•
Long-time residents speed on Crater Road, Haleakala Hwy
5
Attachment 1
News Release
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON DOWNHILL BIKE TOUR STUDY
TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 19-20
The County’s Department of Public Works will hold two public meetings on the downhill
bike tour industry. Upcountry residents, tour operators, bicyclists, and interested persons
are invited to attend meetings on Wednesday, November 19, at 7:00 p.m., in the Kula
Elementary School cafetorium and on Thursday, November 20, at 7:00 p.m. in the Eddie
Tam Memorial Center.
Bicycle tours originating at Haleakala National Park and below the park have been a
concern of the County Administration and County Council. Issues to be studied include
number of participants, safety, impact to traffic, and others.
The County has contracted planning firm Kimura International to conduct a study that
will provide recommendations and alternatives to the County Council for ordinances
regulating commercial bicycle tours on state and county highways. Both escorted and
unescorted (bicycle rental) tours are a focus of the study.
The November 19-20 meetings are a follow-up to meetings held in June. The purpose of
these meetings is to obtain additional public feedback on alternatives being considered in
the study.
Contacts:
Glenn Kimura, Kimura International, (808) 944-8848
Joe Krueger, Maui Department of Public Works, 270-7745
Attachment 2a
Attachment 2b
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Study
November 19, 2008 – Kula
November 20, 2008 – Makawao
County of Maui
Agenda
y Plenary Session (Slide Presentation)
y A closer look at the downhill bike tour industry
y Tour and rider volumes
y Tour routes
y Accident records
y Preliminary study proposals
y Working Group Session
y Physical improvements
y Regulation
y Safety, courtesy, enforcement
y Other ideas
1
A Closer Look at the Downhill Bike Tour Industry
KI conducted a survey of seven companies offering
organized bicycle rides down Haleakala
y
y
Written questionnaires completed by six companies
Interviews with owners or managers of seven companies
Supplemental data from Haleakala National Park
and State Department of Transportation
Significant Downturn in Bicycle Tour Volumes
y Bicycle tour numbers in August 2008 were 50% lower than in
August 2007
y Monthly totals show 500 fewer escorted tours
y Independent (unescorted) tours increased slightly
Number of Downhill Bicycle Tours, August 2007 and 2008
1000
900
Independent
Escorted
158
No. of Tours
800
700
600
500
820
173
400
300
320
200
100
0
August 2007
August 2008
2
Number of Downhill Riders has Declined Sharply
y Total number of downhill bike tour participants dropped from
11,803 in August 2007 to 5,819 in August 2008
y Overall reductions in the number of participants per tour
y In August 2008, 42% of all downhill bicyclists were independent
riders
Downhill Bicycle Tour Participants, August 2007 and 2008
Independent
Escorted
No. of Tour Participants
12,000
10,000
2,573
8,000
6,000
8,735
2,492
4,000
3,327
2,000
0
August 2007
August 2008
On an average day in August, there were:
Escorted
Tours
Independent
Tours
Total Tours
Sunrise
10‐11
3‐4
13‐15
Mid‐
Morning
4‐5
3‐4
7‐8
3
Future Growth in the Downhill Bike Tour Industry
Downhill bike tour companies agree:
y Long‐term economic viability is a concern given National
Park uncertainties, tourism cutbacks, and the general
economic slump
y Most important factor affecting future size of the industry is
NPS commercial services plan and policy of issuing park
permits
y Industry unlikely to expand to former
levels; most say it got too big
Tour Routes
y Tour route map modified based on more accurate
information
y Routing information is important to assess potential impacts
to traffic and communities
4
Bike Tour Routes (old slide)
Kokomo Road (Rte 398)
County
Baldwin Ave (Rte 390)
County
Hanamu Road
County
Haleakala Hwy (Rte 377)
State of Hawaii
Haleakala Crater Road (Rte
378) State of Hawaii
Kula Highway (Rte 37)
State of Hawaii
Haleakala Crater Road (Rte
378) National Park Service
Bike Tour Routes
Kokomo Road is used by the
independent riders of one
company
Kealaloa Road and
Portions
of Baldwin
Makawao
Avenue
Avenue
one
sectionsused;
deleted—
company regularly
traverses entire length
Kula Highway section deleted—
Two companies
stop
occasional
van tours offered,
Kealaloa,
but no regularon
bicycle
tours
load riders onto vans,
Then drive along Makawao
Avenue
and through
National
Park section deleted—
Makawao
townmoratorium on
ongoing
bicycle tours
5
Specific Routing Concerns
Certain tour routes have attracted community concern.
Some companies have changed their routes in response.
For example, number of companies using these routes:
Yes
No
Through Makawao Town
4
3
Along Baldwin Ave
5
2
Through Paia Town (Baldwin
and Hana Hwy)
1
6
Rider Qualifications
All bike tour companies stress rider qualifications, but restrictions
vary
• Minimum age: 7 to 15 years
• Maximum age: 65 years (one company only)
• Minimum height: 4'10” to 5'0”
• Maximum weight: 250 to 300 lbs (one company has no
maximum)
• Pregnancy: uniformly prohibited
Experience is most important screening criterion, defined as
• “competent rider with recent experience”
• “confident riding in traffic on public roads”
• “good rider”
• “bicycling experience within 24 months”
6
Reported Accidents
• Self reports by 5 out of 7 downhill bike companies for 2007
• Represent 63% of all escorted and independent riders
Bike Tour Accidents, 2007
Reported by 5 out of 7 Companies
78
Rider Down
15
Called 911
30
Taken to ER
0
Fatalities
1
Property Damage
0
20
40
60
80
100
Accident Numbers in Context
• Important
1.10% of bike
to recognize
riders involved
risk in accidents (minor scrapes to major injuries)
• Also
0.21%important
of bike riders
to putinvolved
risk in perspective
in accidents requiring EMS response
• 0.42%
Increasing
of bike
safety
riders
remains
treated
a key
in the
study
emergency
objectiveroom
7
HDOT Crash Data
•
•
•
•
•
HDOT data limited to State roads
Crash data are based on police reports
Crashes are between bicycles and motor vehicles
Bicycle‐only crashes excluded
Data provided for 1995 to 2006 (aggregated over 12 years)
Bicycle Involved Crashes, Haleakala Crater Road, 1995‐2006
9.00-10.15
8.00-8.99
Milepost Limits
7.00-7.99
6.00-6.99
5.00-5.99
4.00-4.99
3.00-3.99
2.00-2.99
1.00-1.99
0.05-.99
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fatals
Injury Only
8
Comparison of Bicycle Involved Crashes and
All Vehicular Crashes, Haleakala Crater Road, 1995‐2006
9.00-10.15
8.00-8.99
6.00-6.99
5.00-5.99
4.00-4.99
3.00-3.99
2.00-2.99
1.00-1.99
0.05-.99
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
All Vehicular Crashes
Bicycle Involved Crashes, Haleakala Highway, 1995‐2006
5.00-6.00
4.00-4.99
Milepost Limits
Milepost Limits
7.00-7.99
3.00-3.99
2.00-2.99
1.00-1.99
0.05-.99
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Fatals
Injury Only
9
Comparison of Bicycle Involved Crashes and
All Vehicular Crashes, Haleakala Highway, 1995‐2006
5.00-6.00
Milepost Limits
4.00-4.99
3.00-3.99
2.00-2.99
1.00-1.99
0.05-.99
0
5
10
15
20
25
All Vehicular Crashes
Preliminary Proposals
y Physical improvements
y Regulation
y Safety, courtesy, enforcement
10
1. Physical Improvement Proposals
• Pull‐outs
• Shoulder widening
• Scenic lookouts and/or rest stops with
lavatories
• Bike path connector between Crater Road
and Haleakala Highway
Typical Plan– Pull‐out Area
R/W
100' Min.
Existing 4' Wide
Grassed Shoulder
Existing Edge of Pavement
2:1
Max
8' Wide Bicycle Pull-out Area
Existing 22' Wide Paved Travelway
Existing 4' Wide Grassed Shoulder
80' Wide R/W
R/W
Notes:
Minimum pull-out length determined to be 100' to store 14 bicycles and 1
van single file. (68" avg. length per bike & 15 pass. van approx. 225" long)
11
Typical section– 80’ R/W (with cut)
R/W
R/W
80' R/W
4' Grassed
Shoulder
22' Wide Existing Travelway
CL
Prop. 8' Wide
Bike Pullout
2'
Exist. 4'
Grassed
Shoulder
Exist. Edge of Pavement
Existing Ground
2.0% Max. 2:1
2.0+_%
Cu
Existing Ground
x.)
a
t (m
Finished
Grade
2' AC Gutter,
Typical section– 80’ R/W (with fill)
R/W
R/W
80' R/W
4' Grassed
Shoulder
22' Wide Existing Travelway
CL
Prop. 8' Wide
Bike Pullout
2'
Exist. 4'
Grassed
Shoulder
Exist. Edge of Pavement
Existing Ground
2.0+_%
Finished
Grade
2.0% Max.
2: 1
Fill
(ma
x.)
2' AC Gutter,
12
HALEAKALA
RANCH
Existing shoulder area
used for pull-out
HALEAKALA
RANCH
Start
Point
Start Point
NPS
boundary
Waiale Bridge :
Add a separate
pedestrian walkway
HALEAKALA CRATER RD
(ROUTE 378)
Haleakala Crater Road
Rte 378
Pohakuokala Bridge: Construct
separate pedestrian bridge
N
Potential
Existingnew
shoulder
pull-out
areas
areas
used for pull-out
HALEAKALA CRATER
RD
Rte 378
N
13
Existing shoulder areas
used for pull-out
Potential
new pull-out
areas
Existing
shoulder
area/parking
for Sunrise Country Market
Pohakuokala
Bridge:path
Potential
newfor
separate
used
bicycle bike
pull-out
Add separate
or widened shoulder
for bicycles
pedestrian walkway
Rte 378
Proposed Bike Path at Intersection of
Haleakala Highway and Crater Road
14
Potential new pull-out area
Waiale Bridge:
ExistingAdd
shoulder
area
a separate
used
for pull-out
pedestrian
walkway
Haleakala Highway
Rte 377
HALEAKALA HWY
(ROUTE 377)
WN
DO
HIL
L
Existing shoulder
area used for pull-out
Existing
shoulder area
used for pull-out
Haleakala Highway
Rte 377
15
HA
LI
IM
AI
LE
Widen
shoulder
Widen
shoulder
Baldwin Ave Rte 390
Widen shoulder
Baldwin Ave Rte 390
16
Widen shoulder
Baldwin Ave Rte 390
2. Regulatory Proposals
Proposal
Advantages
Implementation Issues
Mandatory use of Operational
pull‐outs, possibly consistency will aid
with signs
motoring public
indicating pull‐
outs ahead
Changes in tour ops
Will require crew
training
Bike‐free zone on Reduced congestion
Haleakala Hwy
during rush hour
(morning rush/7‐8
a.m.)
Seasonal variation in
sunrise tour hours
Disruptions to tour
schedules
Restrictions will likely
affect all bicyclists
Enforcement
17
Proposal
Advantages
Restrict number
of tours allowed
Mitigate traffic
impacts
Industry has already
experience major
contractions in tour
numbers
Restrict size of
tours allowed
Shorter convoys
Significant impacts on
will facilitate
industry cost structure
passing movements
by vehicles
Regulate spacing
of convoys
Prevent “bunching
up” of convoys and
long lines of
bicyclists
Develop protocol for
escorted tours to “check
in” and “check out”
All escorted bike tours
must participate for
system to succeed
Proposal
Establish a
credential
program (crew
training, equipment
maintenance,
operation
procedures, etc.
based on “best
practices” manual)
Revise existing
ordinance to
extend insurance
requirement for
bike tour permit
to cover use of all
public roads
Advantages
Third‐party
oversight of the
industry
Long‐term
organizational
infrastructure needed to
establish, monitor, and
enforce the credential
program
Liability concerns
Will close gap in
Council action to amend
the current law to
ordinance
cover all companies Enforcement
operating downhill
bicycle tours
18
Proposal
Advantages
Identify company Increase visibility
name on vans
and accountability
and trailers
Requirement of bike tour
permit?
Mandatory
drug/alcohol
tests for
employees
Increased cost and
administrative
requirements for bike
tour companies
Potential to
enhance the safety
of tour operations
Impose surcharge Industry will help
to fund bike tour defray public
programs
expenses
Need to establish special
purpose fund and
administrative rules
Proposal
Regulate
minimum age of
bicycle tour
participants
Advantages
Reduced
Condition of
participation by
commercial bike tour
inexperienced riders permit?
Potential decrease in
accidents and
mishaps
Conveys seriousness
and potential
hazardousness of the
activity
19
3. Safety, Courtesy, and Enforcement Proposals
Proposal
Advantages
Develop “best
Provide a
practices” manual consistent set of
(to establish industry procedures for safe,
practices and
courteous
standards)
interactions
between bike tours
and other vehicles
using public roads
Process needed to
develop the manual
Crew training; incentives
for long‐term adherence
to best practices
Hotline to report Provide
unsafe operations clearinghouse for
community
concerns and
complaints
Funding and
administrative
infrastructure
Proposal
Designate and
develop
Haleakala Hwy
(Route 377) as a
scenic byway
Advantages
Enhance the scenic Coordinate with scenic
and cultural
byways program being
resources of
studied by HDOT
Upcountry
Expectations for
leisure driving on
Haleakala Hwy
Provide access to a
funding source for
highway
improvements
20
Proposal
Advantages
Increased police
enforcement
Apprehend and
penalize traffic
offenders
Deterrent effects
Manpower requirements
Lack of roadside space to
situate squad cars
Electronic speed
limit signs
(Haleakala Hwy)
Electronic signs can
be a traffic‐calming
aid to supplement
police enforcement
HDOT is lead agency –
cost, operational, and
maintenance
responsibilities
After Break:
Community Input on Preliminary Proposals
(in working groups)
•
•
•
•
Regulations
Other ideas
21
Study
r
u
yo
November 19, 2008 – Kula
r
o
f
o
al
h
n!November 20, 2008 – Makawao
a
o
i
t
M
pa
i
c
i
t
County of Maui
par
22