HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0143.009 2014-2016Margaret Wilde
��, or e�
Phone No. Hilo: 808 961-8027
Council Member
r➢�'�
Phone No Waimea: (808) 887-2043
District 9 -,Noah and Soutlr
Kohaln w
Fax No.: (808) 887-2072
•
F -Mail. mwille@eo.havaonhi.us
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
County of HQWa1 I
Hmmi'i County Buildin8
Holomua Cerner
[3'es( Hawal', Civic Cenler Bid,A
25 Aupuni Street
64-1067 Mnma(ahoa Highway, Suite C-5
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.
IN, Hawai'( 95720
R'atmea Hawaii 96743
Kad.-Kona, Hawaii 96740
o C')
G On
s T�
"1'O:
Dru Mamo Kanuha, Council Chair
t -�-i
And Members of the Hawaii County Council
S S�
FROM:
Margaret Wille, Council Member
DATE:
May 5, 2015
^�
SUBJECT:
Kohala Center Report for Bill 28 Discussion
Please find attached information from the University of Michigan regarding Expanding
Transportation Opportunities on Hawaii Island, which was prepared for the Kohala Center, for
reference during the Bill 28 discussion on May 5, 2015.
'Thank you.
Mw/dh
an
Comm. mc. I q3.1
Ref. Tot P/FG
Ref. Date MAY 0 5 2015 '
Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island
Huwai'i County !s An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer
l'IIE KOII \I (:I`N,I,I�:R
Report prepared for The Kohala Center by
University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment
Author.' jonar Epstein, Trevor Mananaxnon, Matte Madraw, Daphne Medina,
With additional finding provided by
Ihe Frederick A. And Barbara M. Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterpri,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................4
18
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................
4
HAWAII ISLAND GROUND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.....................................................4
18
COMMUTING ON HAWAII ISLAND...................................................................................................5
19
TheChallenges of Transit.....................................................................................................................
5
Characteristics of Hawaii County Commuters....................................................................................
5
Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency...................................................................................................
7
MAPPING TRANSIT ON HAWAII ISLAND..........................................................................................
7
MAUICOUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT.......................................................................................................
9
THE CASE FOR IMPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION ON HAWAII ISLAND .......................................
10
Optimizing Public Transit with Technology Solutions ............................. ...... _...... .... .........................
10
Private Investments and Transportation Alternatives.......................................................................
12
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................
15
2: PROJECT OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... 16
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 16
PROJECTOBJECTIVES ............................................... ........................................................ I.............. 16
OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS....................................................................................................... 17
3: GROUND TRANSPORTATION ON HAWAII ISLAND AND OTHER RURAL LOCALITIES .........................
18
RURAL TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES.........................................................................................
18
Characteristics of Rural Populations..................................................................................................
18
RuralTransit Providers......................................................................................................................
19
Challenges for Rural Transit Service Providers..................................................................................
19
HAWAII COUNTY GROUND TRANSPORTATION..............................................................................
20
Transportation Infrastructure............................................................................................................
20
Characteristics of Hawaii County Commuters..................................................................................
21
HAWAII COUNTY MASS TRANSIT AGENCY.....................................................................................
27
Analysis of the Mass Transit Agency.___ .... _.... ............... _................ ........... ................................
28
MAPPING TRANSIT ON HAWAII ISLAND........................................................................................
29
Analysisof Maps................................................................................................................................
29
Limitationsof Analysis.......................................................................................................................
38
CreatingThese Maps ..... ................ ...................................................................... ......................
....... 38
4: MAUI COUNTY - A PUBLIC TRANSIT CASE STUDY............................................................................ 39
MAUI COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT..................................................................................................... 39
Maui County Short Range Transit Plan.............................................................................................. 40
Technology Currently Employed by Maui ............ ........................................... --- ... .......................... 42
ComparingHawaii and Maui............................................................................................................ 43
Conclusion... .................................. ................................................................................... ................. 44
IIP,l,,:
5: THE CASE FOR IMPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE OF HAWAII ISLAND ...........
45
OVERCOMING THE TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES......................................................................
45
THE TECHNOLOGY VALUE PROPOSITION FOR HELE-ON..................................................................
45
PRIVATE INVESTMENTS IN TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE OF HAWAII ISLAND ...................................
46
6: OPTIMIZING PUBLIC TRANSIT WITH TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS......................................................
47
TECHNOLOGY IN MASS TRANSIT....................................................................................................
47
Existing Technology Options and their Benefits................................................................................
48
RURAL TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES.................................................................................
53
Case Study 1: Modoc County,California....................... .......................................... .......... ........ ........
53
Case Study 2: Poinciana, Florida........................................................................................................
54
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH..............................................................................................................
55
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY.............................................................. I ........ I.....................
56
Key Technologies for Hele-On...........................................................................................................
57
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL VENDORS................................................................................................
57
ActSoft................................ .......... ..... .... .._.......... ...... .............. _......................................................
58
Nex[eUs.............. _................................................................................................... ..........................................................
59
Syncrom atics...._................................................................................................................................
60
TeI et r a c..............................................................................................................................................
61
Trapeze........................... ......... ......._..._..........................................................................................
62
TSOMobile....................................................................._.........................................._.....................
64
Summary of Companies and Services................................................................................................
65
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS.....................................................................................................
66
7: PRIVATE INVESTMENTS AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES....................................................
68
OPPORTUNITY: BUILDING A RIDESHARE NETWORK........................................................................
68
The Need for Ridesharing Networks in Hawaii County.....................................................................
68
Best Practices for Ridesharing Networks...........................................................................................
69
Considerations for Establishing a Rideshare Network on Hawaii Island ..........................................
71
OPPORTUNITY: ESTABLISHING A VANPOOL NETWORK...................................................................
77
Vanpool Network Structures.............................................................................................................
78
Best Practices For Vanpooling Networks .................... ........... ............................................................
78
Fundinga Vanpool Network ....................................... ........................................................ _......
...... 79
RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................
80
Creating a Rideshare Network on Hawaii Island..............................................................................
80
Comparison of Rideshare Options.....................................................................................................
87
User Cost Comparisons ......................... ................................ ........... ...... ............................................
88
FeasibilityAnalysis, ........ ....................................................................................... .....................
..... 89
8: APPENDICIES..................................................................................................................................
98
APPENDIX A: PROJECT PLAN AND HYPOTHESES..............................................................................
99
ProjectPlan........................................................................................................................................
99
ProjectHypotheses ................................... .......................................................................................
100
APPENDIX B: SOURCES OF INFORMATION....................................................................................
101
APPENDIX C: COUNTY OF HAWAII FINANCIAL DATA....................................................................
103
APPENDIX D: CREATING THE MAPS..............................................................................................
104
APPENDIX E: TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT..........................................................................
106
APPENDIX F: EXISTING MOBILE RIDESHARE PROVIDERS...............................................................110
APPENDIX G: THE ECONOMICS OF CARPOOLING..........................................................................
112
APPENDIX H: UNIVERSTY OF MICHIGAN TEAM BIOGRAPHIES.......................................................
113
ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND FIGURES........................................................................................
115
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................
117
311 age
1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Residents of Hawaii Island pay some of the highest rates for electricity and petroleum products among
residents of the United States.' Moreover, the islands of the Hawaiian archipelago rely almost entirely
on imported petroleum fuels for both transportation and energy generation.' Though Hawaii Island has
integrated more renewable energy onto its electrical grid than anywhere else in the U.S,9 the reliance
on fossil fuel remains high because more than half the energy demand of the island can be attributed to
transportation .4 Traditionally mass transit systems can be used to increase energy efficiency, as well as
energy sustainability; as a result we have designed this project to explore the need for improvements to
this system. We will develop suggestions for optimizing the current system, as well as potential
alternatives that include the establishment of carpooling and ridesharing networks that would decrease
the number of private vehicles used and thus fuel consumption.
The University of Michigan team was engaged by The Kohala Center to examine and analyze the public
transit system of Hawaii Island. The primary objective of the project is to develop a set of
recommendations for public and private investments focused on high -impact solutions to reduce fossil
fuel use in the Island's ground transportation system, while improving accessibility and lowering travel
times for commuters.
On Hawaii Island the vast majority of residents (69%) choose to commute alone via personal vehicles
like cars, trucks and vans, while only 2% of commuters choose public transit to get to work.'The
remainder of the workforce either carpools to work or works from home.'
Currently, commuters are served by a few major
two-lane highways that transport residents from
one side of the island to the other. Hawaii Belt
Road (Highway 19) is a major route from Hilo to
Kailua-Kona and it takes a driver 2 hours and
approximately 95 miles! This is the road preferred
by the Mass Transit Agency because the population
lives along this road making pick-ups ideal.' The
other option for this trip is the newly opened Daniel
K. Inouye Highway passing between Mauna Kea and
Mauna Loa and connecting the existing Saddle Road
(Highway 200) to Mamalahoa Highway.9 This route
starting in Hilo and ending in Kona is about 77 miles
long and will take drivers 1 hour and 38 minutes to
traverse.'o
41Page
THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSIT
The population of Hawaii Island is highly dispersed and rural, making efficient transportation and
particularly public transit challenging. Those that commute alone using their personal vehicles must
cover vast distances on a daily basis and are often paying a premium for fossil fuels. Transit service
providers also face a number of challenges in delivering high quality, convenient and cost-effective
transit options for their clientele. They are asked to serve a large area with a dispersed population with a
limited budget. Providers must optimize their systems to cover long distances and occasionally difficult
terrain." They must rely on a variety of fleet vehicles, causing the need for more administrative
capacity, operational and maintenance knowledge and general coordination.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HAWAII COUNTY COMMUTERS
As mentioned previously Hawaii Island residents primarily choose to commute to work by personal
automobile (cars, trucks and vans). While most commute alone, about 15% participate in carpooling to
get to work. Compared to the United States as a whole, carpooling is highly successful on Hawaii Island.
Less than 2% of the population takes public transit to get to work, but at the same time that is almost
three times the national average for other rural areas.
Table 1-1: Modes of Commuting
Mode Used
Commuting
76.4%
81.4%
72.7%
68.4%
alone
Carpooling
9.8%
9.9%
14.5%
14,9%
Public Transit
5.0%
0.6%
1.7%
2.3%
Other
8.8%
8.1%
11.1%
14.9%
Data from American Community
Survey
The median income in Hawaii County is slightly below the rest of the United States and other rural
populations. Figure 1-2 shows that those who commuted alone using their own personal vehicle on the
whole earned more than those who carpooled or used public transit. Interestingly, in Hawai'i County
public transit commuters had a much lower median earnings level. They only earned $16k, while those
that commuted alone or via carpool earned almost twice that amount. This suggests that lower income
commuters, who do not have access to or cannot afford a personal vehicle, predominantly use the
public transit system on Hawaii Island.
51'ag,
Figure 1-2
$40,000
a $35,000
$30,000
$25,000
a $20,000
$15,000
$10,000
W $5,000
United States
■ Rural
Hawa Vi County
Hawai'i County Median Earning
rI
Total
Commuting
Alone
-
$32,417
$35,132
$31,653,
$32,287
$29,492
$30,393
LII i
Carpooling Public Transit
$26,013 $30,950
$27,690 $31,920
$27,714 $16,343
The Figure 1-3 shows average commute lengths for the different types of Hawaii Island commuters..
Among all the residents of the island, the average time it takes to commute to work is between 25 and
30 minutes, which is similar to the national average. Public transit commutes in the United States tend
to be longer than solo and carpool commutes with the average of 48 minutes; public transit commutes
on Hawaii Island are substantially longer at 68 minutes. In fact, more than 50% of public transit
commuters on the island have a commute of 60 minutes or longer.
Figure 1-3
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
30%
0%
Hawai'i County Commute Length
Total Commuting Carpooling Public Transit
Alone
80.00
70.00
60 or
more minutes
60.00
= 45 to
59 minutes
50.00
30 to
44 minutes
40.00
20 to
29 minutes
30.00
20.00
NOWS
10 to
19 minutes
10.00
= Less than 10 minutes
Mean travel time to work
(minutes)
HAWAII COUNTY MASS TRANSIT AGENCY
The Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency began collecting ridership data again in 2005 and currently
delivers public transportation with its Hele-On bus service and shared taxi program.' The Hele-On bus
offers 16 route options that range from intra -city (i.e. Kona and Hilo) to inter -city (i.e. Hilo to Waimea) to
trans -island (i.e. Hilo to Kohala resorts). The fare for riding the bus has recently increased (as of July 1,
2013) from $1.00 to $2.00 per ride and from free to $1.00 for students, disabled individuals and
seniors." The shared taxi program offers door-to-door taxi service within Hilo and Kona for between
$2.00-3.00 for trips fewer than four miles and between $6.00-9.00 for trips fewer than nine miles. The
agency is funded by money from the local and federal governments, but receives no state funding for
their operation s.14
Figure 1-4
1.4 Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency Ridership
0.8
0.6
0.4
f 02
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
year
Ridership has been gradually increasing since the service began. According to the most recent available
Comprehensive Fiscal Report produced by Hawaii County for the Fiscal Year ending on lune 30, 2011,
the ridership surpassed 1 million passengers in 2010 and reached approximately 1.15 million in 2011.'s
As of 2011, the agency owned a fleet of 56 vehicles to serve these riders.1'
MAPPING TRANSIT nia NAWAI'I ISI ANn
In the spatial analysis section, we first mapped current bus routes and the spatial distribution of
population density, work hubs and recreational hubs. Next, we compared the transit needs (implied by
the spatial distribution maps) around Hawaii Island with current bus route coverage to develop a
preliminary understanding about whether the current mass transit system reaches enough riders while
evaluating the possibilities of potential improvements.
Not surprisingly, these maps we created show that population, work hubs and recreational hubs of
Hawaii Island are clustered around the perimeter of the Island at major towns including Hilo, Keaau,
Mountain View, Pahoa, Ocean View, Kealakekua, Keauhou, Kailua-Kona, Waikoloa, Waimea and Hawi.
Work hubs are especially clustered around Hilo and Kailua-Kona. Based on our analysis of the current
71P,+,,
public transit system we have determined that Hilo and Kai lua-Kona are two of the most -served areas in
terms of routes passing through or within, with four routes within Hilo, six routes to or from Hilo and
four routes to or from Kailua-Kona.
Our results show that two or more bus routes serve most of the works hubs, recreation hubs, and
population clusters. However, Mountain View, Pahoa and Pahala are only served by one bus route.
Moreover, Mauna Kea State Park, a very popular attraction, is completely out of bus service at this point
because it is on Saddle Road, which lacks bus routes. Hilo International and Kona International Airport,
the major airports on the island, also have limited bus service.
This preliminary analysis suggests that the Mass Transit Authority maybe able to streamline the Hele-On
bus system by identifying redundancies or unnecessary overlap in the current routing and scheduling
system.
Figure 1-5
Hawaii Island Bus Routes
XwwOaMb
IMY.w
—.Vai[pw VpA
— Kamilla La4lanyMamutla Vxw EM
— Ma uNowanoMAo
wmn zmadw.m.dwbwM.
uoM.M.wnMwa
Kdabb
wnnn zMWOUM zones
Pana4dona5ouP Konab
MdaLPanodxYo
Oawbwi xi W. uPaY CerXerM nn K W o r-
8 1
lan
81 Page
MAUI COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT
Of the Hawai ian Islands, Maui County is most similar to Hawaii County due to their relatively rural
settings. Because of these similarities we completed a case study of the bus system on Maui.
Investigating the origins of the Maui bus system, its current status, and its plans for future
improvements can provide some useful information for Hele-On. Maui's routes and schedules were
initially developed based on an objective scoring system, and today service expansion is generally driven
by demand from the public. Maui currently uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to a much
greater extent than Hele-On does. This has allowed Maui to develop route maps and schedules that are
visually appealing and clear (see the figure below). Additionally, Maui uses Google Transit to publish
information about their services, and the process for collaborating with Google was not difficult at all.
While other technological solutions are not currently used by Maui, they are looking into investing in
Global Positioning Systems (GPS), as well as a system that can automatically track ridership. The Maui
system's budget is over double that of Hele-On, as is its ridership. While Hawaii Island's ability to
immediately offer all of the same services that Maui offers in these areas is not feasible, collaborating
with Maui Transit officials and looking into incorporating some of their innovations offers the best path
forward and could provide benefits to the residents of Hawaii Island.
Figure 1-6: Map of Maui Transit
®= Bus Transfer
LLGLXO
Pa'Ia
N.I..lalanOer
q0
mumr Ka'atipnll wase.
m
UW, IslanJe,
IA
Haiku
:Wai)Iuku
xft. 101,
alPiHmaile
saw Kft, lW-de,
Kahului
Makawao
II aR
Pukalani
ESE,
up[wnYy k4Mv
Kihei
Npku NLw.,
Ma'alaea
..-......
LLGLXO
N.I..lalanOer
q0
mumr Ka'atipnll wase.
m
UW, IslanJe,
IA
Laluma VlllaW
N .
xft. 101,
.15
saw Kft, lW-de,
110
® W.I Lmp
II aR
....:�. KaM4a Lmp
ESE,
up[wnYy k4Mv
W
Npku NLw.,
45
Wailea
From http://www.mauicounty.gov
91 Page
Transportation on Hawaii Island is complicated and presents great challenges. There is rising and more
complex demand for public transit service, operational costs are increasing, and resources are limited. In
recent years, the Mass Transit Agency (MTA) has persistently worked towards expanding its Hele-On
services and providing residents with suitable transportation options and an improved experience.
However, the Agency still faces many challenges to expand while maintaining high quality service. At the
same time the Island's traffic is getting worse, fuel expenses are a huge burden and vehicle carbon
emissions are increasing, as many people commute alone in their personal vehicles.
We have developed a set of recommendations for stakeholders to consider when working to mitigate
these issues. First, we will focus on technology investments for the Hele-On public transit system. Then,
we will discuss private sector investments that could provide alternative, cost-effective ways to
commute on Hawaii Island.
OPTIMIZING PUBLIC TRANSIT WITH TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
To address the complexity of transportation on Hawaii Island and the challenges that the Mass Transit
Agency is facing, we identified two overarching areas of opportunity that can facilitate the transition to a
more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable mass transit system for Hawaii Island. The
following graphic introduces these two areas, the different segments in which they may be targeted,
and the potential benefits they could provide. Subsequently, we identified key technologies that can
improve these segments when implemented.
Figure 1-7: Areas of Opportunity
10111; ,.
Fleet
Routes
Reduced Costs+
Positive
Efficiency
Environmental
----------
Fuel
Effects
Operations
Reliability
Increased
Revenue+
SII
Customer
Predictability
Positive Social
_
Effects
Ease of
Accessibility
10111; ,.
There are many available technologies for improved transportation systems used worldwide. After an
extensive analysis of available technology options, we identified the following as the most beneficial for
the Hele-On transit system:
1. Automated Passenger Counting (APC) to determine ridership trends and optimize routes, vehicle
types and pricing depending on capacity vs. demand.
2. Geographic Information Systems (GIS)- to create and provide easy and appealing information on
routes and schedules and maintain a clear vision of the system.
3. Automatic Vehicle Location (AVI to understand current operations and optimize route, fleet
and driver performance. It can also increase accountability of drivers.
4. Mobile Data Terminals (i to make the integration of technology systems easier and more
seamless, and to maintain digital records of all operations.
S. Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)-to provide better predictability, reliability and service
to passengers and improve their overall experience to increase ridership.
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL VF NDORS
As in any growing market, there are multiple companies offering products and services for
transportation management or optimization purposes. We performed extensive research on existing
companies and their offerings. This analysis can serve as a tool for the Mass Transit Agency to determine
which company might best fit Hele-On's requirements, while staying within the County's budget or
making the case for extra funding to be raised via public or private investment. Aside from economic
considerations, an ideal vendor should be able to provide multiple items from the 'Key Technologies for
Hele-On' listed above and present customizable solutions. Additional value will come from firms with
products designed specifically for public transportation systems and previous experience with rural or
island -based clients.
Figure 1-8: Potential Companies and Their Services
°
bc 1 os
m
ax
a C`Cm`°huIc 41
oaF
a
pF L° Qo g
Q° y'i
111
As shown in the figure above, the companies reviewed in this research provide a wide array of services,
and finding the best option for Hele-On to implement will depend on the costs of each and the
availability of resources in the County of Hawaii. After contacting and reviewing these companies, we
determined that TSO Mobile offers the full range of products and services the County may consider and
has experience working or rural systems and in islands. It would therefore be the best option to work
with, even though the investment required is higher.
RF COM M E N DATIO NS FOR IMPLEMENTING TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
We have identified three different stages of activities and investments for the County to consider. There
are some easy and low-cost solutions that we recommend should be implemented right away, and some
pricier but more impactful solutions for which additional funds must be procured.
IM Id EDIATE SHORT TERM
Y Google Transit: Low cost option with easy and fast implementation that can help passengers
identify ideal routes, schedules, and connections. It will be necessary to develop a
communication strategy to let users know of its availability once it is in place.
Website enhancements for easier navigation.
r Develop clear route schedules and maps that can be seen on website without the need to
download the file.
SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM
'r Procure funding for large technology investment. Tentative sources include: federal grants,
private impact investment opportunities, environmental or social Impact foundations.
MEDIUM TERM
➢ Make large technology investment
o Determine appropriate vendor and obtain a customized quotes
o Determine new staff requirements and cost (if any)
o Set project manager responsible for implementation
PRIVATE INVESTMENTS AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
We recommend that Hawaii County consider partnering with private enterprises for both rideshare
and vanpool. As fuel costs increase and government funding for transportation becomes more
uncertain, there will be a shifting of priorities at the federal and state level. The time for action is now:
energy efficiency and peer-to-peer ridesharing have come to the forefront of transportation energy
innovations and this emergence has not gone unnoticed at the state level. Private solutions in vanpool
and rideshare could reduce the burden on the Mass Transit Agency, while providing cost-effective
realized savings for both short- and long- distance commuters.
RIDESHARE NETWORKS
Peer-to-peer ridesharing occurs when passengers use mobile applications and GPS tracking to "find"
rides. Ridesharing is increasingly popular at universities among both students and faculty, as well as
among middle-income commuters who would otherwise commute alone.
121P, _
Despite its popularity, we are skeptical about government incentives and subsidies like the Commuter
Tax Benefits Program, the Guaranteed Ride Home Program (GRHP) and Job Access Reverse Commute
program (JARC); these programs may not necessarily do an effective job of enticing ridesharing due to
state priorities, competition with more populated counties which spend more on transportation, the
actual cost of allocating money to the island for these programs, and the general lack of knowledge of
said opportunities. We are, however, hopeful about a new state Car -Sharing Vehicle Surcharge Tax bill in
the works and the 2007 Energy Efficient Transportation Strategy Act, which recognizes and sanctions
ridesharing companies as legitimate tax -paying entities, reducing the economic uncertainty of these
markets while setting a standard for administration and oversight which can act as catalyst for further
expansion. It is expected that the future implementation of ridesharing networks will be complementary
to mass transit ridership rather than competitive; ridesharing exists to address unmet demand for
lower-cost travel alternatives for middle-income and more affluent commuters.
In spite of our concerns with public policy, the private sector is robust with a rapidly expanding market
with increasing private investment. As we mentioned previously, carpooling is already very popular on
Hawaii Island and has the potential to save participants money, as well as limit the consumption of
gasoline and the release of carbon into the atmosphere. For long-distance commuting a driver pays an
average of $640/month on Hawaii Island. That cost is cut almost in half by taking on one additional
passenger ($332.80 returned to the driver), and fully recovered with additional profit by taking on two
or three passengers (making $25.60 or $358.40 per month respectively). For shorter distances, the gains
are more modest—the $40/month average cost of gasoline for a single commuter is recovered with the
driver earning an additional $1.60 for two more riders and $22.40 for three more riders (see Appendix G
for cost calculations).
Figure 1-9
Carpool Economics
I $600.00 :_._.... -_. .
■ Commute Alone
12 $400.00 in Carpool - 2 people
0
3 $200.00 Carpool -3 people
£ $- ��.. ,_.� �i��l!d.. _ 0Carpool-4 people
CcCityCommute Cross -Isla omrnute CCarpool Rider
$(200.00) +- --
m public Transit
$(400.00) `. _.
I Distance of Commute
131 Page
VANPOOL NETWORKS
The County could also benefit from enhancing private vanpool network opportunities for all residents,
where users pay a fee to cover fuel and a company provides vehicles. Hawaii Island is an ideal place to
utilize this type of service, as vanpools are particularly effective in providing long-distance
transportation between work and residential hubs. In fact, the privatized VRide system is already in
place, but underutilized. There are still inherent tradeoffs: the system may poach from mass transit,
taking away lower-income commuters. Additionally, many commuters must still drive to reach start
nodes. Because the system is already online, the County's largest effort should be focused on outreach
to employers and commuters and educating them of the potential subsidies and user benefits of
vanpool commuting. The public vanpool system (Vanpool Hawaii) was defunded in 2011, so VRide
remains the only viable vanpool option.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESf ABLISHING RIDESHARE AND VANPOOL NETWORKS
There are three major steps that ensure the stability of vanpool and rideshare private networks moving
forward:
> Engage Public Agencies in Developing Sustainable Transportation Goals: Ensure better
coordination between departments to secure future funding; conduct outreach to commuters
to educate them of various options; hire staff to liaise between business interests and
commuters; oversee rideshare/vanpool programs.
'r Support the Existing Vanpool System: Immediately encourage users to sign on to existing
vanpool system.
> Understand Public Needs: Develop a population survey that reaches a broad sample of
commuters and employers gauging user preferences, as well as their current knowledge of
available and developing commuting alternatives.
If the County wishes to proceed specifically with creating a rideshare network on Hawaii Island, three
options for moving forward include:
Send out a Request For Proposal (RFP) to existing rideshare Transportation Network
Companies (TNCs). Traditionally, TNC expansion in the past has been limited to dense urban
areas. They also rely more on private investments to keep them afloat and expand their services
and features. Although TNC's pay for themselves (rather than through public agencies(, fierce
competition both intra -market and inter -market (i.e. taxi, vanpools, buses) may require heavier
and more burdensome regulation by the already understaffed and overworked County.
Establish a public-private partnership (P3) with the County for a unique regional program. In
this situation a public agency subcontracts to a third -party vendor (Cubic, Trapeze, Rideshare)
for a ride matching platform, marketing & outreach, and technical guidance and operation.
Though it is more expensive upfront due to consulting services required, this kind of partnership
is less risky and capacity -intensive because the private company assumes an operational role
and some financial risk. They also work with the agency to find external funding sources, which
might supplement project costs. Ultimately, the private entity can help establish a more
individualized network uniquely tailored to fit the Island's needs. Because this arrangement is
not sensitive to potential company acquisitions, buy-outs or changes in structure and ownership
(as is frequent with emerging TNCs and startups), there is greater long-term stability in a P3
contract.
14 1 P a r
r Establish a pilot project at the University of Hawaii — Hilo. A University project partnership
with either an existing rideshare network or another third party vendor to test ridesharing on
Hawaii Island. These types of projects have taken been piloted on the Mainland; results have
varied depending on school and commuter populations.
CONCLUSION
Despite the geographical complexities associated with island -wide transportation connectivity and
accessibility, there are a number of optimizing cost-effective technological innovations available both in
public transit and through the private sector. This report is intended to evaluate the existing
transportation alternatives available within the existing administrative framework and organizational
structure in order to provide County officials with the most comprehensive information in weighing their
options moving forward. We hope these recommendations are useful and salient as the County
government begins to develop sustainable transportation planning strategies well into the future.
151Pai�e